The Pareto Principle

After my CMA result this week; I had a chat with my wife.  We discussed the result and I explained that it was low, compared to my other results, because I didn't like the statistics units (block D), within the course MST121.

As we discussed this issue, she asked me how long had I spent on studying Block D and completing the CMA.  I told her that it had taken me 10hrs to read through all 4 books of block D and then a further 3hrs, to complete the TMA.

This was a total of 13hrs for studying rather than the 60hrs that the Open University timetable recommended (The block D and CMA, were given 7.5 weeks recommended study time, which is equivalent to 60hrs of study).

My wife then went on to ask me about the grading system that the OU runs.  I explained that to score an equivelent to a 1st class degree, you must score 85% or above, average on your assignments and any exam taken.

My wife then asked me, what level of degree I needed, to be accepted onto a masters level degree programme.  I explained that most of them for maths or physics, require a 2.1 honours degree but some, including the Open University, will accept a 2.2, but most employers or academic circles, would normally expect a 2.1.

My wife then asked me what this 'dropped' and rushed mark for the stats units, would ultimately get me, if it was translated into an end of course result.  I explained that 88% would be equivalent to a solid  grade 1 pass.

She then asked me how much study time I had spent on a set of units, that had achieved my TMA average of 94%, for the rest of the course.  I reckoned that the study time required to read and pass, for example, the TMA02 with this score, had been in the region of 112hrs (not including my other non MST121 studies).

My wife then told me that she thought I was a little daft and how could I hope to pass a maths degree, if I couldn't see the blindingly obvious.

What she was suggesting, of course, is that I should evaluate what benefit I have derived from working for an additional 14hrs per week, to score an additional 6% in a TMA, when it would make no difference to the final outcome of the module or degree classification.

Hmm, she had a point.  It then got me thinking about why I had spent so many hours slaving over this course. Well, I think it is for a few reasons.  Firstly, I love studying.  But as my father used to say, 'busyness is a symptom of laziness', meaning that sometimes we fill our hours with interesting yet unproductive tasks or events, to avoid the difficult or important.  I wouldn't say that any of my studying has been wasteful or any form of procrastination, but I do accept that I have skewed on occasion into a few indulgences, that have perhaps distracted me from the task in hand.

This all got me thinking about the 'Pareto principle', or the '80% of the benefit, from 20% of the effort', theories.

Now, I love studying, it is what I do and will continue to do, so any 'fat trimming', will not be about reducing the time that I spend studying.  Indeed I hope to one day, do it full time.  No, this is more about maximising the next few years' output of work, whilst still achieving the same result (a good degree and acceptance onto a masters / PhD programme).

I have trawled the internet and looked at many University websites.  Nearly (in fact, all bar one or two) ask for, what they describe as a good degree. They qualify the use of the word 'good', to mean a 2.1 Honours award.

In Open University world, that equates to a minimum score of 70% in the TMA's and the exams.  Well, I know that by spending only 11% of the suggested time, I have managed to pass a CMA, with 88% of the marks.  So, what is the benefit of me slogging unneccessarily over TMA's, to score in the 90's?  I know that one of the other main reasons that I tend to do this, is that I am a perfectionist and that any dropped marks, feel like a failure (I'm sure a psychiatrist would have a field day with that little gem!)

But, I need to decide, what benefits I could derive, from reducing my study time per module, to even 50% of its current level:

1.  I could take more modules per year and get it all done a lot quicker.  If I took an extra 30 pt module this October, overlapping it with M208 Pure maths in January 2012.  I would have an overlap of 6 months where I studied 90pts, and then an exam in June 2012, followed by an exam in October 2012.  Doable!

2.  I could shave off time taken to complete the degree and also tot up additional points, to take a Diploma, BA and a BSc Hons, by the end of 2013.

My only worry, is that potential PhD supervisors, may pick students with top drawer marks in the 90's, rather than in the 70's or 80's.  Would they question a sudden dip in average TMA scores?

This is all certainly food for thought.  And, I know that with my methods of using 100's of practise exam style questions and flash cards, that I can shut myself away and study well for an exam, without too much drama.

So the only question left really is, do I want to get a 'good' degree quickly and move onto more interesting post-grad stuff quicker?  Or, do I want to score in the 90's for my own well-being and satisfaction, and take the slower route to success?