Grinders and strivers and curators, oh my!

[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.

You didn’t answer my question. Are my parents bad people because they worked jobs they didn’t love?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. "Grinder" to me is someone who works hard but without genuine interest/passion in what they are doing. If you're interested in something, it's not really grinding. E.g. a Ph.D. student works hard, but I wouldn't call what they are doing grinding, even if the work is unpleasant, because presumably they are passionate about their chosen area. A lawyer working overtime because they care about the outcome of some human is also not grinding, but a lawyer billing as many hours as possible just to pay for the yacht is grinding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Regular OK “curated striver“ party animals who aren’t very book smart or interested in learning?

You are just as bad.

[Anonymous]

We all want the same thing (better) for our kids but have different ideas about how to go about defining it and pursuing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn’t answer my question. Are my parents bad people because they worked jobs they didn’t love?

DP. Were they doing it just for money and to show off to the people in the old country, to the point of ignoring or disrupting your nuclear family's home life? Then maybe yeah. If they were just working hard to give you a good normal life and prioritized family, then no. You know them, so we can't answer that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We all want the same thing (better) for our kids but have different ideas about how to go about defining it and pursuing it.

Fully respect this. But why do so many people demean others who define and pursue “better” differently? Grinding, striving, and curating should be neutral terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn’t answer my question. Are my parents bad people because they worked jobs they didn’t love?

DP. Were they doing it just for money and to show off to the people in the old country, to the point of ignoring or disrupting your nuclear family's home life? Then maybe yeah. If they were just working hard to give you a good normal life and prioritized family, then no. You know them, so we can't answer that.

They didn’t work for prestige but they absolutely worked for money. They were wonderful parents and dutiful children (first supporting my grandparents in their native country and then sponsoring them to the US). But they did not work jobs they were genuinely and intrinsically passionate about, which was the bar you set in your original post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn’t answer my question. Are my parents bad people because they worked jobs they didn’t love?

No. They cared about YOU presumably, and they worked hard because it was necessary to provide for you, that's great. So did my parents, who worked manual labor jobs despite one having been interested in medicine and the other being interested engineering. If they had the opportunity to go to college, they would have been intrinsically motivated.

But how is this relevant to college admissions? If your kid is intrinsically motivated and works hard, I wouldn't call him/her a grinder/striver/curator. Are you trying to work some sob story about an immigrant history to claim that your own kid with a curated profile and fake interests is just as good as other hardworking applicants who are genuine and passionate? If so, that's not really going to convince me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn’t answer my question. Are my parents bad people because they worked jobs they didn’t love?

DP. Were they doing it just for money and to show off to the people in the old country, to the point of ignoring or disrupting your nuclear family's home life? Then maybe yeah. If they were just working hard to give you a good normal life and prioritized family, then no. You know them, so we can't answer that.

They didn’t work for prestige but they absolutely worked for money. They were wonderful parents and dutiful children (first supporting my grandparents in their native country and then sponsoring them to the US). But they did not work jobs they were genuinely and intrinsically passionate about, which was the bar you set in your original post.

Apologies, just realized you are a DP. But my point still stands. That poster used the term “grinder” as a pejorative in reference to people like my parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn’t answer my question. Are my parents bad people because they worked jobs they didn’t love?

DP. Were they doing it just for money and to show off to the people in the old country, to the point of ignoring or disrupting your nuclear family's home life? Then maybe yeah. If they were just working hard to give you a good normal life and prioritized family, then no. You know them, so we can't answer that.

They didn’t work for prestige but they absolutely worked for money. They were wonderful parents and dutiful children (first supporting my grandparents in their native country and then sponsoring them to the US). But they did not work jobs they were genuinely and intrinsically passionate about, which was the bar you set in your original post.

Apologies, just realized you are a DP. But my point still stands. That poster used the term “grinder” as a pejorative in reference to people like my parents.

I certainly did no such thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Something like this. It’s one thing to work hard but quite another to make that your personality or a reason for living.

[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?

IMO:

Curators are inauthentic just like any brand.

Strivers are motivated by some sort of insecurity.

Grinders are myopic.

[Anonymous]

Accomplishments are beyond question; motivation is beyond scrutiny. I do not pretend to know or care what motivates people. It’s none of my business and does not affect what I do or how I do it. Either you accomplish or try to judge people on what they intend to do. Sounds like we have too many of the latter in this area, and in this country.

[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?

I would argue that the insult lies in the fact that these words capture a kid’s blind ambition, yet are devoid of the student’s intellectual curiosity. The latter is the more essential ingredient to bring to an elite education if one wishes to truly make the most of the opportunity. People who lack this important ingredient waste a limited resource in pursuit of their box ticking ambition.

However, those three words are not offensive to me if the student is also genuinely curious. They are not mutually exclusive, but the combination is becoming rather rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Accomplishments are beyond question; motivation is beyond scrutiny. I do not pretend to know or care what motivates people. It’s none of my business and does not affect what I do or how I do it. Either you accomplish or try to judge people on what they intend to do. Sounds like we have too many of the latter in this area, and in this country.

Agree to disagree. IMO, we could encourage the young to care a little less about amassing wealth for its own sake, and a little more about the advancement of society, science, and the environment.