Law School "Gunner": Etiquette Forum

[20130312]

On a scale of one to go kill yourself, how gunnerish is it to email the Prof a hypo (that you personally made up) about a concept that you legitimately don't understand?

It's kind of gunnerish, but my theory is that if you don't gun in class where your classmates can see it, it's the tree falling in the forest not really making a sound (because really, can you be a gunner without a student audience?) (profs are paid to deal with gunners, students aren't). So go for it.

I'm really worried my Prof is going to be like "IGF sent me this awesome hypo that I want to discuss with the class. IGF, why don't you read it?"

Me: /self

[A. Nony Mouse]

On a scale of one to go kill yourself, how gunnerish is it to email the Prof a hypo (that you personally made up) about a concept that you legitimately don't understand?

It's kind of gunnerish, but my theory is that if you don't gun in class where your classmates can see it, it's the tree falling in the forest not really making a sound (because really, can you be a gunner without a student audience?) (profs are paid to deal with gunners, students aren't). So go for it.

I'm really worried my Prof is going to be like "IGF sent me this awesome hypo that I want to discuss with the class. IGF, why don't you read it?"

Me: /self

Um, wow. Does the prof make a habit of doing this? Otherwise, if it's a concept you've already covered in class (which I'm assuming it is, because otherwise you wouldn't be worried about understanding it yet), I doubt the prof will take the time to go back and address this in class.

[SemperLegal]

On a scale of one to go kill yourself, how gunnerish is it to email the Prof a hypo (that you personally made up) about a concept that you legitimately don't understand?

It's kind of gunnerish, but my theory is that if you don't gun in class where your classmates can see it, it's the tree falling in the forest not really making a sound (because really, can you be a gunner without a student audience?) (profs are paid to deal with gunners, students aren't). So go for it.

I'm really worried my Prof is going to be like "IGF sent me this awesome hypo that I want to discuss with the class. IGF, why don't you read it?"

Me: /self

My professors wont allow substantive questions over email, but assume its the same policy as office hours. Ask all the questions you feel like asking, no matter how trivial. Its not taking up the classes time, and its not engineered to impress/intimdate classmates, so by definition its not gunnerish.

It may be semi-dorky, but we've all sacrificed our status as true slackers a long time ago.

[20130312]

It may be semi-dorky, but we've all sacrificed our status as true slackers a long time ago.

I'm still getting used to being a nerd.

[Lacepiece23]

On a scale of one to go kill yourself, how gunnerish is it to email the Prof a hypo (that you personally made up) about a concept that you legitimately don't understand?

It's kind of gunnerish, but my theory is that if you don't gun in class where your classmates can see it, it's the tree falling in the forest not really making a sound (because really, can you be a gunner without a student audience?) (profs are paid to deal with gunners, students aren't). So go for it.

I've done it. Best grade I got in law school in that class. He basically applied fact to law the way he wanted on the exam. Really helped me "get" how to write an exam for that class and law school in general. Is it gunnery yes? Do I care? Hell no lol

[SemperLegal]

It may be semi-dorky, but we've all sacrificed our status as true slackers a long time ago.

I'm still getting used to being a nerd.

Give up the fight. We were all a lot cooler in High School.

[scifiguy]

How socially acceptable is this person's behavior (blue jacket guy) from a law school etiquette perspective?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaQbC5bgh2s

In this scenario, the class was asked a question rather than someone interrupting lecture to speak.

[Tom Joad]

How socially acceptable is this person's behavior (blue jacket guy) from a law school etiquette perspective?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaQbC5bgh2s

In this scenario, the class was asked a question rather than someone interrupting lecture to speak.

Answering a question is fine as long as your answer isn't dumb and you don't do it all the time.

[dingbat]

we've all sacrificed our status as true slackers a long time ago.

speak for yourself - I'm clinging on to whatever vestige of slackerdom I've got left

[northwood]

dont flock to the podium after. ever. class..

or make up random hpotheticals in your answer, to help "prove the point"

or when someone else asks a question, and the prof goes.. humm ( thats good.. interstesting... similar to case name), what does the rest of the class ( or you) think.... you answer, but make sure to turn around in your chair to face the person who aske the question..



do those, then you are a gunner

[Volake]

Be concise. Taking a lot of time when called on to wax on about things only tangential to the law or explain the basis for your question or perspective will make you seem, if not a gunner, then a nuisance.

[hume85]

dont flock to the podium after. ever. class..

or make up random hpotheticals in your answer, to help "prove the point"

or when someone else asks a question, and the prof goes.. humm ( thats good.. interstesting... similar to case name), what does the rest of the class ( or you) think.... you answer, but make sure to turn around in your chair to face the person who aske the question..



do those, then you are a gunner

Some windbag did that to someone else in UG, but their answer didn't even come close to answering the person's original question. The windbag even had the nerve to lecture to the person like they were dumb. I had been holding in some serious farts all class, because I drank one of those blueberry naked juices about an hour before. At the end of the windbag's long, vaguely related answer I inadvertently let out the loudest fart in memory. A few people looked at me, including the professor, but almost everyone quickly looked away and acted like it didn't happen, except for the dude on the golf team that couldn't stop laughing.

[20130312]

Be concise. Taking a lot of time when called on to wax on about things only tangential to the law or explain the basis for your question or perspective will make you seem, if not a gunner, then a nuisance.

This is the worst. I always keep my answer to like five words or less, but there are a couple people that go on and on and can't seem to form a coherent thought the entire time they're rambling. If you don't know the answer, just say pass. Don't waste your classmates' time.

[Scotusnerd]

I had some gunner tendencies I had to learn to rein in at the start of the year. A lot of it was just social awkwardness. I established some ground rules for myself to keep these problems in check:

1. No more than three in-class questions/week.
2. If you are engaged in an oral debate class with another classmate, never respond more than twice, no matter how stupid the other side may seem. Let it drop.
3. Question ideas, not people.
4. Write down your question (in ONE sentence) before asking it in class. If you require more, consider asking it after class, unless it is essential to understanding the material.
5. If you have a question that is somewhat related to the material being discussed, or is a logical step away, ask it after class.
6. Be nice to your classmates and try to listen more than talk. Chat about other things than schoolwork.

Side note: Feel free to harass the professor a few times a week, but don't constantly be yapping at their heels. Most people don't like sycophants, but a little ego-stroking is completely acceptable (a few genuine compliments every now and then). I don't buy this 'if you do these things you are a gunner' crap. It's more an insecurity thing. They want to be noticed and vindicated in an immature way.

[jcccc]

Who gives a fuck if others are calling you a "gunner". Just speak out in class whenever you can. I like "gunning" in UG to just piss off everyone, try it, it's fun. But I guess its different in LS.

[20130312]

Who gives a fuck if others are calling you a "gunner". Just speak out in class whenever you can. I like "gunning" in UG to just piss off everyone, try it, it's fun. But I guess its different in LS.

Fuck your own face.

[Davidbentley]

Who gives a fuck if others are calling you a "gunner". Just speak out in class whenever you can. I like "gunning" in UG to just piss off everyone, try it, it's fun. But I guess its different in LS.

Fuck your own face.

Twice. And with Big Bird's Dick.

[rinkrat19]

I never really realized who our gunners were until I sat in front of one in ConLaw and Property this term. Even when she isn't talking in every single class, she's answering the Prof's questions under her breath.

[RodneyRuxin]

tag

[Davidbentley]

I never really realized who our gunners were until I sat in front of one in ConLaw and Property this term. Even when she isn't talking in every single class, she's answering the Prof's questions under her breath.

I feel you. ConLaw is the natural habitat of the gunner.

[scifiguy]

So, here is a follow0up question:

Do people equate being a gunner with being competitive?

In perusing a variety of TLS threads, I've come across a somewhat common question amongst prospectives asking about whether a school is very competitive? It seems there's a conflation - in how questions/comments were worded - of the terms "gunner" and "competitive," but I can't be absolutely sure.

But assuming that at least one person meant it that way, why is this the case? I think this view that being competitive as a bad thing derives possibly from an unfortunate misunderstanding. Now, to be sure, I am not advocating gunner-ish behavior, as defined in this thread. But, what I am saying is that the trait of being competitive is not inherently a bad thing.

Competition, if engaged in fairly, is the backbone of capitalism and our society. It makes people work harder/smarter to improve their product/services for society as a whole. We have so many of our modern comforts, technological advances, and even cures for diseases, and so on, because of highly motivated and skilled people working hard to produce a great product/service for society. And, morever, it's not a zero sum game. If you produce a great product/service, someone else doesn't have to lose in order for you to gain. Biglaw may be an exception! But even then, a person can take their skills from biglaw with them and do other things (small law, in-house, etc.) if they fail to "win" partnernship.

In law school, competition shouldn't be seen as an undesirable thing in its student body. It should be viewed as something that helps produce the better work in people. Of course, if competition is engaged in unfairly, involves a lack of civility, and the like, then those negative side-effects of it we should avoid and criticize.

But just in general, why does it seem that so many posters ask to avoid schools with competition?

It might be helpful to elaborate on what we mean by competition too. I think people commonly bring up things like not sharing notes to a class, not helping others understand their reading, being kind of cold and unfriendly, etc. I guess I had considered those things more of just being a jerk. lol. Although, in some cases, there could be a valid reason for doing something like that (e.g., if you suspect a person has been lazy and is just using you). But sometimes I feel - I could be mistaken - that people also are referring to just the notion of everyone trying hard and working seriously to do their best. And in that case, I don't think it's a bad thing. Some people can feel intimidated by it or feel extra stress from seeing others trying so hard (in which case they probably just need to find some relaxation techniques), but I suppose I just see it as something that can/should motivate you to do better (which many people are very capable of)!

[Danger Zone]

Jesus fuck dude are you serious?

[Broseidon]

Why the fuck did I post in this thread

[Tom Joad]

Jesus fucking Christ. This guy can't be real.

[Danger Zone]

So, here is a follow0up question:

Do people equate being a gunner with being competitive?

In perusing a variety of TLS threads, I've come across a somewhat common question amongst prospectives asking about whether a school is very competitive? It seems there's a conflation - in how questions/comments were worded - of the terms "gunner" and "competitive," but I can't be absolutely sure.

But assuming that at least one person meant it that way, why is this the case? I think this view that being competitive as a bad thing derives possibly from an unfortunate misunderstanding. Now, to be sure, I am not advocating gunner-ish behavior, as defined in this thread. But, what I am saying is that the trait of being competitive is not inherently a bad thing.

Competition, if engaged in fairly, is the backbone of capitalism and our society. It makes people work harder/smarter to improve their product/services for society as a whole. We have so many of our modern comforts, technological advances, and even cures for diseases, and so on, because of highly motivated and skilled people working hard to produce a great product/service for society. And, morever, it's not a zero sum game. If you produce a great product/service, someone else doesn't have to lose in order for you to gain. Biglaw may be an exception! But even then, a person can take their skills from biglaw with them and do other things (small law, in-house, etc.) if they fail to "win" partnernship.

In law school, competition shouldn't be seen as an undesirable thing in its student body. It should be viewed as something that helps produce the better work in people. Of course, if competition is engaged in unfairly, involves a lack of civility, and the like, then those negative side-effects of it we should avoid and criticize.

But just in general, why does it seem that so many posters ask to avoid schools with competition?

It might be helpful to elaborate on what we mean by competition too. I think people commonly bring up things like not sharing notes to a class, not helping others understand their reading, being kind of cold and unfriendly, etc. I guess I had considered those things more of just being a jerk. lol. Although, in some cases, there could be a valid reason for doing something like that (e.g., if you suspect a person has been lazy and is just using you). But sometimes I feel - I could be mistaken - that people also are referring to just the notion of everyone trying hard and working seriously to do their best. And in that case, I don't think it's a bad thing. Some people can feel intimidated by it or feel extra stress from seeing others trying so hard (in which case they probably just need to find some relaxation techniques), but I suppose I just see it as something that can/should motivate you to do better (which many people are very capable of)!

QFP