Top Law Schools

We talk to a lot of law students, and if there’s one universally shared sentiment, it’s that they despise gunners. How do professors really feel about gunners?

Imagine you’re a professor. You ask the class a question. The response: Dead silence.

You wait. Still silence. Then you wait some more.

Someone raises his hand and gives an answer. You feel happy. You feel some respect towards the person who offers the answer. (You feel some respect even if the answer is wrong since the person was brave enough to try; you feel even more if the answer is right.) You also feel annoyed by the silent students. Did they not do their reading? Are they not paying attention? Or if they do know the answer, are they deliberately free-riding on the effort (and willingness to risk public embarrassment) of their classmates?

Law school classes are deliberately aimed to be interactive, and not just lectures. They only work if students are willing to interact. Those who do that are pulling their share of the load.

Then along come the class evaluations, and inevitably some students write as one of the criticisms of the class, “Some students dominated the class discussion.” Well, duh. If only 10 students out of 80 are willing to talk, then those 10 students will “dominate the class discussion.” But the only way to solve that is by having the other 70 students be willing to talk. But they aren’t—and then they complain about a problem that they themselves caused, by their silence.

Now of course I’d prefer it if more students talked. If I have several raised hands to choose from, I’ll choose first the students who have talked less than the others. But if only one hand is raised, that’s the person I’ll call on.

And of course some student participation can be counterproductive… For instance, if it digresses unduly from the topic. If you want to limit the term “gunner” to such counterproductive class participation, then, by definition, it’s bad. But if you’re asking more broadly about students who frequently participate in class discussions, then I just wish more students were like them.

Also, my sense is that most students learn better when they actively participate, so I think that participating is actually good for those who participate, as well as being good for class discussion.

Dick Whitman wrote:This supports my assertion that people who refuse to ever volunteer are gunner-enablers.

As to his last point, I've always found that I learn better by listening than by talking. It has also been my general experience that my professor knows the subject better than my classmates.

nealric wrote:He's using a bad definition of gunner.

Just speaking in class a lot does not make one a gunner. A true gunner tries to make comments when inappropriate, tries to correct others who have volunteered, or used the class as a podium for expressing their own personal views or accomplishments. Such a person hurts class discussion by derailing it.

mallard wrote:It doesn't take an eminent legal reasoner to deduce that when law professors are lazy and ask absurdly open-ended ("So what do we make of this case?") or oddly menial ("Recite the facts of the case") questions, the people most likely to respond are attention-seeking.

OperaAttorney wrote:

mallard wrote:It doesn't take an eminent legal reasoner to deduce that when law professors are lazy and ask absurdly open-ended ("So what do we make of this case?") or oddly menial ("Recite the facts of the case") questions, the people most likely to respond are attention-seeking.

+ 1.

I always rolled my mind's eyes when my civ pro prof asked the expert of the day to recite the facts of the case. Seriously?

Dick Whitman wrote:

OperaAttorney wrote:

mallard wrote:It doesn't take an eminent legal reasoner to deduce that when law professors are lazy and ask absurdly open-ended ("So what do we make of this case?") or oddly menial ("Recite the facts of the case") questions, the people most likely to respond are attention-seeking.

+ 1.

I always rolled my mind's eyes when my civ pro prof asked the expert of the day to recite the facts of the case. Seriously?

If you don't like to do it, imagine how the professor feels.

Ignatius J. Reilly wrote:I think that's a pretty sensible rule, and I consciously follow it even when I feel I have something worthwhile to contribute if I have already met my quota for the week.

Ignatius J. Reilly wrote:I agree that the professor used an inaccurate definition of "gunner." Not everyone who contributes in class is a gunner. I agree with the previous poster's definition of "gunner." I do agree with the professor that more people should contribute, though. When I was an undergrad, I bet I volunteered myself in class less than 5 times over the four years combined. The reason was because it was unnecessary. In law school, on the other hand, the class has to participate. I have yet to have a professor who uses lectures as his or her sole classroom teaching tool. Therefore, someone in the class has to raise their hand, otherwise the professor is just gonna get ticked off and start cold calling people, which isn't good for anybody. So, my rule of thumb is: raise my hand to contribute approximately once every two classes, but no more than that. I think that's a pretty sensible rule, and I consciously follow it even when I feel I have something worthwhile to contribute if I have already met my quota for the week.

VincentChase wrote:

Ignatius J. Reilly wrote:I think that's a pretty sensible rule, and I consciously follow it even when I feel I have something worthwhile to contribute if I have already met my quota for the week.

Why? Why would you not contribute if you had something worthwhile to contribute?

gatorlion wrote:I'll take soft-gunner status over top law school mute any day. It really made me think that a lot of students were just there because of a good LSAT score and not necessarily because they were engaged intellectuals. Gunners simply thin the herd...

wiseowl wrote:

gatorlion wrote:I'll take soft-gunner status over top law school mute any day. It really made me think that a lot of students were just there because of a good LSAT score and not necessarily because they were engaged intellectuals. Gunners simply thin the herd...

with logic like that you'll get in everywhere you apply, skipper