|
In my experience, like tends to attract like. intellectually curious kids like being around other intellectually curious kids so they can happily talk about topics of mutual interest. Party animals like to be around other party animals so they can… well… party.
But I have always wondered, do strivers prefer to be around other strivers? Perhaps they would enjoy a majority grinder/striver school so they can all network? Or so even strivers prefer not to be around too many other strivers because things get a little too competitive and stressful? |
|
I think the pejorative associations are kind of rooted in its English heritage.
In Britain, it is unseemly to strive. It all should come naturally. Think about all the British explorations that were so amateurishly executed with tragic and fatal consequences. All because one (the organizer) should not appear to be trying so hard. Maybe it comes from their resignation to social class structure. Michelle Obama was derided as a striver by their press which is kind of hard to understand. Her work hard ethic and pull yourself up by the bootstraps is actually very American. I guess the British dont do that. |
This. Striver has become a pejorative because upper class parents don’t like to see kids who are smarter and work harder pass their kids and get into better schools. So they find a way to make all that hard work and smarts into a negative. “Oh, those smart, hardworking kids are just pretending to like physics and don’t have a life outside of homework. They are just grinders. They aren’t genuine like my kid.” BTW, lovelovelove the PP who says grinding is ok for athletes but no one else.
|
I don't think the pejorative associations have to do with work ethic. Yes, that may have been true in aristocratic times, when the gentry didn't work, but this is modern America. Notice that when you describe a student as "hard working" most people would not consider this description pejorative. "Hard working" is a positive trait. There is additional meaning associated with "grinder" and "striver" as it applies to college students and that's the part that carries the negative weight. |
| “Strivers” is considered racist by most because it’s a nod to Asian applicants. Avoid |
The additional meaning is ascribed by those seeking to devalue the hard work put in by other students so their students look better. |
Exactly. It’s a code word used by talentless, jealous and obnoxious white people to demonize brilliant Asians. The world would be a much better place without these evil a-holes. |
Nope. There is a difference, even if you refuse to acknowledge it. |
What’s the difference? |
| If you are not a grinder you will not be successful in life. If you are successful you are a grinder if you know it or not. |
Let’s take two hard working kids. Both Asian if you like. One loves physics and enthusiastically studies it. Genuinely contributes to class discussions, helps his friends when they struggle. Second kid doesn’t give a darn about linguistics but heard it was an undersubscribed major and his best shot of getting into Harvard. He’ll drop the major for something else that will get him to Wall Street. Will only talk in class if participation is graded or if the teacher is a letter writer. And why would he help his friends if they are competing with him in college apps. Which one is the striver? It’s not hard to tell! |
Exactly. |
Both Asian? Really? Why would you include this sentence? |
DP. Another poster said striver was just a racist term for Asians. This person is trying to explain the difference is between the attitude of a striver and a hard worker, and you can just assume they are the same race (Asian presumably because it was brought up) because the race isn't the issue at all. |
To control for race since both are the same, and to show you race doesn’t matter, and the distinction still stands. You can sub white, black, I don’t care. |