Grinders and strivers and curators, oh my!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

ding ding ding
first response, correct answer

People trying to tell you that trying is for losers are stuck in their own victim mentality. Their inability to succeed is everyone else's fault. Not because they don't want to put in the effort. So they have to mock those who do.

No one on this thread is doing the bolded. You don’t need to invent things.

The first sentence of this thread:
Why are any of these terms considered insults?

Insulting, looking down on someone, thinking it's loser behavior
These are all in the same vein

Hope that helps

Again, no one on this thread is saying that “trying is for losers.” This is a massive strawman.

Trying is for losers unless you are trying for the reasons we think are worthy.

Such entitled attitudes on the thread.

It's less about worthiness, than trying with a moral/ethical compass. It's really not that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On DCUM a grinder is someone who has overloaded and over rotated on academics at the expense of everything else and who’s parents then complain that it’s unfair that they don’t get into the schools they lust after because of holistic admissions.

This!

People here on DCUM continue to baffle me because they just continually sit in their little thought bubbles repeating the same stuff over and over.

Grinding isn't bad. Hardworking is a great trait and one that continually gets brought up as one of the most positive traits brought by athletes. Someone being referred to as a 'grinder' on DCUM isn't about that. It is slap at those who relentlessly call anything other than a test score unworthy of merit because academics was their sole focus.

+1. Though anyone who isn’t getting it after 15 pages is never going to get it.

I kind of thought the ChatGPT explanation would help them, but no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On DCUM a grinder is someone who has overloaded and over rotated on academics at the expense of everything else and who’s parents then complain that it’s unfair that they don’t get into the schools they lust after because of holistic admissions.

This!

People here on DCUM continue to baffle me because they just continually sit in their little thought bubbles repeating the same stuff over and over.

Grinding isn't bad. Hardworking is a great trait and one that continually gets brought up as one of the most positive traits brought by athletes. Someone being referred to as a 'grinder' on DCUM isn't about that. It is slap at those who relentlessly call anything other than a test score unworthy of merit because academics was their sole focus.

It's really interesting that "grinding" the verb doesn't have the negative baggage that "grinder" the noun has.

[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?

You are supposed to be an effortless stylish high achiever like the Stanford students only be seen on their manicured lawns. God forbid if you are caught in a library.

[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?

You are supposed to be an effortless stylish high achiever like the Stanford students only be seen on their manicured lawns. God forbid if you are caught in a library.

I think y'all are mad at society when some of us are just trying to explain current language use. *shrug*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After 15 pages, I am still not getting it!

I think DD is a grinder or striver or whatever you call it. Prioritizes A+s, max rigor, test preps hard. This is all non-negotiable to her.

Also works hard at ECs, loves them, has a blast, does well. Has lots of friends she hangs out with. Loves hanging out with her little brother too. Obsessed with that show "Off campus" right now.

So she grinds, but not at the expense of everything else.

Is she a grinder/striver, or not?

Don't bother yourself with anonymous critics who won't explain themselves.

Live your best life with people who lift you up.

Mature adults don't use this vocabulary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

ding ding ding
first response, correct answer

People trying to tell you that trying is for losers are stuck in their own victim mentality. Their inability to succeed is everyone else's fault. Not because they don't want to put in the effort. So they have to mock those who do.

No one on this thread is doing the bolded. You don’t need to invent things.

The first sentence of this thread:
Why are any of these terms considered insults?

Insulting, looking down on someone, thinking it's loser behavior
These are all in the same vein

Hope that helps

Again, no one on this thread is saying that “trying is for losers.” This is a massive strawman.

Trying is for losers unless you are trying for the reasons we think are worthy.

Such entitled attitudes on the thread.

It's less about worthiness, than trying with a moral/ethical compass. It's really not that hard.

People with a moral/ethical compass don't use those words. We have better words, as described earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 15 pages, I am still not getting it!

I think DD is a grinder or striver or whatever you call it. Prioritizes A+s, max rigor, test preps hard. This is all non-negotiable to her.

Also works hard at ECs, loves them, has a blast, does well. Has lots of friends she hangs out with. Loves hanging out with her little brother too. Obsessed with that show "Off campus" right now.

So she grinds, but not at the expense of everything else.

Is she a grinder/striver, or not?

Don't bother yourself with anonymous critics who won't explain themselves.

Live your best life with people who lift you up.

Mature adults don't use this vocabulary.

Sure they do.

The immature ones are the ones who are all bent out of shape that some words don’t have the same exact meaning that they had 40 years ago. And refuse to hear any explanations about why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On DCUM a grinder is someone who has overloaded and over rotated on academics at the expense of everything else and who’s parents then complain that it’s unfair that they don’t get into the schools they lust after because of holistic admissions.

This!

People here on DCUM continue to baffle me because they just continually sit in their little thought bubbles repeating the same stuff over and over.

Grinding isn't bad. Hardworking is a great trait and one that continually gets brought up as one of the most positive traits brought by athletes. Someone being referred to as a 'grinder' on DCUM isn't about that. It is slap at those who relentlessly call anything other than a test score unworthy of merit because academics was their sole focus.

It's really interesting that "grinding" the verb doesn't have the negative baggage that "grinder" the noun has.

It is interesting. I think it’s because “grinding” (the verb) is just one strategy, whereas a “grinder” (noun) is someone who has committed to grinding even when another strategy might better suit the circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After 15 pages, I am still not getting it!

I think DD is a grinder or striver or whatever you call it. Prioritizes A+s, max rigor, test preps hard. This is all non-negotiable to her.

Also works hard at ECs, loves them, has a blast, does well. Has lots of friends she hangs out with. Loves hanging out with her little brother too. Obsessed with that show "Off campus" right now.

So she grinds, but not at the expense of everything else.

Is she a grinder/striver, or not?

I'm one of the folks who keeps trying to explain what the negative connotations are, but this appears to be falling on deaf ears. Probably, your DD is a bit of a grinder/striver, but as long as she's not going too far into the more negative aspects of being a grinder/striver, I think she should own it. Let's face it, why would any parent be looking at the College and University forum if we weren't all at least a little bit grindy/strivey, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:t's really interesting that "grinding" the verb doesn't have the negative baggage that "grinder" the noun has.

It's really not. American English has those kinds of subtleties, just like to "strive" doesn't come with the same baggage as being called a striver.

[Anonymous]

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

*snort*

[Anonymous]

ha my kid said they "had to grind" and I was just like "please tell me that doesn't mean what it meant in the 90s"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

ding ding ding
first response, correct answer

People trying to tell you that trying is for losers are stuck in their own victim mentality. Their inability to succeed is everyone else's fault. Not because they don't want to put in the effort. So they have to mock those who do.

No one on this thread is doing the bolded. You don’t need to invent things.

The first sentence of this thread:
Why are any of these terms considered insults?

Insulting, looking down on someone, thinking it's loser behavior
These are all in the same vein

Hope that helps

Again, no one on this thread is saying that “trying is for losers.” This is a massive strawman.

OP is saying people think grinders and strivers are insults. Grinding and striving means trying.
Insulting (saying is someone is not good/cool, bad/loser) strivers (people trying) is what we are talking about
A strawman is exaggerating to make your point. I am not doing that.

Here is where you lost the plot.

Nobody is saying trying is negative.
Nobody (except you) is saying a “sticker” or “grinder” is simply some who tries.

A “striver” is not someone who works hard and happy to get into UMD engineering program … a striver would be embarrassed to “only” go to UMD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

ding ding ding
first response, correct answer

People trying to tell you that trying is for losers are stuck in their own victim mentality. Their inability to succeed is everyone else's fault. Not because they don't want to put in the effort. So they have to mock those who do.

No one on this thread is doing the bolded. You don’t need to invent things.

The first sentence of this thread:
Why are any of these terms considered insults?

Insulting, looking down on someone, thinking it's loser behavior
These are all in the same vein

Hope that helps

Again, no one on this thread is saying that “trying is for losers.” This is a massive strawman.

Trying is for losers unless you are trying for the reasons we think are worthy.

Such entitled attitudes on the thread.

It's less about worthiness, than trying with a moral/ethical compass. It's really not that hard.

People with a moral/ethical compass don't use those words. We have better words, as described earlier.

LOL, calling out bad behavior is less moral/ethical than the underlying behavior itself? You sound like the same kind of people who think calling out racism is worse than actually being racist.