Hopkins, Princeton, Cornell, Carnegie mellon...are the "grind" reputation real or outdated?

[Anonymous]

I agree with previous posters that it really depends on the major. Princeton math and physics are truly demanding, with many students dropping down in course level (the flexibility to do that is great) or changing to less intense majors. For those who love the fields and don't mind the workload, it's very engaging, but the reputation is real.

[Anonymous]

All I need to say is if you’re good enough, there’re no “grind” colleges in this country, MIT included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with previous posters that it really depends on the major. Princeton math and physics are truly demanding, with many students dropping down in course level (the flexibility to do that is great) or changing to less intense majors. For those who love the fields and don't mind the workload, it's very engaging, but the reputation is real.

I’m glad to hear that. I also hope schools focus on admitting students who are truly the right fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I need to say is if you’re good enough, there’re no “grind” colleges in this country, MIT included.

Sure, so if you’re of like a handful of people in the country. It’s pretty hard to not be challenged at all by a school like MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I need to say is if you’re good enough, there’re no “grind” colleges in this country, MIT included.

I agree—as long as schools are admitting the right students. It doesn’t make sense to accept underqualified applicants only to place them in remedial or patch-up classes. “Fit” goes both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I need to say is if you’re good enough, there’re no “grind” colleges in this country, MIT included.

Or if you pick an easy major. MIT has easy majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I need to say is if you’re good enough, there’re no “grind” colleges in this country, MIT included.

Or if you pick an easy major. MIT has easy majors.

That works, 2. GIGO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't students study and get evaluated "properly"? Why is it called "grind"? It is called learning and evaluating.

Not everyone deserves a trophy. Studying or get out of the school to do something more meaningful to your life.

Deflationary curves and rampant to now professional cheating at the top killing the curve can make it very demoralizing. If schools dealt with that dynamic then it would be different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't students study and get evaluated "properly"? Why is it called "grind"? It is called learning and evaluating.

Not everyone deserves a trophy. Studying or get out of the school to do something more meaningful to your life.

Deflationary curves and rampant to now professional cheating at the top killing the curve can make it very demoralizing. If schools dealt with that dynamic then it would be different.

It’s frustrating, and it also ends up creating a group of people who are unemployable. Sounds like a dead end. Schools.

[Anonymous]

My friend’s daughter at CMU is doing mechanical engineering - math and science highest rigor classes were easy for her at her top Westchester NY HS. She says her engineering classes at CMU are really hard. Her business/econ/entrepreneurship classes are easy for her. So she would say it depends on major.

[Anonymous]

Confused by all the vitriol about a reasonable question. Wanting to avoid super-grind college culture is not the same thing as trying to cheat your way to easy As without learning anything.
1. College is not solely about learning subject content, especially for the many students who do not wind up using their major in their ultimate job. College should also expose you to new perspectives, students from around the country and the world, etc. You are shortchanging yourself if you spend 12 hours a day in the library. Might as well do an online degree.
2. As an academic, I find that mindless grinding can be counterproductive. Scholarship (or advanced undergraduate work writing a research paper with an original thesis, or solving a problem in the lab) is not making widgets. Sometimes a walk or a little time away is where you get the best ideas. When I hear that some students are spending 12 hours a day studying and all weekend in the library, I do not assume that they are producing the best work or learning the most.
I want my DC to work hard in college and to learn a lot. But I would not encourage DC to go to a school that has a super-grind culture or where a very difficult curve creates a zero sum competitive culture. I don’t think it is unreasonable for a prospective student to wonder whether the historical reputations of the listed schools are still accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think of Princeton as having a grind reputation.

STEM is a grind at Princeton

Princeton is at an academic crossroad. They want to admit more FGLI (it's now the #1 institutional priority as they have more money than god and legacy preference is gradually diminishing), but FGLI often have lower preparedness and were admitted TO. TO ends at P this year so it will be interesting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Confused by all the vitriol about a reasonable question. Wanting to avoid super-grind college culture is not the same thing as trying to cheat your way to easy As without learning anything.
1. College is not solely about learning subject content, especially for the many students who do not wind up using their major in their ultimate job. College should also expose you to new perspectives, students from around the country and the world, etc. You are shortchanging yourself if you spend 12 hours a day in the library. Might as well do an online degree.
2. As an academic, I find that mindless grinding can be counterproductive. Scholarship (or advanced undergraduate work writing a research paper with an original thesis, or solving a problem in the lab) is not making widgets. Sometimes a walk or a little time away is where you get the best ideas. When I hear that some students are spending 12 hours a day studying and all weekend in the library, I do not assume that they are producing the best work or learning the most.
I want my DC to work hard in college and to learn a lot. But I would not encourage DC to go to a school that has a super-grind culture or where a very difficult curve creates a zero sum competitive culture. I don’t think it is unreasonable for a prospective student to wonder whether the historical reputations of the listed schools are still accurate.

Sure, but it really goes both ways. Schools need to admit the right group of students to achieve what you described. The real question is: why do they end up with that kind of reputation or create such zero-sum environments in the first place? Were they like that before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Princeton for STEM is brutal.

+1 Even coming from TJ, Princeton is known to be rough. We went on an admissions tour at Carnegie Mellon two summers ago. Our guide seemed depressed, complaining about his cohort's lack of internship offers that year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't students study and get evaluated "properly"? Why is it called "grind"? It is called learning and evaluating.

Not everyone deserves a trophy. Studying or get out of the school to do something more meaningful to your life.

Deflationary curves and rampant to now professional cheating at the top killing the curve can make it very demoralizing. If schools dealt with that dynamic then it would be different.

The issue is academics have different priorities. Grades mean nearly nothing in graduate admissions- you just need to pass around a 3.5-3.7 minimum and after it’s all about recommendations and your publication/research history. Jobs used to not care about grades but they’ve turned a leaf where they want colleges to do their job in discriminating who is and is not their version of competent.