Can we just drop the term “gunner“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have seen it used at law school. Generally, where a student sucks up time and tries to impress the teacher with questions or hypos that don't move the learning environment forward and/or would help the class with the single exam that determines your grade.

I personally see no issue with it. It is supposed to a very very low level ridicule intended to ring in the gunner’s minor class rom distributing behavior.

Yes, it's a law school term. It has nothing to do with the military. It's someone who is/knows all of the answers/raises hand for everything.

lol. you really think this is a law school term???

[Anonymous]

I’ve never even heard of it until I read that other thread. You, OP, are only the second person I’ve heard mention it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, is it the term in particular (i.e., the word "gun") that is the problem or do you prefer there not be a word for this type of person, or that the word somehow have no negative connotation?

OP - honestly i didn't even think about the gun thing, it just seems like a lousy word that everyone uses differently and basically applied to kids working really really hard. I"ve probably used it myself, then felt kind of icky about it. The prior question "would my non-gunner do okay at an Ivy" generated quite a few replies, but what is this saying? Kids without hooks have to work really really hard to get into the most competitive schools. They're the ones doing the extra projects, participating actively in class etc. Are they all gunners? Or only if they are perceived by someone as annoying? The whole premise of adults referring to teens/college students this way given the pressure many of them are under - whether from self, school, peer group or parents - is just really gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid uses it to describe a particular type of kid at his school who he has pegged as ambitious, likely under parent pressure, and generally likely to be solely goal oriented rather than intrinsically interested in the subject matter. It's off-putting to him because it is someone who isn't going to want to joke around and be silly at times, and won't care to engage in something that won't get noticed for college. It's definitely a real type so I don't see a reason to pretend it doesn't exist. Whether he or anyone on this board is accurately categorizing any particular individual is, of course, up for debate.

I agree with OP. My child, who was now in college, was denigrated this way both behind her back and to her face. And the sniping was entirely unfair IMHO. My child was entirely passionate about what they did. I'm sure if they weren't so successful their efforts would not have been denigrated this way.

The good news is we found out who are friends are and aren't. Child is in college and truly thriving, having finally found a supportive environment free of the nasty backbiting. I unsubscribed to the high school parent emails and plan to never have anything to do with that community ever again.

[Anonymous]

Who "our" friends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, is it the term in particular (i.e., the word "gun") that is the problem or do you prefer there not be a word for this type of person, or that the word somehow have no negative connotation?

OP - honestly i didn't even think about the gun thing, it just seems like a lousy word that everyone uses differently and basically applied to kids working really really hard. I"ve probably used it myself, then felt kind of icky about it. The prior question "would my non-gunner do okay at an Ivy" generated quite a few replies, but what is this saying? Kids without hooks have to work really really hard to get into the most competitive schools. They're the ones doing the extra projects, participating actively in class etc. Are they all gunners? Or only if they are perceived by someone as annoying? The whole premise of adults referring to teens/college students this way given the pressure many of them are under - whether from self, school, peer group or parents - is just really gross.

Adults that use the word "icky" is gross. Please stop using the term "icky" after the age of 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, is it the term in particular (i.e., the word "gun") that is the problem or do you prefer there not be a word for this type of person, or that the word somehow have no negative connotation?

OP - honestly i didn't even think about the gun thing, it just seems like a lousy word that everyone uses differently and basically applied to kids working really really hard. I"ve probably used it myself, then felt kind of icky about it. The prior question "would my non-gunner do okay at an Ivy" generated quite a few replies, but what is this saying? Kids without hooks have to work really really hard to get into the most competitive schools. They're the ones doing the extra projects, participating actively in class etc. Are they all gunners? Or only if they are perceived by someone as annoying? The whole premise of adults referring to teens/college students this way given the pressure many of them are under - whether from self, school, peer group or parents - is just really gross.

Adults that use the word "icky" is gross. Please stop using the term "icky" after the age of 10.

you and i just don't agree on the meaning of "gross" but carry on

[Anonymous]

To me, it is someone whose level of ambition and desire to compete is toxic. It’s NOT that they’re trying for good grades, have a passion for leaning, or working hard. Instead, there is an arrogant, cutthroat and exclusionary aspect about their need to compete and win. I recall a poster who attended Harvard and mentioned that a half-dozen students seriously said they planned to be President some day. Ron DeSantis supposedly claimed the same. Imagine him as a student peer. Consider his aggressive and alienating policies, all for his own glory. Now, multiple that many fold. Some people don’t want to be around people like that, thus they hope to find a college culture that embraces rigorous learning without the a**hole qualities of a gunner.

[Anonymous]

Ah yes, gunner: the striver’s more capable but also more obnoxious older brother.

Personally I enjoy English words with that level of embedded precision and nuance as to definition. It’s borderline German.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, it is someone whose level of ambition and desire to compete is toxic. It’s NOT that they’re trying for good grades, have a passion for leaning, or working hard. Instead, there is an arrogant, cutthroat and exclusionary aspect about their need to compete and win. I recall a poster who attended Harvard and mentioned that a half-dozen students seriously said they planned to be President some day. Ron DeSantis supposedly claimed the same. Imagine him as a student peer. Consider his aggressive and alienating policies, all for his own glory. Now, multiple that many fold. Some people don’t want to be around people like that, thus they hope to find a college culture that embraces rigorous learning without the a**hole qualities of a gunner.

Ronny D was in my small section at HLS. Whatever else you can say about him, I can personally attest he was not a gunner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah yes, gunner: the striver’s more capable but also more obnoxious older brother.

Personally I enjoy English words with that level of embedded precision and nuance as to definition. It’s borderline German.

OP here and while I stand by my original position… You are funny

[Anonymous]

When I was a kid we had a dog named Gunner.

He was a good boi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, it is someone whose level of ambition and desire to compete is toxic. It’s NOT that they’re trying for good grades, have a passion for leaning, or working hard. Instead, there is an arrogant, cutthroat and exclusionary aspect about their need to compete and win. I recall a poster who attended Harvard and mentioned that a half-dozen students seriously said they planned to be President some day. Ron DeSantis supposedly claimed the same. Imagine him as a student peer. Consider his aggressive and alienating policies, all for his own glory. Now, multiple that many fold. Some people don’t want to be around people like that, thus they hope to find a college culture that embraces rigorous learning without the a**hole qualities of a gunner.

So, one must appreciate that there is a healthy level of ambition that lives between these two extremes.

Let's face it, the kids that just "try for good grades, have a passion for learning or working hard" end up doing nothing special in life. There are ambitious kids that certainly do much more than this, but are not cutthroat and exclusionary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have seen it used at law school. Generally, where a student sucks up time and tries to impress the teacher with questions or hypos that don't move the learning environment forward and/or would help the class with the single exam that determines your grade.

I personally see no issue with it. It is supposed to a very very low level ridicule intended to ring in the gunner’s minor class rom distributing behavior.

Yes, it's a law school term. It has nothing to do with the military. It's someone who is/knows all of the answers/raises hand for everything.

lol. you really think this is a law school term???

Lawyers think they are the center of the universe. This is not new.

[Anonymous]

The concept isn't unique to law schools, but as an actual term I heard it used for the first time during 1L in the 1990s.