food for thought

lkp 42 42 42: so you said the other day "i've learned the most in analysis out of all my classes this semester, but i'm not going to let that fool me into thinking i'd be remotely good at it"

however, one repeated remark to me complaining about graph theory is "well it's a hard class and a hard prof; that doesn't necessarily mean you're bad at it"

food for thought: how do you determine the line between "this class is hard/challenging" and "really, this i'm not cut out for this"... could they really be rationalizing the same problem different ways based on prior disposition????

remark: this isn't to complain "lara's dumb"... more of a philosophical issue

Galois1105: well the first criterion for discriminating the two that comes to mind is this: If I went back to an undergraduate analysis course, I'd probably understand things a little better, but I don't know that I'd be all that much better at solving problems. If you went back to an undergraduate graph theory course, I think you'd be able to solve a lot more with the experience that you've gained this semester.

discuss.