Point to Time Ratio Theorem

The time has finally come to unveil my cornerstone theory, the theorem that will eventually make me (and Tara when she writes the book) famous. This is the most serious theorem I have proposed thus far, but I plan to follow this up with the funniest video you will ever see of Joey and Geisman arguing...as soon as I get permission to release it (which I will).


Theorem 6: The Point-to-Time Ratio Theorem (PT Theorem) Introduction

The basis of this theorem, as is with any good theorem, is very simple. However, the PT Theorem has multiple important applications and can be used by everyone, no matter your race, income, or sexual orientation.

The theorem states that every decision should be made only after considering the point-to-time ratio of that action. That is, how many points will you "earn" vs. how long it will take you to earn those points. It is extremely intuitive yet it is amazing how many people fail to use it effectively. It is essentially a principle of efficiency, and most people do it without thinking, especially at Notre Dame, so I will try to point out the less obvious ways in which the PT theorem can be used. Later on when I get bored, I will add corollaries and lemmas to this theorem.

The easiest application is with school. Every time you complete an assignment, you should work only as hard and you should spend only as much time as the number of points possible requires. Completion assignments should only barely be complete, and you can test the grader by not quite completing it if you think the grader is lazy (which they usually are). Tests, on the other hand, obviously, require huge amounts of time and effort, since they are worth so many points. Still, however, if you think you can achieve an A with only a little amount of studying, there is no reason to spend extra time to get a higher A (even if you have the time). Play Halo instead.

There are a million variations of this application, but that would get boring. I will now explain three very important prerequisites to this theorem:
1) High expectations. If you don't have high expectations and only want to get Cs or just pass, you need not worry about the PT Theorem. You just simply stop trying, or have other people do your work for you. It works for the football team, it should work for you. If you have low expectations, the PT Theorem is a slippery slope and you will probably just become a pile. Laziness is in no way associated with this theorem.
2) A sole emphasis on grades. There is no doubt there is something more in life than getting good grades, but all I'm concerned with here is the grade. You can still have pride in your work, but it is not really considered in this theorem.
3) Refusal to cheat. Obviously cheating is the best application of the PT Theorem, but there is no honor in cheating. Don't ever do it...


Without further ado, I will now turn my attention to those people that I think need the PT Theorem the most. Disclaimer: every one of these people are talented in things that I cannot in any way do; therefore, I have great respect for them.

1) English Majors. In particular, when they are writing papers. The grades on papers are arbitrary and there is no reason to believe that spending more time on a paper will get you a better grade. As long as you take care of the requirements of the paper and make sure there are no grammar mistakes (this is key), your grade will be right around where it would be if you spend a ton of time on it. Furthermore, even if you do believe you can spend more time on a paper to get a really good grade, the small increase in grade is not worth the extra amount of time and effort it requires. On a similar note, there is NO reason why you should "edit" your paper. This is extra time that may even make your grade worse, you really never know. There is no reason to believe it will drastically increase your grade, and it's a pain to do. Write it, grammar-check it, turn it in, and hope really hard that it is a good grade. That's more effective than trying. Oh, and use sparknotes. Same information, less time, not cheating.
2) Art Majors. The way I understand this group of people is that there is often a huge amount of pride in their work. This makes sense since they are creating a physical object that has value in itself outside of school. However, in a practical sense, the time spent on such a project is unbelieveable. My proposal: Have pride in something other than how the project looks. Have pride in being able to say "yeah, that took me a third the time it took you" or "yeah, I did that entire painting with only two colors of paint and one paintbrush, only cost me 10 bucks" or "yeah, that smudge in the corner was from my forehead when I fell asleep on my painting but I claimed it was intentional and the teacher thought it was brilliant" or "yeah, that's not even paint, I used Crayola Crayons from the child center I volunteer at" or "yeah I didn't have a canvas so I painted this on the back of the Observer" etc.
Clearly I do not know what I'm talking about here, but you get the picture...
3) My dad. It's so frustrating when he tells me I have to rake up EVERY leaf in the yard. I can rake up the vast majority of the leaves in like 15 minutes, but to get every leaf I would have to be out there for more than an hour. This is total nonsense, and not at all worth it, but he claims that I should have pride in my work. Wouldn't it be better if I spent that extra time raking up other peoples' yards almost-to-completition as volunteer work? Or do some other chore? The answer is yes.

On the other hand, I would like to commend a group of people who I feel are the best at utilizing the PT Theorem: Business majors. Remarkably, these people as a group are extremely skilled at doing a small amount of work and getting the grade. They cram for tests and put all their time into the tests, yet they often skip class and disregard minor tasks that are not worth much. It is annoying to non-business majors that they seem to never have work, but really they should be congratulated and used as a model of academic efficiency.

I am now bored with this topic, but I have a lot more to say on this theorem, just not now.