2018 USNWR Rankings Forum

[Rigo]

I find it interesting that "staying at median" is presented as a norm here. Through mathematical chance, "staying at median" (or thereabouts) has a ~50% failure rate.

Yeah, these guys don't make sense all the time

Have you read any of the replies to that post? The median can literally be over half of the students at a school, and everyone else can be above the median.

50% of the students perform below the median. That would be a failure for students wanting biglaw

Is this a really dumb troll?

[PrezRand]

I find it interesting that "staying at median" is presented as a norm here. Through mathematical chance, "staying at median" (or thereabouts) has a ~50% failure rate.

Yeah, these guys don't make sense all the time

Have you read any of the replies to that post? The median can literally be over half of the students at a school, and everyone else can be above the median.

50% of the students perform below the median. That would be a failure for students wanting biglaw

Is this a really dumb troll?

Please explain

[goldenbear2020]

I find it interesting that "staying at median" is presented as a norm here. Through mathematical chance, "staying at median" (or thereabouts) has a ~50% failure rate.

Yeah, these guys don't make sense all the time

Have you read any of the replies to that post? The median can literally be over half of the students at a school, and everyone else can be above the median.

50% of the students perform below the median. That would be a failure for students wanting biglaw

Why? The T5 places >70% into BL/FC and the T13 places >55%. Only below that is the median student pwned.

[guynourmin]

I find it interesting that "staying at median" is presented as a norm here. Through mathematical chance, "staying at median" (or thereabouts) has a ~50% failure rate.

Yeah, these guys don't make sense all the time

Have you read any of the replies to that post? The median can literally be over half of the students at a school, and everyone else can be above the median.

50% of the students perform below the median. That would be a failure for students wanting biglaw

Is this a really dumb troll?

Please explain

you aren't responding to all the posts above this that explain how the LS curve works and are saying basically the same thing that has been solidly debunked at this point.

[nimbus cloud]

I find it interesting that "staying at median" is presented as a norm here. Through mathematical chance, "staying at median" (or thereabouts) has a ~50% failure rate.

Yeah, these guys don't make sense all the time

Have you read any of the replies to that post? The median can literally be over half of the students at a school, and everyone else can be above the median.

50% of the students perform below the median. That would be a failure for students wanting biglaw

Is this a really dumb troll?

Please explain

Using a previous (slightly extreme) example of the typical grade distribution in a T13:

35 45 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 90 100

Only 35 and 45 are below median here (50). That is 2 out of 15 students who are below median, a lot less than 50%.

[PrezRand]

I find it interesting that "staying at median" is presented as a norm here. Through mathematical chance, "staying at median" (or thereabouts) has a ~50% failure rate.

Yeah, these guys don't make sense all the time

Have you read any of the replies to that post? The median can literally be over half of the students at a school, and everyone else can be above the median.

50% of the students perform below the median. That would be a failure for students wanting biglaw

Is this a really dumb troll?

Please explain

Using a previous (slightly extreme) example of the typical grade distribution in a T13:

35 45 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 90 100

Only 35 and 45 are below median here (50). That is 2 out of 15 students who are below median, a lot less than 50%.

Idk why but I was referring to the 50th percentile of students as being the median.

[WaitWhat]

Seems to me that a hugely important aspect of the law school application/selection process is generally being overlooked on this forum: Cost.

Obviously ranking (UNS News based or otherwise) is important, because in very broad terms the higher your law school is ranked the better its perception is among employers, which in turn increases your relative odds of getting a Big Law job (which seems to be what most folks on here desire). That said, once you have actual gotten into a "good" law school (I will define "good" as any one regularly ranked in the top 20, although feel free to quibble on what the arbitrary cut-off should be), what you quickly realize is that your chances of (1) getting interviews, and (2) getting a job, is based almost solely on how you have actually performed in said law school relative to your peers (and to a lesser extent what fancy journal you are a member of, with the Law Review being the obvious best option). In short, outside of the top say 5 schools on the list, you need to get good to very good grades (no easy thing, given the ludicrously antiquated and capricious manner in which law school grading is generally conducted) at your school in order to be relatively assured of landing a Big law job in any event. And once that realization sinks in, COST looms as a rather large consideration. Take, for example, a hypothetical student X. X had the grades and the LSAT to get into a bunch of tasty law schools. X had the choice between fine institutions ranked anywhere from 7 to 15 on the law school rankings range. Based on the prevailing wisdom that higher rankings are King, X enrolls at the school ranked 7th. It is a small, private school halfway across the country from where he went to college/is from. It costs a fortune and the weather blows. X is a middling student at X, and his grades fall into the great, undifferentiated mass of "ok" that constitutes the bulk of the law school student body. The prestigious law review is not an option, and thus X is a member of some journal about foreign law and policy. X isn't an editor of said journal, because frankly he would like to have some free time. X gets his OCI at-bats, because he is at a top flight school, but X doesn't exactly kill because X is not in the top third of his class and lacks super-star extras on his resume. X ends ups clerking at three firms over two summers, one of which doesn't make X an offer, and then predictably takes the offer from the biggest of the two firms that do make offers. X enters his randomly selected Big Law job in a random city with a boat-load of debt (not at all uncommon of course). Of course, all in all, X has "succeeded." He has grasped the brass ring and leased a nice car. BUT......what if X had chosen a lower ranked, but significantly less expensive school? Say X is eligible for in-state tuition at say, a school rankled 11th or 14th (these are randomly elected #s, not matched to this year's rankings)? What if X went to one of those schools, paid significantly less, did a bit better grade-wise (as the overall competition was slightly less rabid)? One very possible scenario is this: X goes through the same random OCI process, gets another random Big Law job (in a different city) and makes about the same amount of money doing the same work, but with less debt. X also realizes, as everyone does, that once one enters Big Law, where you went to school and what the school's rank was is essentially meaningless, aside from people liking to share war stories and give each other a hard time. What matters is work, and how much of it you can or will do.

Anyway, obviously one size does not fit all here. Elite law schools were some sort of an in-state tuition break are an option at all are relatively rare, and the fact pattern above won't work for plenty of people. But, the overall concepts still hold: think about the cost, and realize that the cost may not be worth it in the end (from a ultimate job placement/career perspective) unless you are confident you can excel at the school you pick. If gazing at a certain diploma while you review docs or revise a brief at 8:00 p.m. is going to be "worth it" for you, then there is no real counter-argument to that. I am also putting aside the "quality of the legal education" angle here, as that is pointless (something else you will all realize once you actually get into law school - but that is a whole other post...)

[guynourmin]

Seems to me that a hugely important aspect... is generally being overlooked on this forum: Cost.

except its not and this board is hyper-debt conscious compared to your average student body.

[somedeadman]

IMO, HYSCC probably gives its grads aiming for BL a ~90% chance of doing so, and that's as close to a guarantee of lucrative employment as anyone can reasonably expect from a degree program.

Just no reason to say T6 and exclude Penn if you're using a 90% threshold as a guarantee, especially when T6 have lower Biglaw placement. Yeah yeah I know self selection yadda yadda yadda but you can't really prove that.

Point is you're never guaranteed BigLaw so if you're going to jump off a bridge if you strike out, don't go to school.
I know a UChicago kid who struck out. It happens.

I'm curious about the options of someone striking out.

I heard mid sized law firms typically don't hire entry-level lawyers; is that true? So do those who pursued big law and not get it join a small law firm, work for themselves, low-level public interest?

PS - genuine question from a wide eyed 0L

Bumping this question. May not be the right place for this convo though, so I'll make a thread if need be

[Moneytrees]

Nobody thinks Vandy is garbage.

Someone in this thread literally called vandy a garbage school, hence my question.

I believe it's somewhere in pages 8-12. I'd dig it up, but I'm on a cumbersome smart phone.

TLS can be hyperbolic but generally Vandy is a well regarded school. GULC, Vandy, UCLA and UT have all had really similar employment stats over the last 3 or so years. People like to give GULC a tough time about having mediocre numbers, but they are only mediocre when compared to the T13. Overall, the schools I mentioned are solid but are not worth anywhere near sticker price, since only about 45% of students can reasonably expect a Biglaw gig/clerkship. The sad part is that GULC places a ton of people into Biglaw, so if it dropped its class size by 150 or 200 people, it would have great employment stats (you can't really say that about its peer schools, though UCLA could probably shrink its class as well).

In terms of placing students into elite jobs, the tiers are
1) T13
2) UT/GULC/Vandy/UCLA
3) USC/ND/BC/BU/GW/maybe Emory
4) Everyone else.

What about WUSTL and Fordham?

Wash U is a good school but generally struggles to place a lot of people into Biglaw because of its location. It dominates the St. Louis market but isn't going to help you out a ton if you want to practice in major markets. None of the tier 3 schools give you a GREAT chance at Biglaw, but anecdotally the schools listed in tier 3 seem to have more people working in major markets than Wash U.

I basically shun Fordham from these lists because it's rarely a good idea to attend due to their really stingy scholarship policy. Approximately 1/3 of the class will get NYC Biglaw and the rest will be in debt for the rest of their lives.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

Seems to me that a hugely important aspect of the law school application/selection process is generally being overlooked on this forum: Cost.

Obviously ranking (UNS News based or otherwise) is important, because in very broad terms the higher your law school is ranked the better its perception is among employers, which in turn increases your relative odds of getting a Big Law job (which seems to be what most folks on here desire). That said, once you have actual gotten into a "good" law school (I will define "good" as any one regularly ranked in the top 20, although feel free to quibble on what the arbitrary cut-off should be), what you quickly realize is that your chances of (1) getting interviews, and (2) getting a job, is based almost solely on how you have actually performed in said law school relative to your peers (and to a lesser extent what fancy journal you are a member of, with the Law Review being the obvious best option). In short, outside of the top say 5 schools on the list, you need to get good to very good grades (no easy thing, given the ludicrously antiquated and capricious manner in which law school grading is generally conducted) at your school in order to be relatively assured of landing a Big law job in any event. And once that realization sinks in, COST looms as a rather large consideration. Take, for example, a hypothetical student X. X had the grades and the LSAT to get into a bunch of tasty law schools. X had the choice between fine institutions ranked anywhere from 7 to 15 on the law school rankings range. Based on the prevailing wisdom that higher rankings are King, X enrolls at the school ranked 7th. It is a small, private school halfway across the country from where he went to college/is from. It costs a fortune and the weather blows. X is a middling student at X, and his grades fall into the great, undifferentiated mass of "ok" that constitutes the bulk of the law school student body. The prestigious law review is not an option, and thus X is a member of some journal about foreign law and policy. X isn't an editor of said journal, because frankly he would like to have some free time. X gets his OCI at-bats, because he is at a top flight school, but X doesn't exactly kill because X is not in the top third of his class and lacks super-star extras on his resume. X ends ups clerking at three firms over two summers, one of which doesn't make X an offer, and then predictably takes the offer from the biggest of the two firms that do make offers. X enters his randomly selected Big Law job in a random city with a boat-load of debt (not at all uncommon of course). Of course, all in all, X has "succeeded." He has grasped the brass ring and leased a nice car. BUT......what if X had chosen a lower ranked, but significantly less expensive school? Say X is eligible for in-state tuition at say, a school rankled 11th or 14th (these are randomly elected #s, not matched to this year's rankings)? What if X went to one of those schools, paid significantly less, did a bit better grade-wise (as the overall competition was slightly less rabid)? One very possible scenario is this: X goes through the same random OCI process, gets another random Big Law job (in a different city) and makes about the same amount of money doing the same work, but with less debt. X also realizes, as everyone does, that once one enters Big Law, where you went to school and what the school's rank was is essentially meaningless, aside from people liking to share war stories and give each other a hard time. What matters is work, and how much of it you can or will do.

Anyway, obviously one size does not fit all here. Elite law schools were some sort of an in-state tuition break are an option at all are relatively rare, and the fact pattern above won't work for plenty of people. But, the overall concepts still hold: think about the cost, and realize that the cost may not be worth it in the end (from a ultimate job placement/career perspective) unless you are confident you can excel at the school you pick. If gazing at a certain diploma while you review docs or revise a brief at 8:00 p.m. is going to be "worth it" for you, then there is no real counter-argument to that. I am also putting aside the "quality of the legal education" angle here, as that is pointless (something else you will all realize once you actually get into law school - but that is a whole other post...)

1. Helluva first post.
2. This is just a summary of what everyone here says all the time.
3. Very long.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

Nobody thinks Vandy is garbage.

Someone in this thread literally called vandy a garbage school, hence my question.

I believe it's somewhere in pages 8-12. I'd dig it up, but I'm on a cumbersome smart phone.

TLS can be hyperbolic but generally Vandy is a well regarded school. GULC, Vandy, UCLA and UT have all had really similar employment stats over the last 3 or so years. People like to give GULC a tough time about having mediocre numbers, but they are only mediocre when compared to the T13. Overall, the schools I mentioned are solid but are not worth anywhere near sticker price, since only about 45% of students can reasonably expect a Biglaw gig/clerkship. The sad part is that GULC places a ton of people into Biglaw, so if it dropped its class size by 150 or 200 people, it would have great employment stats (you can't really say that about its peer schools, though UCLA could probably shrink its class as well).

In terms of placing students into elite jobs, the tiers are
1) T13
2) UT/GULC/Vandy/UCLA
3) USC/ND/BC/BU/GW/maybe Emory
4) Everyone else.

What about WUSTL and Fordham?

Wash U is a good school but generally struggles to place a lot of people into Biglaw because of its location. It dominates the St. Louis market but isn't going to help you out a ton if you want to practice in major markets. None of the tier 3 schools give you a GREAT chance at Biglaw, but anecdotally the schools listed in tier 3 seem to have more people working in major markets than Wash U.

I basically shun Fordham from these lists because it's rarely a good idea to attend due to their really stingy scholarship policy. Approximately 1/3 of the class will get NYC Biglaw and the rest will be in debt for the rest of their lives.

[rpupkin]

Seems to me that a hugely important aspect of the law school application/selection process is generally being overlooked on this forum: Cost.

No. Look at almost any "choosing a law school" thread on this forum: this place is obsessed with cost of attendance.

Also, good legal writing requires the use of paragraphs. Start now.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

Seems to me that a hugely important aspect of the law school application/selection process is generally being overlooked on this forum: Cost.

No. Look at almost any "choosing a law school" thread on this forum: this place is obsessed with cost of attendance.

Also, good legal writing requires the use of paragraphs. Start now.

+brevity

[Tiago Splitter]

IMO, HYSCC probably gives its grads aiming for BL a ~90% chance of doing so, and that's as close to a guarantee of lucrative employment as anyone can reasonably expect from a degree program.

Just no reason to say T6 and exclude Penn if you're using a 90% threshold as a guarantee, especially when T6 have lower Biglaw placement. Yeah yeah I know self selection yadda yadda yadda but you can't really prove that.

Point is you're never guaranteed BigLaw so if you're going to jump off a bridge if you strike out, don't go to school.
I know a UChicago kid who struck out. It happens.

I'm curious about the options of someone striking out.

I heard mid sized law firms typically don't hire entry-level lawyers; is that true? So do those who pursued big law and not get it join a small law firm, work for themselves, low-level public interest?

PS - genuine question from a wide eyed 0L

Bumping this question. May not be the right place for this convo though, so I'll make a thread if need be

They do all of the above. Mid sized firms don't hire entry level people the way big firms do but they do hire. At a lot of schools the school will give you a stipend to work for free for a year if you graduate without a job and from there you just try to build some experience and grind.

[Tiago Splitter]

I for one am glad that someone is finally bringing up the cost of law school in these threads.

[star fox]

I for one am glad that someone is finally bringing up the cost of law school in these threads.

I'm interested in what this new insight will provide to this forum. For instance, if I am being offered full sticker admission to Harvard or a full scholarship to Chicago, I know I ought to take Harvard but now I am curious as to how this new cost analysis changes the decision-making process?

[guynourmin]

I for one am glad that someone is finally bringing up the cost of law school in these threads.

I'm interested in what this new insight will provide to this forum. For instance, if I am being offered full sticker admission to Harvard or a full scholarship to Chicago, I know I ought to take Harvard but now I am curious as to how this new cost analysis changes the decision-making process?

Depends on how much money you got at Fordham. It provides distinct advantages over H and Chicago due to its location.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Regardless, Berkeley will always be Berkeley. Other schools are really good, too, but telling someone you went to Penn, UVA, Michigan, NYU, Northwestern, or Duke doesn't have the same ring to it or reaction from everyday people.

Duke doesn't have the same reaction as Berkeley? You must live on the West Coast then because the reaction seems pretty equivalent. In fact I'd argue Duke has more pull outside the West Coast but that's been my experience.

True - lived in the Midwest my whole life and the only thing most people here associate Berkeley with are hippies. Legitimately didn't know it was a good school until recently. For the most part (except maybe Penn and NYU) the others are recognized as prestigious.

Duke is a great school. And people recognize it. But from my experience it's mostly because of basketball or non-academic reason. I lived in the Midwest for 15 years and people recognize both Berkeley and Duke. They do associate hippies and liberals with Berkeley but they also recognize it's a prestigious school from its history and how it's portrayed through media (There was a military commercial not too long, for example, that said people join the military from top schools, and included Harvard, MIT, and Berkeley among others). They find Duke prestigious too but through basketball mostly. I just texted 7 friends from the midwest and asked them where each school was and what they thought of each. They aren't lawyers or anything (5 are blue collar and 2 are non-legal professionals). All knew Berkeley was in cali and most said liberal school with some saying fancy,) and smart. None knew where Duke was exactly but almost all said good at basketball.

Edit: One just followed up and asked if they're playing each other in March Madness or something.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Seems to me that a hugely important aspect of the law school application/selection process is generally being overlooked on this forum: Cost.

Obviously ranking (UNS News based or otherwise) is important, because in very broad terms the higher your law school is ranked the better its perception is among employers, which in turn increases your relative odds of getting a Big Law job (which seems to be what most folks on here desire). That said, once you have actual gotten into a "good" law school (I will define "good" as any one regularly ranked in the top 20, although feel free to quibble on what the arbitrary cut-off should be), what you quickly realize is that your chances of (1) getting interviews, and (2) getting a job, is based almost solely on how you have actually performed in said law school relative to your peers (and to a lesser extent what fancy journal you are a member of, with the Law Review being the obvious best option). In short, outside of the top say 5 schools on the list, you need to get good to very good grades (no easy thing, given the ludicrously antiquated and capricious manner in which law school grading is generally conducted) at your school in order to be relatively assured of landing a Big law job in any event. And once that realization sinks in, COST looms as a rather large consideration. Take, for example, a hypothetical student X. X had the grades and the LSAT to get into a bunch of tasty law schools. X had the choice between fine institutions ranked anywhere from 7 to 15 on the law school rankings range. Based on the prevailing wisdom that higher rankings are King, X enrolls at the school ranked 7th. It is a small, private school halfway across the country from where he went to college/is from. It costs a fortune and the weather blows. X is a middling student at X, and his grades fall into the great, undifferentiated mass of "ok" that constitutes the bulk of the law school student body. The prestigious law review is not an option, and thus X is a member of some journal about foreign law and policy. X isn't an editor of said journal, because frankly he would like to have some free time. X gets his OCI at-bats, because he is at a top flight school, but X doesn't exactly kill because X is not in the top third of his class and lacks super-star extras on his resume. X ends ups clerking at three firms over two summers, one of which doesn't make X an offer, and then predictably takes the offer from the biggest of the two firms that do make offers. X enters his randomly selected Big Law job in a random city with a boat-load of debt (not at all uncommon of course). Of course, all in all, X has "succeeded." He has grasped the brass ring and leased a nice car. BUT......what if X had chosen a lower ranked, but significantly less expensive school? Say X is eligible for in-state tuition at say, a school rankled 11th or 14th (these are randomly elected #s, not matched to this year's rankings)? What if X went to one of those schools, paid significantly less, did a bit better grade-wise (as the overall competition was slightly less rabid)? One very possible scenario is this: X goes through the same random OCI process, gets another random Big Law job (in a different city) and makes about the same amount of money doing the same work, but with less debt. X also realizes, as everyone does, that once one enters Big Law, where you went to school and what the school's rank was is essentially meaningless, aside from people liking to share war stories and give each other a hard time. What matters is work, and how much of it you can or will do.

Anyway, obviously one size does not fit all here. Elite law schools were some sort of an in-state tuition break are an option at all are relatively rare, and the fact pattern above won't work for plenty of people. But, the overall concepts still hold: think about the cost, and realize that the cost may not be worth it in the end (from a ultimate job placement/career perspective) unless you are confident you can excel at the school you pick. If gazing at a certain diploma while you review docs or revise a brief at 8:00 p.m. is going to be "worth it" for you, then there is no real counter-argument to that. I am also putting aside the "quality of the legal education" angle here, as that is pointless (something else you will all realize once you actually get into law school - but that is a whole other post...)

I don't think a lot of your assumptions are accurate. I went to a "tasty" law school, had grades at median, or as you say I was in the "ok" pile, and I wasn't on law review. I eventually had 5 offers from 5 different cities, and even more callbacks (the callbacks where I didn't get an offer after). I could have chosen to go to any market I wanted to and now make enough money to oay off all my loans in a few years (and I had a ton of loans). I know a lot of other similar people at "tasty" law schools, people with worse grades even. On the other hand, I know people at WashU, Vandy, and similar schools. They're in the top 25% and are battling it out over mostly local law firms. I had the EXACT same thoughts that you did when I was applying. A friend from U of Chicago law school told me it's better to go to a top school with debt than a lower school with close to none. I followed his advice and looking back I'm glad I did. Of course, this is all anecdotal, but from my experience a lot of your assumptions are off.

[T3TON]

What if X went to one of those schools, paid significantly less, did a bit better grade-wise (as the overall competition was slightly less rabid)?

The bolded text should never be a reason to attend a lower-ranked school. Grades are unpredictable everywhere and at least in the range of schools you are referring to, it is often the lower-ranked schools that have more "rabid" competition (students know their odds are worse and they have more on the line).

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

What if X went to one of those schools, paid significantly less, did a bit better grade-wise (as the overall competition was slightly less rabid)?

The bolded text should never be a reason to attend a lower-ranked school. Grades are unpredictable everywhere and at least in the range of schools you are referring to, it is often the lower-ranked schools that have more "rabid" competition (students know their odds are worse and they have more on the line).

I don't think 11-14 are that competitive, at least looking at actual schools. Everyone knows they have a damn good shot at big law, but there's not a very real chance of true unicorn jobs, so outside of the top 10% I wouldn't expect much rabid behavior

[T3TON]

What if X went to one of those schools, paid significantly less, did a bit better grade-wise (as the overall competition was slightly less rabid)?

The bolded text should never be a reason to attend a lower-ranked school. Grades are unpredictable everywhere and at least in the range of schools you are referring to, it is often the lower-ranked schools that have more "rabid" competition (students know their odds are worse and they have more on the line).

I don't think 11-14 are that competitive, at least looking at actual schools. Everyone knows they have a damn good shot at big law, but there's not a very real chance of true unicorn jobs, so outside of the top 10% I wouldn't expect much rabid behavior

They're not that "rabid" (especially when compared to lower-ranked schools). But WaitWhat's logic is that the higher the school rank the fiercer the competition. And that's not the case. Yale might be the least "rabid" school in the country, followed by Stanford. And for all the talk of Harvard being "gunnery," plenty of people there just chill out because there aren't real grades and straight Ps still can get NY biglaw.

On the other hand, the bottom of the class at GULC has to work hard to make sure they land a good job. Also about the same number of people will want unicorn jobs so you have more people competing for fewer slots. People have to step up their game.

The quality of other students (roughly measured by admissions standards) has some bearing on how your grades turn out. But the drive of your classmates matters too. It's never a good idea to assume it's easier to get good grades at a lower-ranked program because you are trading something certain (opportunities per capita) for something speculative (how you will do vs. your classmates).

[shadowfax]

FWIW. I found the professors at Harvard Law to be amazingly approachable. More so even that those at my undergraduate school. Not everyone of them to everybody, and not all of them all of the time, but if your interests/pursuits overlap, and they aren't writing a book or something else that is taking a tremendous amount of their time, they are very approachable and more than willing to be involved.

Didn't find a lot of gunners and when there were it really wasn't an issue.

[star fox]

FWIW. I found the professors at Harvard Law to be amazingly approachable. More so even that those at my undergraduate school. Not everyone of them to everybody, and not all of them all of the time, but if your interests/pursuits overlap, and they aren't writing a book or something else that is taking a tremendous amount of their time, they are very approachable and more than willing to be involved.

Didn't find a lot of gunners and when there were it really wasn't an issue.

If you look around and can't find the gunner, it's probably you.