What exactly is a “grind school” (undergraduate)?

[Anonymous]

I’ve heard allegations that some students in these highly competitive “grind schools” engage in coordinated cheating. Is there any truth to this? It sometimes feels like students who appear overly polished are under pressure to maintain that image all the way through college.

Especially pre-med where GPA matters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard allegations that some students in these highly competitive “grind schools” engage in coordinated cheating. Is there any truth to this? It sometimes feels like students who appear overly polished are under pressure to maintain that image all the way through college.

Especially pre-med where GPA matters

Polished? No, that’s Harvard and Williams.

Grind schools and premed, you may describe them as full of energy. They are not polished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopkins premed, CMU SCS, Cornell engineering, are epitome of grinder schools. Rigorous curriculum, harsh curve, cutthroat culture, a combination of these.

Male-dominated programs with a lot of men who are academically competitive with each other, sharp-elbowed, some social skills limitations because not very pro-social, intense interest in schoolwork but not in other types of campus activities, focus on getting high-paying or hard-to-get jobs.

Guess you've "never met" any women who fit that description exactly.

PP went to college in the 70s.

+1. Dated observation

From the CMU student newspaper in October:

https://the-tartan.org/2025/10/06/cmu-undergraduate-womens-enrollment-declines-across-colleges/

CMU undergraduate women’s enrollment declines across colleges
Daniel Rios
October 6, 2025

"In 2025, Carnegie Mellon University welcomed a cohort of 1,804 new undergraduate students at its Pittsburgh campus. Though the university’s overall population has 42.2 percent of students identify as women, the incoming undergraduate class in fall of 2025 had a historically low female enrollment of 38.8 percent. At certain colleges, the percentage was even lower..."

"The Census data showed growing gaps in gender diversity across all colleges except the College of Fine Arts and the interdisciplinary programs, the latter of which grew its overall headcount significantly."

"The gap was most severe at Carnegie Mellon’s highly-ranked School of Computer Science (SCS), where only 19.39 percent of all entering undergraduates were female, the lowest out of all of CMU’s undergraduate colleges, including the interdisciplinary programs.

The College of Engineering (CIT) had the second-lowest percentage of entering female students, with just 32.7 percent. Like SCS, CIT had a steady decline in new female students."

Hmmm.....sounds like a male-dominated grinder school to me....

SCS is over 80% male…damn

On r/cmu there are jokes about bringing back the "Dave:female student ratio" jokes of yesteryear.

That's funny to me because at my first post-MBA job, my boss asked me to get her a meeting with an executive named Dave. There were 4 executives named Dave in the planning group. I had to wait to speak with her live so I could verify which one she wanted to meet with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

The so called leaders or CEO are overrated. All they are doing is laying off people and sending jobs overseas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

The so called leaders or CEO are overrated. All they are doing is laying off people and sending jobs overseas

They have good EQ. And moral flexibility. That's a lot of what it takes to rise.

Rule followers and people who love their work tend not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Honey, that’s not causation. The same HYP guy, if gone to CMU, will turn out the same. HYP screen, or they used to, for leaders. They can’t be fostered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

The so called leaders or CEO are overrated. All they are doing is laying off people and sending jobs overseas

They have good EQ. And moral flexibility. That's a lot of what it takes to rise.

Rule followers and people who love their work tend not to.

So what? I think it's time to restropect how much damage they have caused

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

The so called leaders or CEO are overrated. All they are doing is laying off people and sending jobs overseas

They have good EQ. And moral flexibility. That's a lot of what it takes to rise.

Rule followers and people who love their work tend not to.

So what? I think it's time to restropect how much damage they have caused

PP. My remarks were observations, not endorsements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

This is what I have in mind when I refer to a "grind school".

Obviously, all schools have a mix of kids. No school is all one thing or another.

And yes, the percentage of grindy kids often differs by major within the same school.

That said, I do feel some schools with really smart, hardworking kids don't feel like as much of a grind overall.

Two factors that I've noticed about the less grindy schools:

(1) They seem to attract and/or select enough kids who proactively balance their academics with some social ECs (not just additional resume-building clubs and activities); and

(2) They offer kids big, communal experiences outside the classroom that add dimension and balance to their lives. This could be anything from sports to social clubs (could be Greek life but not necessarily) to regular campus events or festivals or concerts that regularly attract a ton of students, to an off-campus setting that affects the school culture and inspires kids to balance their academics with something else (a vibrant city, an accessible and interesting college town, gorgeous and accessible nature/outdoor activities.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CMU
JHU
Cornell
Chicago

Basically schools with a higher concentration of students who have been doing Kumon or other forms of tutoring and prepping since 3rd grade

With the Bloomberg money, JHU is no longer a grind school. Kids are highly collaborative and social. A vibrant community, a beautiful campus, modern buildings and labs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

This is what I have in mind when I refer to a "grind school".

Obviously, all schools have a mix of kids. No school is all one thing or another.

And yes, the percentage of grindy kids often differs by major within the same school.

That said, I do feel some schools with really smart, hardworking kids don't feel like as much of a grind overall.

Two factors that I've noticed about the less grindy schools:

(1) They seem to attract and/or select enough kids who proactively balance their academics with some social ECs (not just additional resume-building clubs and activities); and

(2) They offer kids big, communal experiences outside the classroom that add dimension and balance to their lives. This could be anything from sports to social clubs (could be Greek life but not necessarily) to regular campus events or festivals or concerts that regularly attract a ton of students, to an off-campus setting that affects the school culture and inspires kids to balance their academics with something else (a vibrant city, an accessible and interesting college town, gorgeous and accessible nature/outdoor activities.)

Cornell has all that you describe and is still grindy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CMU
JHU
Cornell
Chicago

Basically schools with a higher concentration of students who have been doing Kumon or other forms of tutoring and prepping since 3rd grade

Interesting list you have. I would think the "grind" school would be the major at those schools. Specifically, when I think of grind I think of a difficult major like engineering. With regard to that filed. none of the 5 on your list or even in the Top 5 in the Engineering field. Closest is CMU at #8 and Cornell at #10. My example list would look different.

[Anonymous]

Case Western?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

This is what I have in mind when I refer to a "grind school".

Obviously, all schools have a mix of kids. No school is all one thing or another.

And yes, the percentage of grindy kids often differs by major within the same school.

That said, I do feel some schools with really smart, hardworking kids don't feel like as much of a grind overall.

Two factors that I've noticed about the less grindy schools:

(1) They seem to attract and/or select enough kids who proactively balance their academics with some social ECs (not just additional resume-building clubs and activities); and

(2) They offer kids big, communal experiences outside the classroom that add dimension and balance to their lives. This could be anything from sports to social clubs (could be Greek life but not necessarily) to regular campus events or festivals or concerts that regularly attract a ton of students, to an off-campus setting that affects the school culture and inspires kids to balance their academics with something else (a vibrant city, an accessible and interesting college town, gorgeous and accessible nature/outdoor activities.)

Cornell has all that you describe and is still grindy.

Right?? I know!

Cornell is an interesting one. The reputation is definitely grindy, and the school seems to lean in to it, including with what it chooses to include on it's various IG pages. (We've been following all the schools DD is considering and have been struck by how different they are in what they choose to emphasize.)

And yet DD really liked it when she visited. The academics are an excellent fit in so many ways, and on the non-academic, social side, she loved the active, outdoorsy setting, the option of Greek life, and the size and range of athletic options (to watch and to play). I think it also helps that the kids she knows there from her high school are somewhat balanced and social and are happy there.

Maybe it helps that Cornell is such a big school? Even if the overall vibe is more grindy, there are just so many kids. So maybe there's truly a cohort and a bunch of communities for everyone?