Grinders and strivers and curators, oh my!

[Anonymous]

The opposite of striver/grinder is entitled.

We are supposed to believe that everyone should follow our passions, and if it should come to pass that we find ourselves biglaw partners, surgeons, or in finance that it was because we always loved debate, or anatomy, or perhaps math and that we simply did what seemed reasonable at the time and it came to pass that we landed first in prestigious universities, then graduate schools, and then a succession of steps of increasing “responsibility” on the career ladder.

Of course the money is pretty good, but obviously that wasn’t what I was thinking about at the time…

When did work become unseemly?

This country used to celebrate those who made the most they could of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grinding is great. Athletes and research scientists are the ultimate grinders, just pushing through no matter the difficulty.

The ‘grinder’ on the other hand is taking their 7th period course while at the same time adding mediocre DE courses at night because their parents are pushing for more, more, more. It’s not about passion, it is about a single minded focus on what constitutes merit in their families and communities POV.

Meanwhile, their parents, not understanding the nature of college admissions in the US are screaming and crying about holistic admissions and demanding that nothing but gpa and be considered.

Xenophobic much?

NP: I'm not the person you are replying to but I 100% agree. So many immigrants come here and expect the system to adapt to them. Those who do the best are those who learn how the system works and work within it. There are countless ridiculously successful immigrants who do just this. So stop throwing terms like that around without knowing what you are talking about - just making it worse and proving the point.

I’d say my immigrant family learned and adapted just fine, as my siblings and I count Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Penn, and Wharton among our undergrad and graduate alma maters. The two college-aged kids in the next generation are now at two of the above as well. No one in our community expected the system to adapt to them.

[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?

Not the PP.
Most people work jobs they dont love. Read all those posts in Jobs and Careers.
Then read the posts from parents taking huge paycuts or career dead ends in order to have a decent family life.
Your parents aren't bad, they are probably taking some level of satisfaction and pride in their work. We all should.
What is bad is to position it like it is some huge "sacrfice" and lather on the guilt to the kids.
I dont know a single non-Asian family that talks about what a huge sacrifice it was for the parent to SAHP because it was what worked best for the family or the parent working insane hours and taking on huge work stresses in order to provide financial security.
It is simply called parenting and choices we make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The opposite of striver/grinder is entitled.

We are supposed to believe that everyone should follow our passions, and if it should come to pass that we find ourselves biglaw partners, surgeons, or in finance that it was because we always loved debate, or anatomy, or perhaps math and that we simply did what seemed reasonable at the time and it came to pass that we landed first in prestigious universities, then graduate schools, and then a succession of steps of increasing “responsibility” on the career ladder.

Of course the money is pretty good, but obviously that wasn’t what I was thinking about at the time…

When did work become unseemly?

This country used to celebrate those who made the most they could of themselves.

No, the opposite of striver/grinder in a college admissions context is a well-adjusted individual.

Non-strivers and non-grinders exist in all of the fields you mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grinding is great. Athletes and research scientists are the ultimate grinders, just pushing through no matter the difficulty.

The ‘grinder’ on the other hand is taking their 7th period course while at the same time adding mediocre DE courses at night because their parents are pushing for more, more, more. It’s not about passion, it is about a single minded focus on what constitutes merit in their families and communities POV.

Meanwhile, their parents, not understanding the nature of college admissions in the US are screaming and crying about holistic admissions and demanding that nothing but gpa and be considered.

Xenophobic much?

Facts are friendly, it looks like someone touched a nerve.

[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?

Not the PP.
Most people work jobs they dont love. Read all those posts in Jobs and Careers.
Then read the posts from parents taking huge paycuts or career dead ends in order to have a decent family life.
Your parents aren't bad, they are probably taking some level of satisfaction and pride in their work. We all should.
What is bad is to position it like it is some huge "sacrfice" and lather on the guilt to the kids.
I dont know a single non-Asian family that talks about what a huge sacrifice it was for the parent to SAHP because it was what worked best for the family or the parent working insane hours and taking on huge work stresses in order to provide financial security.
It is simply called parenting and choices we make.

Another racist comment. There are families of all races who do this, as well as families of all races who do NOT do this. My own family, which is of Asian heritage, does NOT do this.

[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?

People should worry about their own kids & stop trying to put others down with nasty name calling. If you can't be happy for some one else's success, keep it to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grinding is great. Athletes and research scientists are the ultimate grinders, just pushing through no matter the difficulty.

The ‘grinder’ on the other hand is taking their 7th period course while at the same time adding mediocre DE courses at night because their parents are pushing for more, more, more. It’s not about passion, it is about a single minded focus on what constitutes merit in their families and communities POV.

Meanwhile, their parents, not understanding the nature of college admissions in the US are screaming and crying about holistic admissions and demanding that nothing but gpa and be considered.

Xenophobic much?

Facts are friendly, it looks like someone touched a nerve.

What evidence do you have for your “facts?” Absolutely you touched a nerve - I, and my entire family of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Penn, and Wharton grads, abhor racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite of striver/grinder is entitled.

We are supposed to believe that everyone should follow our passions, and if it should come to pass that we find ourselves biglaw partners, surgeons, or in finance that it was because we always loved debate, or anatomy, or perhaps math and that we simply did what seemed reasonable at the time and it came to pass that we landed first in prestigious universities, then graduate schools, and then a succession of steps of increasing “responsibility” on the career ladder.

Of course the money is pretty good, but obviously that wasn’t what I was thinking about at the time…

When did work become unseemly?

This country used to celebrate those who made the most they could of themselves.

No, the opposite of striver/grinder in a college admissions context is a well-adjusted individual.

Non-strivers and non-grinders exist in all of the fields you mentioned.

Lol, “well adjusted,” that is wonderfully subjective isn’t it?

They worked hard you see, but not too hard, there is a fine line…

Take my little Sally for example, she would be a wonderful surgeon. She has always liked helping people and she is just delightful company. She may not have the scores of some of those striver kids, but she has a social life and at least her interest is genuine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite of striver/grinder is entitled.

We are supposed to believe that everyone should follow our passions, and if it should come to pass that we find ourselves biglaw partners, surgeons, or in finance that it was because we always loved debate, or anatomy, or perhaps math and that we simply did what seemed reasonable at the time and it came to pass that we landed first in prestigious universities, then graduate schools, and then a succession of steps of increasing “responsibility” on the career ladder.

Of course the money is pretty good, but obviously that wasn’t what I was thinking about at the time…

When did work become unseemly?

This country used to celebrate those who made the most they could of themselves.

No, the opposite of striver/grinder in a college admissions context is a well-adjusted individual.

Non-strivers and non-grinders exist in all of the fields you mentioned.

Lol, “well adjusted,” that is wonderfully subjective isn’t it?

They worked hard you see, but not too hard, there is a fine line…

Take my little Sally for example, she would be a wonderful surgeon. She has always liked helping people and she is just delightful company. She may not have the scores of some of those striver kids, but she has a social life and at least her interest is genuine.

Well, yes, Sally wouldn’t be described as a striver.

The kid who pretends to like helping people just to boost his med school application (and probably does a dozen other things he doesn’t like but pretends to for the sake of app boosting, not to mention being sharp elbowed with others), on the other hand, would definitely be one.

It’s not about working super hard or somewhat less hard.

[Anonymous]

I see undergrads are learning what "Gunners" are in med school - same as described by many posters here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A striver is a kid whose sole purpose in life is getting ahead. They cultivate no interests for the sake of intellectual curiosity or pure joy. They will solely do an activity because they perceive it as a means to an end. They might truly love swimming but if they think fencing is better for getting into college, that is what they do, even if they hate it. They tend to be miserable people to interact with because they do not consider developing normal social skills to be part of this equation - either they are really geeky nerds, or they are trying to be too cool for school and clearly have an agenda.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is possible to work really hard, do very well in school, and also be a well-rounded, sincere, interesting human being. If it requires all of your energy just to achieve academically and you don't have the bandwidth for the other parts of life, perhaps you aren't that bright after all.

And before anyone jumps down my throat, strivers come from all races, nationalities, genders, etc. I'm Jewish and some of the worst Jews I know are fellow Jews. But, not to generalize as there are many exceptions to this rule, but what made Jews successful in America was their early realization that to truly get ahead here they had to go beyond the stereotype of money hungry and/or bookworms and learn to assimilate and develop other interests and socialization skills.

In sum, I think the key to the negativity of "striver" and "Curator" (I don't think grinder is as bad) is that they reflect a lack of sincerity and a lack of well-roundedness, the former being a bigger problem than the latter.

Yes... this is what I think of as grinder/striver. It's not someone who works hard. It's trying to push some angle, always, for the gains. It's like a hustler but in an academic sense, trying to find hacks that will increase their chances of good colleges/jobs. The type that will be constantly trying to network and job hop when they grew up (which I'm not saying is always bad, but it's a particular type that loses perspective and values this over actual life things).

[Anonymous]

Because it’s a lie. It’s mostly copium from mediocre but wannabe white people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What do you even mean here? You mean you think kids who want to talk about great books with other kids who’ve read the books shouldn’t get a chance to do that, even if their parents pay $100,000 to make that possible? What is so terrible about giving a kid a chance to have interesting conversations about great books?

And what’s so terrible, on the other hand, about being a party animal kid who wants to have fun in college, and do the bare minimum needed to have a good job, and truly doesn’t want to hang out with the College Bowl kids?

It takes both kinds to make world. I just think that the dictionary readers are less common and generally less respected by society, until their weird knowledge can be monetized. They need sheltered gardens of their own, at Caltech or Reed or some place like that.

If curated party animal kids end up there and try to do the readings and take classes or at least activities seriously: Great.

If they go have AI do their work, skip most of the readings and aren’t doing much to keep student organization alive, that’s a little unfair to the students who went to a SLAC or top research university to try to live the life of the mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see undergrads are learning what "Gunners" are in med school - same as described by many posters here.

+1