Define "gunner" Forum

[revolution724]

The real issue with gunners is not how smart they are or how hard they work. It's that they haven't mastered a basic principle of civil law: don't be a dick.

[Jockin Jay-Z]

I don't get it. Why are people gunners? From what I understand, your grade is based entirely on your written work. What is the benefit to showing off your supposed knowledge?

[jay115]

I don't get it. Why are people gunners? From what I understand, your grade is based entirely on your written work. What is the benefit to showing off your supposed knowledge?

I would imagine that one reaps benefits when establishing a relationship with a professor, like getting them to bat for you in securing clerkships or LOR for transfers. Of course, if one can't correctly respond to posited hypotheticals or asks irrelevant questions...

Fair enough if it was a joke.

It's not a completely subjective term. Gunner typically refers to someone who:

1. Won't shut up in class. If there are 90 people in a class you really shouldn't be talking more than once a week unless called on. Even that's high.
2. Asks borderline irrelevant questions or introduces his or her own hypos into discussion.
3. Uses "law-like" phrases that are meant to make her or him sound better.
4. Guns at other students. This is actually what makes gunners so bad. I know people who do 1-3, and while they're annoying in class, they are still awesome people. Gunning at someone is asking them a question on the material. Listening to their answer and then saying something like, "Oh, but don't you think x contradicts that because of y." No one cares. Seriously. If you ask me a question I'll do my best to answer it, but I don't want to hear about your theories unless I ask you.
5. Is generally competitive in an outward manner about grades.
6. Is always talking about how much work she or he is doing.
7. Wants to discuss an exam after you've just taken it.
8. I actually know a dude who saw a friend watching the internet in the student lounge during a break from studying. He said, "Wow you have time for that?" and then shook his head. This is an excellent example of someone being a gunner shit. Even if you think like this keep it to yourself. Also, we're not good friends I'm not going to get it when you pretend to gun at me. I will just think you're gunning and consider you a chomo.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to do well in law school. There is nothing wrong with studying your ass off. It's when you do it in a manner that is assholish that people get annoyed.

2. Hypotheticals aren't irrelevant. The entire study of law is about hypothetical situations (which, in turn, are exercised in the real world) - or else the study of law would probably be simple. If you've ever listened to a Supreme Court oral argument, most of the questions posited are "what if" questions bc the response clearly shapes how the Court ought to ultimately rule.

4. If someone in class says something contradictory, I would think you're a dumbass if you don't call them out if no one else does. If not, the professor would probably think that you either agree with the contradiction or didn't identify it. I think the burden would be on the first person not to make a contradictory statement, lol.

Out of all, I would probably agree most with 5-7. There's nothing more obnoxious than some twat asking about your grade on some test or essay.

Pure speculation, but if I wanted to apply the term to undergrad from the way I've seen it described on here:

A gunner is the kid in philosophy class who always raises his hand immediately then says something with a lot of 'likes' in it, going in circles, missing the professor's question completely.

The kid in philosophy class who looks around and raises his hand after a moment of silence (to see if others want to talk first), then hints to a bigger idea rather succinctly, enabling the professor to elaborate, is not a gunner.

Please, those more knowledgeable, let me know if this intuition is on point or not.

I know exactly what you are talking about.

Hahahaha I think everyone who has taken a philosophy class has had to endure "that kid. "

[cigrainger]

Since you are a philosophy major:

Wittgenstein would say we could show you what a gunner is, but any attempt to definitively say what a gunner is will end in nonsense.

Meh, early Wittgenstein. His later stuff is far more interesting and useful IMO, particularly as picked up by Austin and Searle.

[cigrainger]

Hahahaha I think everyone who has taken a philosophy class has had to endure "that kid. "

History as well.

[rayiner]

He beautiful thing about engineering is that there are no gunners. Oh sure some people raise their hands all the time, but you don't call them gunners. If their answers are always right, he's that really smart kid who will own you on the exam. If they're always wrong, he's that dumbass who likes to talk a lot.

[AtticusFinch]

Anyone else wonder where LieutKaffee went?

[Borhas]

I'm going to have to try very hard not to be a gunner in LS. It's very hard to tame my inner d-bag. I think I'll just STFU unless called on.

[maudlinstreet]

He beautiful thing about engineering is that there are no gunners. Oh sure some people raise their hands all the time, but you don't call them gunners. If their answers are always right, he's that really smart kid who will own you on the exam. If they're always wrong, he's that dumbass who likes to talk a lot.

Same in math.

Actually, I had a higher level math class with a guy last year who I considered a gunner. Dude would raise his hand constantly and try to answer EVERYTHING, would argue with the teacher about everything, etc. My favorite moment was when he started off one of his many stupid comments with the token phrase, "without loss of generality," except his example had complete loss of generality (it was a very specific case) and therefore made him look like a huge tool.

[Richard Rorty]

Since you are a philosophy major:

Wittgenstein would say we could show you what a gunner is, but any attempt to definitively say what a gunner is will end in nonsense.

Meh, early Wittgenstein. His later stuff is far more interesting and useful IMO, particularly as picked up by Austin and Searle.

:pretensionfail: I'm pretty sure that's an argument in Philosophical Investigations...and is what is "picked up" by Austin.

[cigrainger]

Since you are a philosophy major:

Wittgenstein would say we could show you what a gunner is, but any attempt to definitively say what a gunner is will end in nonsense.

Meh, early Wittgenstein. His later stuff is far more interesting and useful IMO, particularly as picked up by Austin and Searle.

:pretensionfail: I'm pretty sure that's an argument in Philosophical Investigations...and is what is "picked up" by Austin.

The 'mrgreen' smiley indicates the tongue in cheek nature of my post. But it's an argument in Tractatus, showing vs. saying. Philosophical Investigations introduced his concept of language games and is critical of his earlier work, picked up in Austin's How to do things with words.

[rayiner]

He beautiful thing about engineering is that there are no gunners. Oh sure some people raise their hands all the time, but you don't call them gunners. If their answers are always right, he's that really smart kid who will own you on the exam. If they're always wrong, he's that dumbass who likes to talk a lot.

Same in math.

Especially true in math because that smart kid in the front is usually a genius.

[tomhobbes]

For some reason every time I see a fellow philosophy major on these boards I end up not wanting to hang out with them.

[Yimbeezy]

For some reason every time I see a fellow philosophy major on these boards I end up not wanting to hang out with them.

You are Hobbes.

[Cloud9]

Is it an accurate characterization of MOST law schools that only your written work counts towards your grade?

I saw it mentioned a few times, and that would be quite different than the MBA approach.

I was left with the opposite impression by a Business Law class I took. It was practically mayhem in there, and the law professor was brutal with non-stop rapid fire questions. Even if you got the first right, he'd riddle you with half a dozen others in succession. I thought THAT was the law school experience.

[zanda]

I was left with the opposite impression by a Business Law class I took. It was practically mayhem in there, and the law professor was brutal with non-stop rapid fire questions. Even if you got the first right, he'd riddle you with half a dozen others in succession. I thought THAT was the law school experience.

Socratic method (like in your class) is the norm in one form or another for the teaching method, but generally the written work determines your grade (while some profs might adjust the grades a little based on class participation).

[Cloud9]

I was left with the opposite impression by a Business Law class I took. It was practically mayhem in there, and the law professor was brutal with non-stop rapid fire questions. Even if you got the first right, he'd riddle you with half a dozen others in succession. I thought THAT was the law school experience.

Socratic method (like in your class) is the norm in one form or another for the teaching method, but generally the written work determines your grade (while some profs might adjust the grades a little based on class participation).

I guess I should have mentioned that class participation was 20% of your grade in that class (and according to the professor, noone in all his years of teaching ever got all 80% of the points in the written assignments, quizzes, exams).

Knowing UCC cold and answering the questions correctly was a big part. The professor would often stop to mark points on a sheet with our names on it. He was particularly fond of handing out negative points for incorrect questions. And he expected everyone not just to participate (as if we had a choice) but to debate the law.

His "happy" days were calling on students as he was walking into class from the back of the room, getting a good answer and other students chiming in with opposing interpretations of the law and students having a raging debate amongst themselves as he was busy marking points on a student roster.

[astro1819]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03line.html?hp

Only at GULC.

Gunner???

[maine08080]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03line.html?hp

Only at GULC.

Gunner???

Not necessarily. In fact I think it would be cool to sit in one at least one supreme court session in my lifetime.

[astro1819]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03line.html?hp

Only at GULC.

Gunner???

Not necessarily. In fact I think it would be cool to sit in one at least one supreme court session in my lifetime.

*slaps forehead* Yes, I think every person on this board would love to sit in on a Supreme Court session. But to be first in line every time? Obsessive, or gunning. Or both.