Can we just drop the term “gunner“

[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. It's clearly a pejorative term. Just because kids use terms like "gunner" and "try-hard" to put down other kids who are obviously ambitious doesn't mean the adults have to follow suit.

And given the context in which it arises here ("Can my non-gunner but amazing kid thrive at a school that only admits 4% of its applicants?") its use by DCUM posters is even sillier.

[Anonymous]

I prefer "active shooter".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tracy Flick was a gunner. Words exist for a reason, if someone exhibits traits of a particular word than they can own it or change. I have no compunction to limit my vocabulary because people are fragile.

OK, schmuck.

[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.

Actually, it was a poster who didn't attend Harvard because they met a half-dozen Harvard students who shared their lofty ambitions at an admitted students day.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is precisely how we used it in my T5 med school in the 90s. First time I heard it was then. Mildly derogatory at worst—no issue with it. Usually the gunners took it down a notch when they were called out . All good fun. Everyone there was part “gunner” or we would not have gotten there.

[Anonymous]

I actually find the word helpful as it accurately describes a type of student. And all types need to be up for discussion in order to evaluate school cultures.

I agree that tossing the label on an individual might be problematic. But why not use it in general terms? It conveys relevant information.

If the shoe fits?

[Anonymous]

We called them tools at Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. It's clearly a pejorative term. Just because kids use terms like "gunner" and "try-hard" to put down other kids who are obviously ambitious doesn't mean the adults have to follow suit.

These things aren't interchangeable though.

Simple ambition and hard work are totally fine. It's backstabbing, cutthroat, zero-sum type behavior that elevates one to "gunner" status.

[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.

This is precisely how we used it in my T5 med school in the 90s. First time I heard it was then. Mildly derogatory at worst—no issue with it. Usually the gunners took it down a notch when they were called out . All good fun. Everyone there was part “gunner” or we would not have gotten there.

Good fun for adults in their mid-20s. Perhaps not so cool when it's adults referring to their own kids as "normal" or "regular" and putting down other kids as "gunners."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. It's clearly a pejorative term. Just because kids use terms like "gunner" and "try-hard" to put down other kids who are obviously ambitious doesn't mean the adults have to follow suit.

These things aren't interchangeable though.

Simple ambition and hard work are totally fine. It's backstabbing, cutthroat, zero-sum type behavior that elevates one to "gunner" status.

It would be better just to avoid the term. DCUM is full of people who jump to ascribe the latter behavior to other people's kids, especially when their ambition and hard work has been recognized and their kids have been denied admission to some school.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yep. Total law school thing. I would vote to keep it in the parlance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. It's clearly a pejorative term. Just because kids use terms like "gunner" and "try-hard" to put down other kids who are obviously ambitious doesn't mean the adults have to follow suit.

These things aren't interchangeable though.

Simple ambition and hard work are totally fine. It's backstabbing, cutthroat, zero-sum type behavior that elevates one to "gunner" status.

It would be better just to avoid the term. DCUM is full of people who jump to ascribe the latter behavior to other people's kids, especially when their ambition and hard work has been recognized and their kids have been denied admission to some school.

But aren't you now being just as unfair in asserting that other kids are just inferior and verbalizing their sour grapes? Isn't a more generous interpretation that other kids don't feel comfortable around the all-work-and-no-play vibe? It's hard to ask for people to curb insults while you're lobbing one of your own. There are hyper-motivated kids that often carry with them a toxicity that is off-putting to some, and asking whether a kid who doesn't fit that mold will fit in is a reasonable question. The DS of a friend was a non-gunner who went to a gunner-type school, and it wasn't a good fit. Vocabulary is useful. Are we not to talk about such things? And, if so, will you also not talk about these inferior jealous kids in a negative (icky, gross, etc.) way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So interesting! Tell us more!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. It's clearly a pejorative term. Just because kids use terms like "gunner" and "try-hard" to put down other kids who are obviously ambitious doesn't mean the adults have to follow suit.

These things aren't interchangeable though.

Simple ambition and hard work are totally fine. It's backstabbing, cutthroat, zero-sum type behavior that elevates one to "gunner" status.

It would be better just to avoid the term. DCUM is full of people who jump to ascribe the latter behavior to other people's kids, especially when their ambition and hard work has been recognized and their kids have been denied admission to some school.

But aren't you now being just as unfair in asserting that other kids are just inferior and verbalizing their sour grapes? Isn't a more generous interpretation that other kids don't feel comfortable around the all-work-and-no-play vibe? It's hard to ask for people to curb insults while you're lobbing one of your own. There are hyper-motivated kids that often carry with them a toxicity that is off-putting to some, and asking whether a kid who doesn't fit that mold will fit in is a reasonable question. The DS of a friend was a non-gunner who went to a gunner-type school, and it wasn't a good fit. Vocabulary is useful. Are we not to talk about such things? And, if so, will you also not talk about these inferior jealous kids in a negative (icky, gross, etc.) way?

Where did I say that other kids are inferior or verbalizing sour grapes? I don't think you can seriously challenge the notion that DCUM attracts a lot of parents who are quick to look for ways to attack other people's kids. It typically reaches its peak during college admissions season. It's uncouth for adults to call teenagers "gunners" or "toxic" because you resent their motivation, ambition, or success. Try to be better and stop looking for excuses to justify your reverse snobbery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So interesting! Tell us more!

It’s pretty anticlimactic. Seemed like a good guy, quiet in class, hung out with the athletic guys and was just one of the fellas. Sorry, it isn’t that interesting IRL. We weren’t friends but I have nothing bad to say and he definitely wasn’t the gunner type at all.