Smart People Cram Too.

There is a lot going on this week: bond yields continue to rise, and OpenAI published proofs to 400 outstanding math problems.

I want to focus the discussion on the debate over “strivers”. Consider the tweet below:

What is a striver anyway? It seems there are two definitions that are being conflated. The first is something along the lines of an overbearing parent who forces their child to participate in spelling bees or take music lessons against the child’s wishes. This is similar to the concept of tiger parenting, so there is no need to invent a new term. In this case I agree with FischerKing: kids who show little talent or inclination for certain activities should not be forced to do them. This is a waste of time for both parties.

As for the second definition, I had always thought of strivers as young adults who are highly motivated rather than being forced by their parents. For example, someone who strives to get into a good law school or medical school would fit this definition. This is the definition I have in mind. In this case, I disagree that striving is bad. Another argument is that striving is orthogonal to IQ: strivers are not that smart, or are going against the will of nature. “Smart people don’t need to study,” as the argument goes. For example, Hunter Ash writes:

This is where I disagree. Striving is still positively correlated with IQ in the sense that the ability to quickly memorize and recall knowledge, such as when preparing for a test, is positively correlated with IQ. So the smartest strivers still come out on top. It’s a grind, but it’s still IQ-filtered. The belief that someone with a sufficiently high IQ does not have to study, or can just “divine” the answers, is a myth. Where IQ comes into play is in how well one performs on a given task, be it a high-stakes exam or academic research, when controlling for hours studied.

It seems there is so much “cope” in this debate by people who ought to know better. For example:

The acceptance rate for these tech jobs is less than one percent, even among people who practice/cram. Tons of people study and cram, and few get those jobs. So IQ still matters in the end. If many people are competing for certain high-income jobs, and the people who land those jobs tend to be smart as indicated by credentials and other signifiers of IQ, then how is it not correlated with IQ? Coding interviews are notoriously hard, and this is assuming you pass all the screening. Find me these 100-IQ FAANG or quant employees who just “crammed” their way to success.

My argument has been that striving is rational, and that success at striving is positively correlated with IQ. Anti-strivers create a false dichotomy where you have to choose between “people who are naturally good” or are “not that smart and have to cram/strive.” This ignores the third option: smart people who do cram/strive.

Second, striving is rational because there is so much at stake (really high salaries, even when adjusted for inflation and student loan debt) and, consequently, cutthroat competition. As discussed in my post, “the strivers were right,” striving and grinding are rational and justified given how much white-collar salaries have ballooned over the past 15-20 years, but also the rising barriers to the middle class, notably homeownership, parenting costs, and healthcare costs. Even new cars and phone plans, and many things taken for granted, have become really expensive, with no help from policymakers and no relief on the horizon.

The messaging of today’s complacent ruling class/elite is “earn more money.” Or “buy stocks to hedge inflation.” We’re told that paying more for gas is patriotic and a worthwhile tradeoff for hurting Iran’s economy. Unless you can count on a big inheritance to bail you out, you have to plan your career early to have a shot at the upper-middle class. Given the mediocre performance of Bitcoin since 2021, you’re not going to get rich with speculation. So many people thought they would retire early with crypto, especially with Trump in office, only to have those dreams evaporate in 2025-2026. Your only options are to buy stocks and/or earn more money, not crypto, sports betting, or other speculative crap.

Hating on strivers reads as, “How dare you try to create conditions for yourself where you can earn more money.” Also, given how expensive tuition is, why would you not want to get the most for your money by studying and cramming to get as high of a GPA as possible? Why only rely on talent and forgo studying when you can do both to maximize your chances of success?

Yes, if inflation were low, white-collar jobs paid little, and the stock market didn’t go up much, then, yeah, maybe striving could be a waste of effort. But today inflation is so high that you need to strive to get the necessary credentials to earn a good enough job to buy stocks and/or homes to hedge it. Nothing is getting more affordable. Student loan payments are fixed, whereas income (especially for white-collar jobs) and stock prices exceed inflation. There is no good alternative.

The way I see it is, yes, you’re allowed to hate strivers, but you void your right to complain about low wages, bad job prospects, lack of affordability, etc. It’s expensive to live in America. You need good wages to hedge inflation. Hence, striving.