In defense of gunning

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby 270910 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:06 pm

Hey-O wrote:This makes me incredibly sad and nervous. I love participating in class. It keeps me focused and interested in the material. I don't want everyone to hate me, but I also want to do well. I'm pretty sure everyone is going to call me a gunner. Is a gunner just an active participant or a jerk? But it kind of sounds like people are saying that active participants are jerks.


You have to realize most classes are not about active participation. The prof cold calls a person and interacts with him/her, and that's part of the teaching. If you raise your hand every class, it stands out because the point of class isn't YOUR questions, it's the PROFESSOR'S questions.

Every now and then it's fine - when the prof looks for volunteers or when you need to clarify a point, and most especially when you are called on - by all means, speak up! But there isn't room (in your average law class with dozens of students) for 'active participation' unless you win the Socratic lottery.

goodolgil
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby goodolgil » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:17 pm

Hey-O wrote:This makes me incredibly sad and nervous. I love participating in class. It keeps me focused and interested in the material. I don't want everyone to hate me, but I also want to do well. I'm pretty sure everyone is going to call me a gunner. Is a gunner just an active participant or a jerk? But it kind of sounds like people are saying that active participants are jerks.


+1

I talked a lot in class during undergrad. I'm gonna have to bite my tongue, since it seems like ANY form of consistent participation is frowned upon in law school.

The whole "no one wants to hear you argue with a professor" is a bit anti-intellectual, but I guess it makes sense considering law school is a professional school and all people care about are the exams. I wish it wasn't like that though.

yeff
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:32 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby yeff » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:19 pm

To any 2Ls or 3Ls - to what extent is this different in upper-level courses, and in seminars?

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby 270910 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:25 pm

goodolgil wrote:The whole "no one wants to hear you argue with a professor" is a bit anti-intellectual


Believe me, once you get to law school you will realize how ridiculous that statement is.

Hey-O
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Hey-O » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:42 pm

disco_barred wrote:
goodolgil wrote:The whole "no one wants to hear you argue with a professor" is a bit anti-intellectual


Believe me, once you get to law school you will realize how ridiculous that statement is.


Why? What do you mean by this? Do you mean that people do want to hear you argue with the professor? Or that it's not anti intellectual?

User avatar
Jericwithers
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Jericwithers » Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:51 pm

Hey-O wrote:
disco_barred wrote:
goodolgil wrote:The whole "no one wants to hear you argue with a professor" is a bit anti-intellectual


Believe me, once you get to law school you will realize how ridiculous that statement is.


Why? What do you mean by this? Do you mean that people do want to hear you argue with the professor? Or that it's not anti intellectual?


I know I annoy people when I argue with my business professor, but that could just be indicative of my arguing skills more than anything else lol.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby 270910 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:09 pm

Hey-O wrote:
disco_barred wrote:
goodolgil wrote:The whole "no one wants to hear you argue with a professor" is a bit anti-intellectual


Believe me, once you get to law school you will realize how ridiculous that statement is.


Why? What do you mean by this? Do you mean that people do want to hear you argue with the professor? Or that it's not anti intellectual?


Because nobody gets upset, or mad, or says something snarky if people have intelligent comments. But people who try to argue with the professor 99 times out of 100 are raging idiots, ideologues, arrogant, confused, or some combination of the above.

Plus, the very concept of 'arguing with the professor' is so... undergrad. There's basically 0 indoctrination in law school, and the profs VERY rarely take any kind of stance you could argue with. Comments along the lines of "couldn't you argue ________" are quite appropriate and well received, because that's what learning the law is all about -formulating arguments.

Once again, however, the way class is run a professor usually illustrates points by interacting with a single student. That's the whole method. So there's a massive display of ego when one person constantly adds their two cents. The reputation for gunning comes because people often just throw out their opinion when it has no place.

The moral of the story is: Law school is often extremely intellectual, but those who talk too much often (but not exclusively) are the least intellectual part of it, and the criticism of those comments the most intellectual part of it. Thus you calling it anti-intellectual was a basic 180 on the actual situation.
Last edited by 270910 on Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Veyron » Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:24 am

This thread has become much more informative than I might have imagined.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Renzo » Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:36 am

Future gunners of the world, take note:

You don't have to thrust your hand higher and harder, or wave it around to try and get the professor to call on you.
She isn't failing to call on you because she can't see your hand. She's not calling on you because she's tired of you, and so is everyone else.

User avatar
pleasetryagain
Posts: 762
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby pleasetryagain » Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:57 am


tram988
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby tram988 » Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:58 am

FeuerFrei wrote:Gunner are the kids trying to show off answering questions in an admitted students day mock class. Douches.

I saw this-- one kid was waving around like crazy. I'll never forget it ahaha

User avatar
Jericwithers
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Jericwithers » Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:00 am

Renzo wrote:Future gunners of the world, take note:

You don't have to thrust your hand higher and harder, or wave it around to try and get the professor to call on you.
She isn't failing to call on you because she can't see your hand. She's not calling on you because she's tired of you, and so is everyone else.


Isn't this a gross generalization? Just because someone becomes a law professor doesn't mean they become unaffected by normal issues with vision and perception. She's a teacher, not Superwoman.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby rayiner » Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:24 pm

Veyron wrote:As someone who has worked a job paying just a tiny fraction of a big law salary, it seems downright stupid not to gun as hard as you can for a position that will pay someone (with no experience) a starting salary well > 100k. Are the people opposed to gunning just folks straight from UG who don't know the value of a dollar or is there something that I'm missing?


People are opposed to gunning because it doesn't help.

User avatar
lostjake
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby lostjake » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:01 pm

disco_barred wrote:
Hey-O wrote:
disco_barred wrote:
goodolgil wrote:The whole "no one wants to hear you argue with a professor" is a bit anti-intellectual


Believe me, once you get to law school you will realize how ridiculous that statement is.


Why? What do you mean by this? Do you mean that people do want to hear you argue with the professor? Or that it's not anti intellectual?


Because nobody gets upset, or mad, or says something snarky if people have intelligent comments. But people who try to argue with the professor 99 times out of 100 are raging idiots, ideologues, arrogant, confused, or some combination of the above.

Plus, the very concept of 'arguing with the professor' is so... undergrad. There's basically 0 indoctrination in law school, and the profs VERY rarely take any kind of stance you could argue with. Comments along the lines of "couldn't you argue ________" are quite appropriate and well received, because that's what learning the law is all about -formulating arguments.

Once again, however, the way class is run a professor usually illustrates points by interacting with a single student. That's the whole method. So there's a massive display of ego when one person constantly adds their two cents. The reputation for gunning comes because people often just throw out their opinion when it has no place.

The moral of the story is: Law school is often extremely intellectual, but those who talk too much often (but not exclusively) are the least intellectual part of it, and the criticism of those comments the most intellectual part of it. Thus you calling it anti-intellectual was a basic 180 on the actual situation.


-1

User avatar
catharsis
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:48 am

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby catharsis » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:04 pm


User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby romothesavior » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:13 pm

afghan007 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpVtqbnRatU


What worries me about this video is that their definition of gunner will force me to completely change how I operate in class. I go to a small private school with very small classes where just about everyone is expected to contribute to class discussions. Participation is almost always a part of my grade in class, either as a "bump" at the end of the semester or as an outright 10% of the grade. Asking questions and making comments is the norm, and I don't think there has been a class session all year where I haven't contributed. I know this is probably shocking to some of you state school kids... but I think most people who go to smaller schools will say this is the norm, especially in majors where discussion is empasized (like philosophy, literature, history, etc.)

I definitely don't think I have a reputation as a gunner at my undergrad and I don't plan to contribute as much in law school, but this video seems to paint anyone who speaks up as a gunner. A few of the people in the vid say that even when you have a valid or intelligent point, its still gunning. I'm one of those types of people who wants to be liked by everyone, so I plan on keeping my mouth closed as much as possible. Still, it is hard to break a habit of participation that has been ingrained into my by my professors for the last four years.

User avatar
Jericwithers
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Jericwithers » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:17 pm

romothesavior wrote:
afghan007 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpVtqbnRatU


What worries me about this video is that their definition of gunner will force me to completely change how I operate in class. I go to a small private school with very small classes where just about everyone is expected to contribute to class discussions. Participation is almost always a part of my grade in class, either as a "bump" at the end of the semester or as an outright 10% of the grade. Asking questions and making comments is the norm, and I don't think there has been a class session all year where I haven't contributed. I know this is probably shocking to some of you state school kids... but I think most people who go to smaller schools will say this is the norm, especially in majors where discussion is empasized (like philosophy, literature, history, etc.)

I definitely don't think I have a reputation as a gunner at my undergrad and I don't plan to contribute as much in law school, but this video seems to paint anyone who speaks up as a gunner. A few of the people in the vid say that even when you have a valid or intelligent point, its still gunning. I'm one of those types of people who wants to be liked by everyone, so I plan on keeping my mouth closed as much as possible. Still, it is hard to break a habit of participation that has been ingrained into my by my professors for the last four years.


Find a few friends in your classes, participate as you wish, and then see if you can keep those friends. If you can't then you need to scale it back. Honestly, just seek honest feedback rather than worry about this before hand. If you go to Duke I'll let you know if you are being a gunner (annoying) if you ask.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby 270910 » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:18 pm

romothesavior wrote:
afghan007 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpVtqbnRatU


What worries me about this video is that their definition of gunner will force me to completely change how I operate in class. I go to a small private school with very small classes where just about everyone is expected to contribute to class discussions. Participation is almost always a part of my grade in class, either as a "bump" at the end of the semester or as an outright 10% of the grade. Asking questions and making comments is the norm, and I don't think there has been a class session all year where I haven't contributed. I know this is probably shocking to some of you state school kids... but I think most people who go to smaller schools will say this is the norm, especially in majors where discussion is empasized (like philosophy, literature, history, etc.)

I definitely don't think I have a reputation as a gunner at my undergrad and I don't plan to contribute as much in law school, but this video seems to paint anyone who speaks up as a gunner. A few of the people in the vid say that even when you have a valid or intelligent point, its still gunning. I'm one of those types of people who wants to be liked by everyone, so I plan on keeping my mouth closed as much as possible. Still, it is hard to break a habit of participation that has been ingrained into my by my professors for the last four years.


ITT: 0Ls realize that law school is different from college.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby romothesavior » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:20 pm

disco_barred wrote:ITT: 0Ls realize that law school is different from college.


I already realized it, but thanks disco.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Renzo » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:21 pm

Jericwithers wrote:
Renzo wrote:Future gunners of the world, take note:

You don't have to thrust your hand higher and harder, or wave it around to try and get the professor to call on you.
She isn't failing to call on you because she can't see your hand. She's not calling on you because she's tired of you, and so is everyone else.


Isn't this a gross generalization? Just because someone becomes a law professor doesn't mean they become unaffected by normal issues with vision and perception. She's a teacher, not Superwoman.

For vision to play a role, you'd have to assume that any gunner is ever going to sit anywhere further away than the second row, center.

User avatar
Jericwithers
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Jericwithers » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:29 pm

Renzo wrote:
Jericwithers wrote:
Renzo wrote:Future gunners of the world, take note:

You don't have to thrust your hand higher and harder, or wave it around to try and get the professor to call on you.
She isn't failing to call on you because she can't see your hand. She's not calling on you because she's tired of you, and so is everyone else.


Isn't this a gross generalization? Just because someone becomes a law professor doesn't mean they become unaffected by normal issues with vision and perception. She's a teacher, not Superwoman.

For vision to play a role, you'd have to assume that any gunner is ever going to sit anywhere further away than the second row, center.


You assume that people always get to pick their seats.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Renzo » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:35 pm

Jericwithers wrote:
Renzo wrote:
Jericwithers wrote:
Renzo wrote:Future gunners of the world, take note:

You don't have to thrust your hand higher and harder, or wave it around to try and get the professor to call on you.
She isn't failing to call on you because she can't see your hand. She's not calling on you because she's tired of you, and so is everyone else.


Isn't this a gross generalization? Just because someone becomes a law professor doesn't mean they become unaffected by normal issues with vision and perception. She's a teacher, not Superwoman.

For vision to play a role, you'd have to assume that any gunner is ever going to sit anywhere further away than the second row, center.


You assume that people always get to pick their seats.

True. My sections are like 90 people. It would take most of the semester just to organize the bureaucracy needed to assign seats by any method other than "write your name on this chart where you are sitting today, and that's your seat."

User avatar
profs<3mycomments
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby profs<3mycomments » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:40 pm

To those who feel like they are "active participants" in UG - a lot of what makes people hate gunners is a lack of respect. Everyone in the classroom is making a huge investment to enter a very competitive environment in which first year grades mean everything. They don't want to watch the professor get derailed by gunners who ask the professor absurd questions based on every errant thought. They don't want to compete with 10 gunners waving their hands when they actually have a basic clarifying question to ask. And they don't want to listen to you try to guess the next thing the professor is going to say. 1L is not the place for 80 other students to experience your intellectual journey through the law.

Rules for not being a gunner:

1) If you have taken up everyone's time with two or more questions during a class period, it's time to give others an opportunity.

2) If you find yourself not taking notes or missing a point because your hand is up, put it down for your own good. The goal is the exam and it's important.

3) EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE if your point never gets made. The universe will absorb the loss.

It's that simple folks!

User avatar
Speedzie
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:26 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby Speedzie » Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:05 pm

yeff wrote:To any 2Ls or 3Ls - to what extent is this different in upper-level courses, and in seminars?


At my school the socratic method all but stops after 1L, although a few professors will use a modified form of it. So, raising your hand becomes more normal. BUT, there's still a fine line between talking and talking too much though. Some people, and you know they aren't the best students, just love to talk every class - and it's annoying as hell! As Mr. Garrison said, "there are no stupid questions, only stupid people."

User avatar
quickquestionthanks
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:30 pm

Re: In defense of gunning

Postby quickquestionthanks » Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:18 pm

Some good advice I heard was:

If you don't think your class has a gunner, it's probably you.




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 2 guests