Reverse Gunnerism

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby fatduck » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:26 pm

rose711 wrote:This video is on topic here. I think you guys will like it - if you've seen this already I'll delete the link.

F*** You by GWU Law revue


O WOW NICE FIND

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:34 pm

GWU girls are dogs. Wuff wuff.

User avatar
LLB2JD
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby LLB2JD » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:39 pm

Desert Fox wrote:My section gunner won me over with hilarious jokes.



Care to share one?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:50 pm

LLB2JD wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:My section gunner won me over with hilarious jokes.



Care to share one?


Steam of Commerce was what won me over.

User avatar
Lawquacious
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:36 am

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby Lawquacious » Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:00 pm

For those of you who are very critical of 'gunners' and seem to directly equate being a gunner almost exclusively (or exclusively) with talking a lot in class, is it fair to say that you are not including hyper-competitiveness in the definition of being a 'gunner'? From what I can tell some of the people who talk a lot are perhaps among the least competitive in terms of having a desire to directly one-up somebody; that may be the case with some who talk a lot, but I don't think talking a lot is necessarily directly correlated with hyper-competitiveness (it can just as easily be due to strong interest and desire to engage the material I think).

Vice-versa, I think that there are students who I would tend to find obnoxiously competitive, in terms of attitude and the way they cut down others to make themselves feel better, who may not participate in class a ton and hence would not be characterized as 'gunners' on here (although their competitive and mean-spirited selfish attitude could be more actually destructive and counter-productive than those who may be obnoxious by participating too much in class).

As I mentioned before, I am not trying to defend obnoxious or inappropriate behaviors, but I am trying to question some of the assumptions related to this concept of 'gunners' that people have, including this notion that there are no consequences for bashing someone who participates a lot in class.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby 09042014 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:13 pm

Lawquacious wrote:For those of you who are very critical of 'gunners' and seem to directly equate being a gunner almost exclusively (or exclusively) with talking a lot in class, is it fair to say that you are not including hyper-competitiveness in the definition of being a 'gunner'? From what I can tell some of the people who talk a lot are perhaps among the least competitive in terms of having a desire to directly one-up somebody; that may be the case with some who talk a lot, but I don't think talking a lot is necessarily directly correlated with hyper-competitiveness (it can just as easily be due to strong interest and desire to engage the material I think).

Vice-versa, I think that there are students who I would tend to find obnoxiously competitive, in terms of attitude and the way they cut down others to make themselves feel better, who may not participate in class a ton and hence would not be characterized as 'gunners' on here (although their competitive and mean-spirited selfish attitude could be more actually destructive and counter-productive than those who may be obnoxious by participating too much in class).

As I mentioned before, I am not trying to defend obnoxious or inappropriate behaviors, but I am trying to question some of the assumptions related to this concept of 'gunners' that people have, including this notion that there are no consequences for bashing someone who participates a lot in class.


There are two different versions of gunners. The original is someone who raises their hand and asks a bunch of self congratulatory stupid questions, usually about weird hypos, or about law not covered in class.

The newer definition is someone who studies hard.

Someone who raises their hand and directly answers a question asked isn't a gunner.

Definition 1 is to be hated, definition two is to be lightly made fun of, but in a friendly matter. Someone who raises their hand is cold call cover, and should be thanked.

User avatar
UnitarySpace
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:18 am

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby UnitarySpace » Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:54 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Lawquacious wrote:For those of you who are very critical of 'gunners' and seem to directly equate being a gunner almost exclusively (or exclusively) with talking a lot in class, is it fair to say that you are not including hyper-competitiveness in the definition of being a 'gunner'? From what I can tell some of the people who talk a lot are perhaps among the least competitive in terms of having a desire to directly one-up somebody; that may be the case with some who talk a lot, but I don't think talking a lot is necessarily directly correlated with hyper-competitiveness (it can just as easily be due to strong interest and desire to engage the material I think).

Vice-versa, I think that there are students who I would tend to find obnoxiously competitive, in terms of attitude and the way they cut down others to make themselves feel better, who may not participate in class a ton and hence would not be characterized as 'gunners' on here (although their competitive and mean-spirited selfish attitude could be more actually destructive and counter-productive than those who may be obnoxious by participating too much in class).

As I mentioned before, I am not trying to defend obnoxious or inappropriate behaviors, but I am trying to question some of the assumptions related to this concept of 'gunners' that people have, including this notion that there are no consequences for bashing someone who participates a lot in class.


There are two different versions of gunners. The original is someone who raises their hand and asks a bunch of self congratulatory stupid questions, usually about weird hypos, or about law not covered in class.

The newer definition is someone who studies hard.

Someone who raises their hand and directly answers a question asked isn't a gunner.

Definition 1 is to be hated, definition two is to be lightly made fun of, but in a friendly matter. Someone who raises their hand is cold call cover, and should be thanked.


This classification is excellent. In appreciating gunners, I was referring to gunners' tendency to be a cold call cover.

TTT PhD
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:48 am

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby TTT PhD » Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:51 am

Cupidity wrote:
dtwvan wrote:to look down on someone for taking their education into their hands by exploring their thoughts because they are paying thousands upon thousand of dollars is absurd.


I don't look down on them for taking their education into their hands, I look down on them for taking MY EDUCATION into their hands.

Hey, if you want to use 1/87 of the available discussion time per class to know how the RAP would apply in some obscure hypothetical, go for it. But the second you hit 2/87, that's my time you are interfering with.

Whatever they have to say is less important than what the professor could be saying instead.


Why should I care about your education?

YEM
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:50 am

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby YEM » Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:10 pm

rose711 wrote:This video is on topic here. I think you guys will like it - if you've seen this already I'll delete the link.

F*** You by GWU Law revue



Thanks. That's hilarious.

Only one hitch - the people with the best grades are the quiet ones. One of our gunners was invited not to come back after last semester.

We had a guy get 4 As - he spoke in class slightly more than I did, and I never talk unless I'm called on.

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

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby pleasetryagain » Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:30 pm

TTT PhD wrote:
Cupidity wrote:
dtwvan wrote:to look down on someone for taking their education into their hands by exploring their thoughts because they are paying thousands upon thousand of dollars is absurd.


I don't look down on them for taking their education into their hands, I look down on them for taking MY EDUCATION into their hands.

Hey, if you want to use 1/87 of the available discussion time per class to know how the RAP would apply in some obscure hypothetical, go for it. But the second you hit 2/87, that's my time you are interfering with.

Whatever they have to say is less important than what the professor could be saying instead.


Why should I care about your education?


everyone will hate you including your professor.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby vamedic03 » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:13 pm

TTT PhD wrote:
Cupidity wrote:
dtwvan wrote:to look down on someone for taking their education into their hands by exploring their thoughts because they are paying thousands upon thousand of dollars is absurd.


I don't look down on them for taking their education into their hands, I look down on them for taking MY EDUCATION into their hands.

Hey, if you want to use 1/87 of the available discussion time per class to know how the RAP would apply in some obscure hypothetical, go for it. But the second you hit 2/87, that's my time you are interfering with.

Whatever they have to say is less important than what the professor could be saying instead.


Why should I care about your education?


^ If you ask this question, you are a gunner (and, in particular, the bad sort of gunner).

HBK
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby HBK » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:05 pm

TTT PhD wrote:
Cupidity wrote:
dtwvan wrote:to look down on someone for taking their education into their hands by exploring their thoughts because they are paying thousands upon thousand of dollars is absurd.


I don't look down on them for taking their education into their hands, I look down on them for taking MY EDUCATION into their hands.

Hey, if you want to use 1/87 of the available discussion time per class to know how the RAP would apply in some obscure hypothetical, go for it. But the second you hit 2/87, that's my time you are interfering with.

Whatever they have to say is less important than what the professor could be saying instead.


Why should I care about your education?


Well everyone in your class will think you're a douche. That may hurt you in practice when people remember you and decide not to return your calls.

User avatar
Deuce
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:12 am

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby Deuce » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:16 pm

kwais wrote:I am a 0L but throughout UG I raised my hand when I had a question. That's it. I plan to do the same in law school. I don't give a flying shit what my peers think about that. When people talk about "gunners" on here it really does sound like thinly veiled jealousy that they themselves don't have the stones to ask a question for fear of being labeled a gunner. Get over it.


As a fellow 0L, I still hate the kids in UG who raise their hands too much and go on random tangents with the professor at the expense of everyone else's time. On the rare occasion I go to class, there is always some asshole that gets into random back-and-forths with the professor and tries to bring up personal story lines. Thing is- it's not jealousy. I just truly think that kid sucks and needs to shut up because A. it's UG, you can get an A in most classes if you have a functioning brain, being the class tool isn't going to improve those odds and B. it's disrespectful to cause headaches to your classmates by making them hear your ramblings in your god-awful voice.

Just sayin'

Skyhook
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:30 am

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby Skyhook » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:17 pm

Deuce wrote:As a fellow 0L, I still hate the kids in UG who raise their hands too much and go on random tangents with the professor at the expense of everyone else's time. On the rare occasion I go to class, there is always some asshole that gets into random back-and-forths with the professor and tries to bring up personal story lines. Thing is- it's not jealousy. I just truly think that kid sucks and needs to shut up because A. it's UG, you can get an A in most classes if you have a functioning brain, being the class tool isn't going to improve those odds and B. it's disrespectful to cause headaches to your classmates by making them hear your ramblings in your god-awful voice.

Just sayin'


As a chemistry instructor I absolutely agree with this.
I don't mind a little bit of off-topic stuff from the students, but most people would rather just get on with learning the material. I cut people off and move on if they are taking up too much time. "Talk to me after class" works just fine.

And then the next lesson we go through the same bullshit again... :roll:

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4854
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Reverse Gunnerism

Postby Borhas » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:24 am

dtwvan wrote:If they are off-topic, it's understandable for the class to guffaw and shake their head. However, to look down on someone for taking their education into their hands by exploring their thoughts because they are paying thousands upon thousand of dollars is absurd. A large portion of people don't like gunners because of their own lack of self-confidence or fear of what other people think. It's silly. Sitting in a classroom filled with silence after a professor asks a question annoys the hell out of me and makes me look down on my peers. Back in the 80s a gunner meant a person who told you they never studied or didn't care or imparted apathy when the truth was far from it; they went home and studied for hours. A gunner was the person playing mind games and trying to manipulate the others into not studying as hard as they might have. The term has shifted in some people's use of it, and it's a stigma that can blight a classroom when it's describing the wrong thing.

Just my point of view... each to their own. Who do you think gets better recs though? The student who volunteers to engage the professor in intelligent discourse or the sheep who sit back timidly?

what are you like a 30L?




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: towel13661 and 1 guest