Learn Hardcore German: Ohne Lernplan war ich früher oft überfordert, obwohl ich nur im Teilzeitjob gearbeitet habe. - Without a study plan I was often overwhelmed in the past, although I only worked part‑time.

Starting with Ohne Lernplan is a stylistic choice: German often puts a time or condition at the beginning to set the scene. The main clause verb (war) must still be in second position, so we get:

Ohne Lernplan (1st position)
war (2nd position / finite verb)
ich früher oft überfordert (rest of the clause)

The preposition ohne always takes the accusative case.

Pattern: ohne
- accusative
Question: ohne wen? / ohne was? – Without whom / without what?
Answer here: ohne (einen) Lernplan

Lernplan is masculine (der Lernplan). The accusative singular with an article would be ohne einen Lernplan, but without an article the noun’s form doesn’t change, so you only see Lernplan.

Why is there no article in Ohne Lernplan? Would Ohne einen Lernplan also be correct?

Both are grammatically correct, but the nuance is different.

Ohne Lernplan war ich früher oft überfordert.
More general: “Without a study plan / without having any sort of study plan...” This sounds like talking about the concept of having a plan.
Ohne einen Lernplan war ich früher oft überfordert.
Slightly more specific: “Without a particular study plan / without some kind of plan...” This can sound like you’re emphasizing the existence of a concrete plan.

In many everyday contexts, Germans prefer dropping the article with abstract or generic ideas (mit Plan, ohne Plan, ohne Geld, mit Auto, etc.), so Ohne Lernplan feels very natural.

Why is the word order war ich and not ich war?

German main clauses follow the verb-second rule: the conjugated verb must be in second position in the sentence.

Here, something has been moved to the front:

Fronted phrase: Ohne Lernplan (counts as position 1)
Finite verb: war (must be in position 2)
Subject: ich
Rest: früher oft überfordert

So the structure is:

Ohne Lernplan – war – ich – früher oft überfordert.

If you start with the subject instead, you get the more neutral order:

Ich war früher oft überfordert, ohne Lernplan.

Both are correct; the original just emphasizes the condition “without a study plan.”

What is früher exactly, and how is it different from vorher?

Both can relate to the past, but they’re used differently:

früher = “in the past / back then / earlier in my life (or in that period)”
It refers to a more general earlier time, often a whole phase.
- Früher war ich oft überfordert.
  “I used to be overwhelmed / I was often overwhelmed in the past.”
vorher = “before that / previously (right before some other event)”
It needs a reference point (another event).
- Ich war überfordert, vorher hatte ich keinen Lernplan.
  “I was overwhelmed; before that, I didn’t have a study plan.”

In this sentence, früher is correct because you’re describing how things used to be over a period of time, not just directly before a single event.

Why is it früher oft and not oft früher?

Adverbs in German have some flexibility, but there’s a common preference for a certain order. Roughly:

Time (wann?) – e.g. früher, gestern, heute
Frequency (wie oft?) – e.g. oft, selten, manchmal
Manner, place, etc.

So:

Ich war früher oft überfordert.
Time (früher) comes before frequency (oft). This sounds natural and typical.

Ich war oft früher überfordert is unusual and would mean something different (like “I was often overwhelmed earlier than others”), so it doesn’t fit the intended meaning here.

What exactly does überfordert mean here, and what kind of word is it?

Überfordert is the past participle of the verb überfordern (“to overwhelm / overtax / overburden”). In this sentence it’s used adjectivally, describing the state of the subject:

ich war überfordert = “I was overwhelmed / I felt overwhelmed.”

Grammatically:

war = past tense of sein (to be)
überfordert = adjective-like participle

So the structure is similar to English:

Ich war müde. – I was tired.
Ich war überfordert. – I was overwhelmed.

You could also say Ich habe mich oft überfordert gefühlt (“I often felt overwhelmed”), but Ich war überfordert is shorter and very natural.

Why is the conjunction obwohl used, and what does it do to the word order?

Obwohl means “although / even though” and introduces a subordinate clause that expresses contrast to the main clause.

Main clause:

Ohne Lernplan war ich früher oft überfordert, ...
→ “Without a study plan, I used to be overwhelmed...”

Subordinate clause with obwohl:

obwohl ich nur im Teilzeitjob gearbeitet habe.
→ “although I only worked part-time.”

In a clause introduced by obwohl, the finite verb goes to the end:

ich (subject)
nur im Teilzeitjob (adverbial phrase)
gearbeitet (past participle)
habe (finite verb, final position)

So obwohl both:

Marks the relationship (“in spite of the fact that…”), and
Triggers verb-final word order in that clause.

Why is it gearbeitet habe at the end, and not habe gearbeitet?

In a main clause, the usual order is:

Ich habe gearbeitet.
([subject] – [finite verb] – [other elements])

In a subordinate clause (introduced by obwohl, weil, dass, etc.), the finite verb goes to the end. With a compound tense like the Perfekt (habe gearbeitet), the participle comes before the finite verb:

..., weil ich gearbeitet habe.
..., obwohl ich nur im Teilzeitjob gearbeitet habe.

So:

Main clause order: ich habe gearbeitet
Subordinate clause order: ich gearbeitet habe

That’s why gearbeitet habe is correct here.

Why is it habe gearbeitet (Perfekt) instead of arbeitete (Präteritum)? And is mixing war and habe gearbeitet okay?

German has two common past tenses:

Präteritum (simple past): ich war, ich arbeitete
Perfekt (present perfect): ich habe gearbeitet

Usage:

Spoken German: prefers Perfekt for most verbs, especially regular ones like arbeiten.
Verbs like sein, haben, modal verbs: often used in Präteritum, even in spoken German (ich war, ich hatte, ich konnte, etc.)

So:

war (Präteritum of sein) + habe gearbeitet (Perfekt of arbeiten)
is very normal in both written and spoken German.

You could also say:

Ohne Lernplan war ich früher oft überfordert, obwohl ich nur im Teilzeitjob arbeitete.

This is grammatically fine but feels more formal/literary. In everyday language, people tend to say habe gearbeitet.

What does nur modify in obwohl ich nur im Teilzeitjob gearbeitet habe? Could it go somewhere else?

Here, nur modifies the phrase im Teilzeitjob:

ich nur im Teilzeitjob gearbeitet habe
= “I only worked in a part-time job / I only had a part-time job”

The idea is: It wasn’t even a full-time job, just part-time.

You can move nur a bit, but you must keep the meaning:

obwohl ich nur im Teilzeitjob gearbeitet habe
→ I only worked in a part-time job (not full-time).
obwohl ich im Teilzeitjob nur gearbeitet habe
This sounds odd or incomplete, as if you wanted to say “I only worked (and did nothing else)”—it changes or blurs the intended meaning.
obwohl ich nur Teilzeit gearbeitet habe
Also correct, with nur now clearly modifying Teilzeit (“only part-time”).

So the original position is natural and clearly gives nur scope over im Teilzeitjob.

Why is it im Teilzeitjob and not something like in einem Teilzeitjob or just Teilzeit?

im is the contraction of in dem (in + the, dative):

in dem Teilzeitjob → im Teilzeitjob

Details:

Case:
The preposition in can take accusative or dative. With a static location (no movement), it takes dative:
- Wo? (Where?) → in dem Teilzeitjob (dative)
Gender:
Teilzeitjob is masculine (der Teilzeitjob), so dative singular is dem → im.

Comparisons:

im Teilzeitjob gearbeitet
→ in the part-time job (a specific situation / type of employment)
in einem Teilzeitjob gearbeitet
→ in a part-time job (less specific; adds an indefinite article)
Teilzeit gearbeitet
→ worked part-time (adverbial use; focuses on the type of work hours, not the “job” as a position)

All are possible. The given sentence chooses im Teilzeitjob to present “being in a part-time job” as a situation or setting.

Why is Teilzeitjob one word in German?

German loves compound nouns: you put two (or more) nouns together into one new noun.

Teilzeit (part-time)
der Job (the job)
→ der Teilzeitjob (the part-time job)

In standard German spelling, compounds are written as one word and the whole thing is capitalized because it’s a noun.

So Teilzeit Job or Teilzeit-Job would be non-standard or informal variants; Teilzeitjob is the normal spelling.

Could I rewrite the sentence in a simpler but still natural way?

Yes. Here are a couple of natural alternatives with slightly different style or emphasis, but the same basic idea:

Ich war früher oft überfordert, weil ich keinen Lernplan hatte, obwohl ich nur Teilzeit gearbeitet habe.
(adds “because I didn’t have a study plan” more explicitly)
Früher war ich ohne Lernplan oft überfordert, obwohl ich nur Teilzeit gearbeitet habe.
(keeps the original structure but uses Teilzeit instead of im Teilzeitjob)
Ohne Lernplan war ich früher oft überfordert, obwohl ich nur Teilzeit gearbeitet habe.
(just changes im Teilzeitjob to Teilzeit; very common phrasing)

All are correct; the original sentence is already perfectly natural German.