Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC. My kid got the necessary score to go to Stuyvesant. We opted out. Total striver fest. It is big enough that this does not refer to everyone. It is very heavily Asian. But there are Asian kids there who are not strivers. But there are many who are. And some non-Asians who are.

It seemed like a miserable place to go to school. My child is smart enough to succeed there. And there are plenty of kids who go there and end up as smart, well-rounded, kind, well-adjusted human beings. But too many don't. Not how we wanted them to spend four years. Bronx Science also had lots of strivers, but it did not permeate the culture in the same way.

IYKYK (that means If You Know You Know - a good term to differentiate non-strivers from strivers).

Sounds like "striver" is just your lack of faith in your own child's personality and your parenting.

Actually the opposite. Most of these kids have zero personality. My child has one. While also being as smart or smarter than all of these kids - it is possible to be really smart and well-adjusted. If it takes 100% of your child's effort to excel academically and the have no bandwidth left for anything else, perhaps your child actually isn't that smart. And again - I said most, not all. Plenty of exceptions to the rule who are great kids at Stuy.

Your childish response screams striver. Very defensive. Irrational self-assurance. Totally lacking self-awareness. No emotional intelligence. I'm sure that you think none of these are important personality characteristics. I beg to differ.

What is that? A racist a-hole like yourself?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC. My kid got the necessary score to go to Stuyvesant. We opted out. Total striver fest. It is big enough that this does not refer to everyone. It is very heavily Asian. But there are Asian kids there who are not strivers. But there are many who are. And some non-Asians who are.

It seemed like a miserable place to go to school. My child is smart enough to succeed there. And there are plenty of kids who go there and end up as smart, well-rounded, kind, well-adjusted human beings. But too many don't. Not how we wanted them to spend four years. Bronx Science also had lots of strivers, but it did not permeate the culture in the same way.

IYKYK (that means If You Know You Know - a good term to differentiate non-strivers from strivers).

Your description of Stuy is how I currently feel about Princeton.

That element exists at Princeton but it is far from common and is far less common at Princeton than at Stuyvesant. Though I think it is likely more common at Princeton now than it was 30 years ago when many of us went to college.

Princeton does have a decent sized cohort of quirky intellectual type. But there is a very nuanced difference between them and strivers. Primarily in that they truly enjoy learning for the sake of learning. They might want to achieve the highest level of academic excellence possible, but a lot of them actually are going for academia (which can be really cut-throat, but again, in a different way).

Speaking of which, a great example of a striver is Kent from Real Genius. If you haven't seen it, you need to. Great movie. Hilarious. A bit dated but still worth it. And again, note that Kent was white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC. My kid got the necessary score to go to Stuyvesant. We opted out. Total striver fest. It is big enough that this does not refer to everyone. It is very heavily Asian. But there are Asian kids there who are not strivers. But there are many who are. And some non-Asians who are.

It seemed like a miserable place to go to school. My child is smart enough to succeed there. And there are plenty of kids who go there and end up as smart, well-rounded, kind, well-adjusted human beings. But too many don't. Not how we wanted them to spend four years. Bronx Science also had lots of strivers, but it did not permeate the culture in the same way.

IYKYK (that means If You Know You Know - a good term to differentiate non-strivers from strivers).

Your description of Stuy is how I currently feel about Princeton.

Based on what experience? Hearsay and reputation or you actually have a kid or relative there?

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC. My kid got the necessary score to go to Stuyvesant. We opted out. Total striver fest. It is big enough that this does not refer to everyone. It is very heavily Asian. But there are Asian kids there who are not strivers. But there are many who are. And some non-Asians who are.

It seemed like a miserable place to go to school. My child is smart enough to succeed there. And there are plenty of kids who go there and end up as smart, well-rounded, kind, well-adjusted human beings. But too many don't. Not how we wanted them to spend four years. Bronx Science also had lots of strivers, but it did not permeate the culture in the same way.

IYKYK (that means If You Know You Know - a good term to differentiate non-strivers from strivers).

Your description of Stuy is how I currently feel about Princeton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, anyone who uses the word "striver" is someone with an unhealthy obsession with other people's children and insecurity about their own children.

Nope. It is people who want to surround their children with smart, interesting, funny, kind, curious, sincere people. I think for you that list stops at smart.

The highest concentration of this type that either of our kids ever met was/is at their ivies. They are like this too. Almost everyone there studies and puts in effort to get to the next step, but they also have fun, hang out, have time for sleep, have extracurriculars that really do bring them joy. They are supportive of each other.
There were more "grinders" and "strivers" (the negative way DCUM describes them on this thread) at their private high school and some of their competitive summer programs. However, to be successful reaching the next goal when one is surrounded by other smart interesting creative disciplined students, as happens at Ivies/stanford/MIT, one does have to "grind" (study hard) and "strive"--make sure they are networking and chasing opportunities at the ivy. Newsflash the award-winning, faculty favorite top kids in physics, engineering are studying hard! These are difficult subjects.

Neither of ours had to do this level of studying at their competitive high school, everything came easier to them than peers. One is likely top 5% at their ivy and the other is/was top 1/4(class of 2026 just graduated).
Each student has to make their own calculation of how much they want to work to reach their goals, and to me at least I do not see anything wrong with those who had to work a lot harder in high school versus those that did not feel the real competition until college. Better to have them put their heart into it than face the competition and give up their dreams(MD/phd for one and phd later after they see what happens with a funded startup). If that is "grinding" and "striving" so be it. Very few people on this board have the intelligence level of the 99.9% to know what it really feels like, even when you sit near the top of a competitive peer group.

I am an MD married to a stem professor: neither of us got where we were without grinding at times and striving at times especially grad/med. We credit our top-15 college(s) for helping teach us how to compete for the next level. We would have stagnated at easier schools without that peer group push.

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, anyone who uses the word "striver" is someone with an unhealthy obsession with other people's children and insecurity about their own children.

Nope. It is people who want to surround their children with smart, interesting, funny, kind, curious, sincere people. I think for you that list stops at smart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC. My kid got the necessary score to go to Stuyvesant. We opted out. Total striver fest. It is big enough that this does not refer to everyone. It is very heavily Asian. But there are Asian kids there who are not strivers. But there are many who are. And some non-Asians who are.

It seemed like a miserable place to go to school. My child is smart enough to succeed there. And there are plenty of kids who go there and end up as smart, well-rounded, kind, well-adjusted human beings. But too many don't. Not how we wanted them to spend four years. Bronx Science also had lots of strivers, but it did not permeate the culture in the same way.

IYKYK (that means If You Know You Know - a good term to differentiate non-strivers from strivers).

Sounds like "striver" is just your lack of faith in your own child's personality and your parenting.

Actually the opposite. Most of these kids have zero personality. My child has one. While also being as smart or smarter than all of these kids - it is possible to be really smart and well-adjusted. If it takes 100% of your child's effort to excel academically and the have no bandwidth left for anything else, perhaps your child actually isn't that smart. And again - I said most, not all. Plenty of exceptions to the rule who are great kids at Stuy.

Your childish response screams striver. Very defensive. Irrational self-assurance. Totally lacking self-awareness. No emotional intelligence. I'm sure that you think none of these are important personality characteristics. I beg to differ.

At the end of the day, anyone who uses the word "striver" is someone with an unhealthy obsession with other people's children and insecurity about their own children.

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC. My kid got the necessary score to go to Stuyvesant. We opted out. Total striver fest. It is big enough that this does not refer to everyone. It is very heavily Asian. But there are Asian kids there who are not strivers. But there are many who are. And some non-Asians who are.

It seemed like a miserable place to go to school. My child is smart enough to succeed there. And there are plenty of kids who go there and end up as smart, well-rounded, kind, well-adjusted human beings. But too many don't. Not how we wanted them to spend four years. Bronx Science also had lots of strivers, but it did not permeate the culture in the same way.

IYKYK (that means If You Know You Know - a good term to differentiate non-strivers from strivers).

Sounds like "striver" is just your lack of faith in your own child's personality and your parenting.

I asked ChatGPT about these terms in the context of college admissions, and whether the connotations were negative or positive. ChatGPT may be wrong about a lot of things, but when it comes to language use, it is clearly a better arbiter than any of us since it’s trained on so many examples. Here is what it said, which suggests that sometimes they're positive and sometimes they're negative, and so both sides of this debate are a little bit correct. It's usually positive when describing kids from less affluent backgrounds, trying to improve their situation in life. It's usually negative in the context of competitive, affluent schools and communities.
____
In college admissions discussions, “striver” and “grinder” are related but not identical terms. Both refer to students who work very hard, but they carry different social and cultural connotations.

Striver
A striver is someone who is highly ambitious and actively trying to improve their situation, achieve goals, or move upward.

Positive connotations:
* Motivated
* Determined
* Resilient
* Values education and achievement
* Overcomes obstacles

Negative connotations:
* Can imply excessive status-seeking
* May be seen as calculating or image-conscious
* Sometimes suggests someone trying “too hard” to impress others

In admissions discourse, “striver” is often somewhat ambiguous. An admissions officer might admire a student who is striving despite limited opportunities. On the other hand, among affluent, highly competitive communities, “striver” can be used critically to describe students who accumulate activities primarily for college admissions.

Examples:
* “She’s a striver who taught herself advanced science because her school didn’t offer it.” (positive)
* “The school is full of strivers chasing Ivy League admissions.” (mixed to negative)

Grinder
A grinder is someone who succeeds primarily through persistence, discipline, and sustained effort rather than obvious natural talent.

Positive connotations:
* Hardworking
* Reliable
* Disciplined
* Doesn’t give up

Negative connotations:
* May imply lack of creativity or originality
* Can suggest someone who wins through sheer volume of work
* Sometimes contrasted with “genius” or “naturally gifted”

In highly selective admissions circles, “grinder” often has a slightly more negative connotation than “striver.” It can imply a student who is checking every box, studying constantly, and maximizing credentials, but who may not have a distinctive intellectual spark.

Examples:
* “He wasn’t the most talented math student, but he was a grinder.” (mostly positive)
* “Harvard gets thousands of grinders with perfect scores.” (somewhat dismissive)

Anonymous wrote:Strivers on DCUM are a racial stereotype/labeling tool, used as opposed to “well-adjusted”/“well-rounded”, which in turn refers to a racial group gaming the college process (and beyond) through systematic cheating (e.g., buying adhd diagnosis and faking as Hispanic to gain unfair advantage) and mud-slinging other groups in the meantime.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:To clarify: there are lots of examples of strivers who are Asian. But it is not a negatively Asian term.

The Trump example above is excellent - total social striver. And everyone should step away from DCUM for a second and watch the movie Election - she is a total striver - and is a pretty blond American girl.

I am Jewish and some of the worst strivers I know are fellow Jews.

So would the Asians here stop being so defensive. Stop completely lacking self-awareness. There are countless highly successful Asian-Americans who are not strivers at all. Sundar Pichai is ridiculously successful. He is brilliant. He is not the coolest guy around but he is not a total nerd. But he is universally acknowledged for working his way up through an incredibly competitive company that is likely full of strivers without being a striver. It can be done.

Who are you to tell us who is a striver and who is not? Do you think you have better judgement or better intelligence to do that? I think neither.

I live in NYC. My kid got the necessary score to go to Stuyvesant. We opted out. Total striver fest. It is big enough that this does not refer to everyone. It is very heavily Asian. But there are Asian kids there who are not strivers. But there are many who are. And some non-Asians who are.

It seemed like a miserable place to go to school. My child is smart enough to succeed there. And there are plenty of kids who go there and end up as smart, well-rounded, kind, well-adjusted human beings. But too many don't. Not how we wanted them to spend four years. Bronx Science also had lots of strivers, but it did not permeate the culture in the same way.

IYKYK (that means If You Know You Know - a good term to differentiate non-strivers from strivers).

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 kid is younger but. . .are many 17 year olds "genuinely and intrinsically passionate about some cause"? It just sounds awful.

Not many, but I knew a kid who went to an ivy who was into an ecological cause as a teen. They actually did choose and complete a major related to this cause, and after graduation they are still on the same career path that they were passionate about as a teen. It is not the most profitable path they could have chosen, but sounds very rewarding.

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 everyone 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.

+100