Grinders and strivers and curators, oh my!

[Anonymous]

Why are any of these terms considered insults? What exactly is wrong with a student who grinds towards their desired college/major/career goal, strives for the best possible outcome, and curates a compelling narrative for decision-makers who control access?

[Anonymous]

Nothing wrong with it, just that some posters mock others because of their own insecurities

[Anonymous]

Let me guess, OP: you’re a thought leader?

[Anonymous]

Do you genuinely not get that there's a difference between a grinder and someone who works really hard because they are genuinely and intrinsically passionate about some cause other than prestige or self-promotion?

I've known both types of students. It can be really hard to tell them apart on the surface. I'm sure admissions committees make mistakes all the tie.

[Anonymous]

Nothing wrong with grinder, it should be applauded. IMO, in the dmv there seems to be this idea that making money for its own sake, without contributing to society, is something that’s acceptable for young people to aim for. That’s what striver and curator means to me.

[Anonymous]

It's the difference between a guy who cuts the lawn for cash and a landscape architect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you genuinely not get that there's a difference between a grinder and someone who works really hard because they are genuinely and intrinsically passionate about some cause other than prestige or self-promotion?

I've known both types of students. It can be really hard to tell them apart on the surface. I'm sure admissions committees make mistakes all the tie.

My first gen immigrant parents worked really hard to provide a better quality of life for future generations. They didn’t have the luxury of being “genuinely and intrinsically passionate” about their jobs. It sounds like you would use term “grinder” pejoratively regarding people like them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you genuinely not get that there's a difference between a grinder and someone who works really hard because they are genuinely and intrinsically passionate about some cause other than prestige or self-promotion?

I've known both types of students. It can be really hard to tell them apart on the surface. I'm sure admissions committees make mistakes all the tie.

My first gen immigrant parents worked really hard to provide a better quality of life for future generations. They didn’t have the luxury of being “genuinely and intrinsically passionate” about their jobs. It sounds like you would use term “grinder” pejoratively regarding people like them?

Oh, give me a break. I'm actually first gen, both as an immigrant and as the first gen to attend college. And yet I was still raised with values besides caring about money and self-promotion and can tell the difference between a grinder/striver/curator and an intrinsically motivated person with genuine scholarly interests.

[Anonymous]

Do you have to like the kid raising his hand for every question in class? The parents who found a “research project” for their kid to “lead?” Or the kid who’s already president of the student government but also has to run for head of French club AND get an editor line on the yearbook? The kid who “started a student organization” whose sole activity was a fundraiser run by her mom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with grinder, it should be applauded. IMO, in the dmv there seems to be this idea that making money for its own sake, without contributing to society, is something that’s acceptable for young people to aim for. That’s what striver and curator means to me.

Oh interesting, I think of “grinder” simply as someone who works hard, “striver” as someone who is trying to be the best they can be, and “curator” as someone who is playing the college admissions game as necessary to succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are any of these terms considered insults? What exactly is wrong with a student who grinds towards their desired college/major/career goal, strives for the best possible outcome, and curates a compelling narrative for decision-makers who control access?

Some of the people here are party animals and use terms like those to insult serious students. From my perspective, as the parent of a serious student who hates parties, that’s bad.

Serious, book smart students tend to use those terms to refer to students who aren’t very book smart or interested in learning, even in fun, low-stress situations.

Students who love reading, doing experiments and learning in general may not like exams, term paper deadlines or harsh grading curves, but they may desperately want to hang out for a few years with other students who started out reading encyclopedias, almanacs and dictionaries for fun, not just go to college to prepare for a career.

Then maybe they get to Super Selective U and find out that 75% of the other students are regular OK “curated strivers” who have great applications but have never read a book for fun in their lives.

For the party animals who are mainly interested in career prep, that might be a great outcome. For the dictionary readers, that’s like being locked in a coffin.

My son is in the second category. I wish he could have had more great random discussions at pizza parties where everyone was drinking soda, not so many occasions where he had to try to connect with the party animals.

I was in the middle and could have fun in both kinds of crowds, but some people are more specialized.

[Anonymous]

I have never understood using striver as a pejorative. My parents strove for a better life than their parents. Their parents did the same. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have to like the kid raising his hand for every question in class? The parents who found a “research project” for their kid to “lead?” Or the kid who’s already president of the student government but also has to run for head of French club AND get an editor line on the yearbook? The kid who “started a student organization” whose sole activity was a fundraiser run by her mom?

There is a difference between someone who is “curated” (passive and controlled by someone else) vs. someone who is a “curator” (active, so they themselves are putting together their narrative). In your examples, I fully respect the kid raising his hand for every question in class and who’s already president of the student government but also running for head of French club and getting an editor line on the yearbook. Not so much the kid whose parents are manipulating them.

[Anonymous]

To me grinder is someone who's taking a million practice tests so they can increase their scores by a small margin and get into a marginally better school so they can make that higher salary someday. It's someone (or their parents) who is missing the forest for the trees just to chase clout even though they could be perfectly successful otherwise. The opposite of work life balance. I don't consider it just another word for a good and serious student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you genuinely not get that there's a difference between a grinder and someone who works really hard because they are genuinely and intrinsically passionate about some cause other than prestige or self-promotion?

I've known both types of students. It can be really hard to tell them apart on the surface. I'm sure admissions committees make mistakes all the tie.

My first gen immigrant parents worked really hard to provide a better quality of life for future generations. They didn’t have the luxury of being “genuinely and intrinsically passionate” about their jobs. It sounds like you would use term “grinder” pejoratively regarding people like them?

Oh, give me a break. I'm actually first gen, both as an immigrant and as the first gen to attend college. And yet I was still raised with values besides caring about money and self-promotion and can tell the difference between a grinder/striver/curator and an intrinsically motivated person with genuine scholarly interests.

The classic example is Isaac Asimov. He was an immigrant kid who grew up running his family’s bodegas, was very hard-working, and was a naturally brilliant person who certainly loved learning for the sake of learning.

And, partly because he was skipped two grades in school, and partly because of antisemitism, he wasn’t even considered good enough to get into the regular Columbia undergraduate college. Columbia stuck him in a junior college that was probably below the level of the modern Columbia general studies college that people here mock.