Grinders and strivers and curators, oh my!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am now starting to see that many of you think “grinder” just means hard working, so maybe I better be careful about using it pejoratively. But I still don’t think that’s what most people mean when they use the term

Agree that most people do not use the definition "merely hard working" for "grinder". Clearly some here do, but I doubt it is the most common meaning.

+1. But even amongst the people claiming that grinder means merely hard working, I don’t think most of them truly believe that. I think they realize that the negative strivery, grinder behavior being described here hits a little too close to home. And they feel the need to try to redirect it to “oh they’re just jealous because I/my kid are hard working and more successful.”

I can understand being confused by the term striver the first time you hear it here but after that it is pretty obvious what it refers to. We’ve all experienced strivery people in our lives, and if you haven’t, you might be the striver.

When someone calls my immigrant parents strivers because they pulled themselves up from almost nothing, yes, that hits close to home. I am proud my family is a bunch of strivers.

Your whole family went to an Ivy?

huh?

You clearly don’t know the definition of striver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the pejorative associations are kind of rooted in its English heritage.
In Britain, it is unseemly to strive. It all should come naturally. Think about all the British explorations that were so amateurishly executed with tragic and fatal consequences. All because one (the organizer) should not appear to be trying so hard.
Maybe it comes from their resignation to social class structure. Michelle Obama was derided as a striver by their press which is kind of hard to understand. Her work hard ethic and pull yourself up by the bootstraps is actually very American. I guess the British dont do that.

I don't think the pejorative associations have to do with work ethic. Yes, that may have been true in aristocratic times, when the gentry didn't work, but this is modern America. Notice that when you describe a student as "hard working" most people would not consider this description pejorative. "Hard working" is a positive trait. There is additional meaning associated with "grinder" and "striver" as it applies to college students and that's the part that carries the negative weight.

The additional meaning is ascribed by those seeking to devalue the hard work put in by other students so their students look better.

Nope. There is a difference, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

What’s the difference?

Let’s take two hard working kids. Both Asian if you like. One loves physics and enthusiastically studies it. Genuinely contributes to class discussions, helps his friends when they struggle. Second kid doesn’t give a darn about linguistics but heard it was an undersubscribed major and his best shot of getting into Harvard. He’ll drop the major for something else that will get him to Wall Street. Will only talk in class if participation is graded or if the teacher is a letter writer. And why would he help his friends if they are competing with him in college apps. Which one is the striver? It’s not hard to tell!

Both Asian? Really? Why would you include this sentence?

DP. Another poster said striver was just a racist term for Asians. This person is trying to explain the difference is between the attitude of a striver and a hard worker, and you can just assume they are the same race (Asian presumably because it was brought up) because the race isn't the issue at all.

Thank you! I am Asian, btw. Back in my day we used the term gunner, and it was applied pretty equally to white or Asian or any other student who was fake, hyper-competitive and self-promoting without considering others.

Yeah we used gunner in undergrad(ivy) and again at my T5. It was mostly a joke because we were all gunners or we wouldn't have gotten there. However, there were levels: front row gunner(honest about their ambition), second row gunner(the worst--did not realize their top-gunner nature), and back row gunner(stopped gunning once they got in, knew they'd made it, but were still baseline gunners). It's all for fun!
Kid is premed BioEngineering at a different ivy and they use "grinding" or "lock in and grind" on themselves or each other all the time. They jest but they are far more collaborative than 30 years ago when I took the brutal semesters orgo and physics. The premed advising tables show higher % success for average students now than at my ivy 30 yr ago, and I have asked friends with kids at my ivy for the internal data: it has a higher %too compared to my day.
I pulled up tables and converted SATs through two SAT recentering cycles and it makes sense: Only about 1/4 were 98-99th%ile then, now it is 3/4 (pre-TO). Almost everyone there has the ability to get 510+ on the MCAT, even the below average 3.6 kids get in to US programs.

What you don’t understand is that there were people there that were not gunners.

They were just naturally intelligent, it came easy, somebody probably went and found them in the middle of nowhere because their SAT score with no prop was in the 99.9 percentile.

You didn’t socialize with them so you never met them.

There are also people there that other talents who weren’t gunners, like musicians. They didn’t care that they were in the 95% dial or that they were in the bottom 1/3 of their class because they have other talents.

[Anonymous]

Yeah OK which seems more likely, the Ivy League is full of smart but hardworking worriers who need sleep or that there’s this cohort of natural born geniuses just not answering the questions because they’d rather just mock the hard working kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah OK which seems more likely, the Ivy League is full of smart but hardworking worriers who need sleep or that there’s this cohort of natural born geniuses just not answering the questions because they’d rather just mock the hard working kids?

It’s “mocking” in your head because you have a chip on your shoulder about it.

It’s language that describes a group of people. But I don’t really think people on this thread understand what striver means or what gunner means.

They think it means hard work, but it doesn’t.

Striving and grinding are very different.

[Anonymous]

Somebody who strives for the best outcome is not a striver.

A gunner is not working hard. They’re playing golf with the Boss and marrying his daughter, even if they don’t love her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the pejorative associations are kind of rooted in its English heritage.
In Britain, it is unseemly to strive. It all should come naturally. Think about all the British explorations that were so amateurishly executed with tragic and fatal consequences. All because one (the organizer) should not appear to be trying so hard.
Maybe it comes from their resignation to social class structure. Michelle Obama was derided as a striver by their press which is kind of hard to understand. Her work hard ethic and pull yourself up by the bootstraps is actually very American. I guess the British dont do that.

I don't think the pejorative associations have to do with work ethic. Yes, that may have been true in aristocratic times, when the gentry didn't work, but this is modern America. Notice that when you describe a student as "hard working" most people would not consider this description pejorative. "Hard working" is a positive trait. There is additional meaning associated with "grinder" and "striver" as it applies to college students and that's the part that carries the negative weight.

The additional meaning is ascribed by those seeking to devalue the hard work put in by other students so their students look better.

Nope. There is a difference, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

What’s the difference?

Let’s take two hard working kids. Both Asian if you like. One loves physics and enthusiastically studies it. Genuinely contributes to class discussions, helps his friends when they struggle. Second kid doesn’t give a darn about linguistics but heard it was an undersubscribed major and his best shot of getting into Harvard. He’ll drop the major for something else that will get him to Wall Street. Will only talk in class if participation is graded or if the teacher is a letter writer. And why would he help his friends if they are competing with him in college apps. Which one is the striver? It’s not hard to tell!

Both Asian? Really? Why would you include this sentence?

DP. Another poster said striver was just a racist term for Asians. This person is trying to explain the difference is between the attitude of a striver and a hard worker, and you can just assume they are the same race (Asian presumably because it was brought up) because the race isn't the issue at all.

Thank you! I am Asian, btw. Back in my day we used the term gunner, and it was applied pretty equally to white or Asian or any other student who was fake, hyper-competitive and self-promoting without considering others.

But "gunner" didn't already have a prosocial meaning as that envious people are trying to twist, and people didn't claim that every Asian who succeeded in school is a gunner.

Nobody would claim that every Asian who succeeds in school is a striver unless they are racist (which some people are).

Racism is a problem and is absolutely wrong, but the terms are not themselves inherently racist and were not the cause of the racism. If we forbid the use of the terms, I really doubt racists are going to stop being a-holes. Language will just change and new terms will evolve. If you want to address racism, I don’t think language policing is very effective in general at changing hearts and minds.

[Anonymous]

Would put these terms in a nature/nurture context.

First generation arrival, doesn’t speak English, successful in home country “strives” to reclaim that success in America. Positive implication of striver. Average American spends all their time studying trying to make the best of their situation at the expense of foregoing a balanced life. Negative implication of striver.


Grinder is someone who again tries to make the most of their natural ability. Positive or negative implication will be based on totality of lifestyle.

Curator, someone with the resources to create the illusion of competency. Can get you in the door but eventually the illusion falls apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the pejorative associations are kind of rooted in its English heritage.
In Britain, it is unseemly to strive. It all should come naturally. Think about all the British explorations that were so amateurishly executed with tragic and fatal consequences. All because one (the organizer) should not appear to be trying so hard.
Maybe it comes from their resignation to social class structure. Michelle Obama was derided as a striver by their press which is kind of hard to understand. Her work hard ethic and pull yourself up by the bootstraps is actually very American. I guess the British dont do that.

I don't think the pejorative associations have to do with work ethic. Yes, that may have been true in aristocratic times, when the gentry didn't work, but this is modern America. Notice that when you describe a student as "hard working" most people would not consider this description pejorative. "Hard working" is a positive trait. There is additional meaning associated with "grinder" and "striver" as it applies to college students and that's the part that carries the negative weight.

The additional meaning is ascribed by those seeking to devalue the hard work put in by other students so their students look better.

Nope. There is a difference, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

What’s the difference?

Let’s take two hard working kids. Both Asian if you like. One loves physics and enthusiastically studies it. Genuinely contributes to class discussions, helps his friends when they struggle. Second kid doesn’t give a darn about linguistics but heard it was an undersubscribed major and his best shot of getting into Harvard. He’ll drop the major for something else that will get him to Wall Street. Will only talk in class if participation is graded or if the teacher is a letter writer. And why would he help his friends if they are competing with him in college apps. Which one is the striver? It’s not hard to tell!

Both Asian? Really? Why would you include this sentence?

DP. Another poster said striver was just a racist term for Asians. This person is trying to explain the difference is between the attitude of a striver and a hard worker, and you can just assume they are the same race (Asian presumably because it was brought up) because the race isn't the issue at all.

Thank you! I am Asian, btw. Back in my day we used the term gunner, and it was applied pretty equally to white or Asian or any other student who was fake, hyper-competitive and self-promoting without considering others.

Yeah we used gunner in undergrad(ivy) and again at my T5. It was mostly a joke because we were all gunners or we wouldn't have gotten there. However, there were levels: front row gunner(honest about their ambition), second row gunner(the worst--did not realize their top-gunner nature), and back row gunner(stopped gunning once they got in, knew they'd made it, but were still baseline gunners). It's all for fun!
Kid is premed BioEngineering at a different ivy and they use "grinding" or "lock in and grind" on themselves or each other all the time. They jest but they are far more collaborative than 30 years ago when I took the brutal semesters orgo and physics. The premed advising tables show higher % success for average students now than at my ivy 30 yr ago, and I have asked friends with kids at my ivy for the internal data: it has a higher %too compared to my day.
I pulled up tables and converted SATs through two SAT recentering cycles and it makes sense: Only about 1/4 were 98-99th%ile then, now it is 3/4 (pre-TO). Almost everyone there has the ability to get 510+ on the MCAT, even the below average 3.6 kids get in to US programs.

Hilarious. I’m trying to decide if I was a back row gunner or just a failed second row gunner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the pejorative associations are kind of rooted in its English heritage.
In Britain, it is unseemly to strive. It all should come naturally. Think about all the British explorations that were so amateurishly executed with tragic and fatal consequences. All because one (the organizer) should not appear to be trying so hard.
Maybe it comes from their resignation to social class structure. Michelle Obama was derided as a striver by their press which is kind of hard to understand. Her work hard ethic and pull yourself up by the bootstraps is actually very American. I guess the British dont do that.

I don't think the pejorative associations have to do with work ethic. Yes, that may have been true in aristocratic times, when the gentry didn't work, but this is modern America. Notice that when you describe a student as "hard working" most people would not consider this description pejorative. "Hard working" is a positive trait. There is additional meaning associated with "grinder" and "striver" as it applies to college students and that's the part that carries the negative weight.

The additional meaning is ascribed by those seeking to devalue the hard work put in by other students so their students look better.

Nope. There is a difference, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

What’s the difference?

Let’s take two hard working kids. Both Asian if you like. One loves physics and enthusiastically studies it. Genuinely contributes to class discussions, helps his friends when they struggle. Second kid doesn’t give a darn about linguistics but heard it was an undersubscribed major and his best shot of getting into Harvard. He’ll drop the major for something else that will get him to Wall Street. Will only talk in class if participation is graded or if the teacher is a letter writer. And why would he help his friends if they are competing with him in college apps. Which one is the striver? It’s not hard to tell!

Both Asian? Really? Why would you include this sentence?

DP. Another poster said striver was just a racist term for Asians. This person is trying to explain the difference is between the attitude of a striver and a hard worker, and you can just assume they are the same race (Asian presumably because it was brought up) because the race isn't the issue at all.

Thank you! I am Asian, btw. Back in my day we used the term gunner, and it was applied pretty equally to white or Asian or any other student who was fake, hyper-competitive and self-promoting without considering others.

Yeah we used gunner in undergrad(ivy) and again at my T5. It was mostly a joke because we were all gunners or we wouldn't have gotten there. However, there were levels: front row gunner(honest about their ambition), second row gunner(the worst--did not realize their top-gunner nature), and back row gunner(stopped gunning once they got in, knew they'd made it, but were still baseline gunners). It's all for fun!
Kid is premed BioEngineering at a different ivy and they use "grinding" or "lock in and grind" on themselves or each other all the time. They jest but they are far more collaborative than 30 years ago when I took the brutal semesters orgo and physics. The premed advising tables show higher % success for average students now than at my ivy 30 yr ago, and I have asked friends with kids at my ivy for the internal data: it has a higher %too compared to my day.
I pulled up tables and converted SATs through two SAT recentering cycles and it makes sense: Only about 1/4 were 98-99th%ile then, now it is 3/4 (pre-TO). Almost everyone there has the ability to get 510+ on the MCAT, even the below average 3.6 kids get in to US programs.

What you don’t understand is that there were people there that were not gunners.

They were just naturally intelligent, it came easy, somebody probably went and found them in the middle of nowhere because their SAT score with no prop was in the 99.9 percentile.

You didn’t socialize with them so you never met them.

There are also people there that other talents who weren’t gunners, like musicians. They didn’t care that they were in the 95% dial or that they were in the bottom 1/3 of their class because they have other talents.

Let’s not glorify natural genius too much. There’s always the cautionary tale of the kid who scored 1600 on the SAT but failed out of high school because they couldn’t be bothered to put in any effort they deemed mundane. As an adult they constantly have a chip on their shoulder because they are annoyed life didn’t go their way and recognize their genius. If grind is a continuum, everyone needs to have at least a little bit of grinder in them to succeed.

[Anonymous]

Negative striver example: Trump and Melania trying to break into the NYC social scene

Positive striver example: immigrant who works hard and strives for the American dream.

Negative grinder: someone who thinks having an elite college name on a piece of paper with straight As is the penultimate, so they work day and night to achieve this

Positive grinder: low income American who works day and night to get into an elite school so that they can get out of poverty and help their family.

I guess the connotation of the word depends on the motive. But, since most people don't know the background of others, don't make assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would put these terms in a nature/nurture context.

First generation arrival, doesn’t speak English, successful in home country “strives” to reclaim that success in America. Positive implication of striver. Average American spends all their time studying trying to make the best of their situation at the expense of foregoing a balanced life. Negative implication of striver.


Grinder is someone who again tries to make the most of their natural ability. Positive or negative implication will be based on totality of lifestyle.

Curator, someone with the resources to create the illusion of competency. Can get you in the door but eventually the illusion falls apart.

This.

[Anonymous]

I am a grown up adult now, and when I look back on myself I see someone that had a great deal of curiosity and enthusiasm for many subjects, and who worked hard at many things I found boring or unrewarding because I needed to.

Was I a “striver” for turning in extra credit projects in subjects I hated? Was I wrong for volunteering at a hospital, which I have never done again since getting into college?

Am I still a striver today for working hard on projects that don’t fulfill my intellectual curiosity, as I do on the ones that do?

I have been very successful in a challenging and prestigious career. I enjoy going to work each day and consider myself extraordinarily lucky, but also know that a big part of my “luck” was anything but.

I won’t apologize for any of it. I learned from the subjects I hated, and came to find I have used some of the knowledge I gained in them.

If I only made my best effort on work I found most intellectually stimulating I would not be where I am today, and don’t think I would be happier in that alternative world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Negative striver example: Trump and Melania trying to break into the NYC social scene

Positive striver example: immigrant who works hard and strives for the American dream.

Negative grinder: someone who thinks having an elite college name on a piece of paper with straight As is the penultimate, so they work day and night to achieve this

Positive grinder: low income American who works day and night to get into an elite school so that they can get out of poverty and help their family.

I guess the connotation of the word depends on the motive. But, since most people don't know the background of others, don't make assumptions.

This is good and reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am now starting to see that many of you think “grinder” just means hard working, so maybe I better be careful about using it pejoratively. But I still don’t think that’s what most people mean when they use the term

Agree that most people do not use the definition "merely hard working" for "grinder". Clearly some here do, but I doubt it is the most common meaning.

+1. But even amongst the people claiming that grinder means merely hard working, I don’t think most of them truly believe that. I think they realize that the negative strivery, grinder behavior being described here hits a little too close to home. And they feel the need to try to redirect it to “oh they’re just jealous because I/my kid are hard working and more successful.”

I can understand being confused by the term striver the first time you hear it here but after that it is pretty obvious what it refers to. We’ve all experienced strivery people in our lives, and if you haven’t, you might be the striver.

When someone calls my immigrant parents strivers because they pulled themselves up from almost nothing, yes, that hits close to home. I am proud my family is a bunch of strivers.

Your whole family went to an Ivy?

huh?

You clearly don’t know the definition of striver.

NP: As with most words, there are several connotations of the word "striver." The negative connotation is what most people are talking about here, which is not just an ambitious person who works hard (standard definition), but in the slang version, one who does so ruthlessly with an uber competitive streak that often involves a win at all costs, cheating, stepping over other people attitude. Also, one who does this to achieve not their family's survival or life's passion or even just a living wage, but to obtain the most prestigious-seeming shiny object in the category (college, job, car, zip code, etc.) simply for the sake of saying "I'm the best because I have this shiny object, and you don't." Pure ego. Generally dispised people, and not someone you want in your class or on your team.

Similary, a "grinder" could simply be someone who is on top of their game, making money, accomplishing goals, getting an education and career; but, used in a negative slang way, and as in popular songs, it means someone whose means to these ends are not desireable, such as using and dumping other people along the way, ignoring all other aspects of life (family, genuine friendships, responsibilities to others, etc.). So that kind of grinder is someone who will win at all costs, and the cost usually means hurting other people or themselves, as by failing to take care of anything but work. It's the kid who only studies and the adult who only works. Often these people achieve the goal only to find themselves lonely, dispised, and fundamentaly unsatisfied with life.

Truly, both words are now almost exclusively used in the negative sense, with more positive words for the other meanings like, accomplished, succesful, hard worker, leader, team player, etc. One who strives for success by grinding away, but is neither a striver nor a grinder.

[Anonymous]

I have no issue with ambition but I do have issues with pushing out competitors, cheating and clannish attitudes