A Message from a "Gunner"
Yes, I admit it. I'm the one that everyone of hates. I'm the guy in class that raises his hand when the professor asks questions and does my best to answer them. I'm the guy that asks questions in virtually every class every day. You know what though? I don't particularily care what people think of me in this respect. There are probably about 10 of us in our section that do the same thing I do. People seem to be under the impression that we talk just to hear our own voices, or that we're trying to brown nose the professors, but this could not be further from the truth. I should preface this by saying that this post is not directed toward anyone at my law school. Everyone I've met here doesn't seem to have a problem and we're all rather cordial and friendly to each other. This is directed more toward people on message boards and websites that heckle us for trying our best to learn the material we're given and trying to develop our legal reasoning abilities.
The truth of the matter is that this is how we learn. We learn by asking questions and having dialogue with the professor about the cases to solidify our understanding of what's going on. Furthermore, I find that most of the time that I get called on when I raise my hand, it's because no one else is volunteering the answer. People need to stop whining and moaning that we're taking up class time, if they're not willing to ask and answer questions themselves. It's not our fault if you don't take advantage of the opportunity you have to get involved in class dialogue and maybe for you, that's how you learn better, but for us, we need that dialogue to make sure we're really getting what the professor is saying.
I know the argument is that we're taking up valuable class time, but the reality is that the professors know what they want to cover in a particular day and they will almost always succeed in covering that material. There have been numerous times when professors have cut off discussion and asked us to bring our questions to office hours, which I routinely do. Furthermore, they will always call on students who don't often contribute to class discussions over those of us who routinely do, and I like the fact that they do this. In short, let the professors deal with us "gunners". They know how to control their class and the discussions that take place.
Now one thing that I don't like seeing is the when people turn a law class into a social policy class. We have one particular student who loves to try to turn the conversation to social policy and what is right and wrong morally and ethically. While this conversation is great to have if you're working on a masters or PhD in political science, it has no place in a law school classroom. Empty head/pure heart arguments in court are not going to help you. In fact, those types of arguments can possibly get you an FRCP Rule 11 sanction or your state's equivalent. What I believe is right and wrong is fine and good, and I make my decisions in life based on that, but in court, we have to defer to the precedent set by the court and to the court's rules of law. I can argue for change in the law if I think it's wrong, but I would have to have some logical basis supported by research or it would likely be thrown out as frivolous. Passionate arguments have their place, but the courtroom is not one of them.
Now I'm not saying that people should stop fighting for the causes they believe in. I have causes I believe in and I am going to law school so that I can fight for those causes. What I'm saying is that if you're going to fight for your cause, you have to play by the rules of the system. It doesn't do any good to go into court with a pure heart argument if a judge is only going to decide a case on facts and logic. Inevitably there are judges that vote their conscience purely, but these are and should be in the minority. Most judges, from what I've seen, seem to add their personal spin on things, but can still come up with their decision using logical reasoning. Even if I don't agree with the decision, I can still understand where they're coming from. In short, if you want to argue for your cause, find a way to do it logically and rationally. Do it from an objective perspective rather than a subjective emotional one. It will garner much more weight with the court.
The truth of the matter is that this is how we learn. We learn by asking questions and having dialogue with the professor about the cases to solidify our understanding of what's going on. Furthermore, I find that most of the time that I get called on when I raise my hand, it's because no one else is volunteering the answer. People need to stop whining and moaning that we're taking up class time, if they're not willing to ask and answer questions themselves. It's not our fault if you don't take advantage of the opportunity you have to get involved in class dialogue and maybe for you, that's how you learn better, but for us, we need that dialogue to make sure we're really getting what the professor is saying.
I know the argument is that we're taking up valuable class time, but the reality is that the professors know what they want to cover in a particular day and they will almost always succeed in covering that material. There have been numerous times when professors have cut off discussion and asked us to bring our questions to office hours, which I routinely do. Furthermore, they will always call on students who don't often contribute to class discussions over those of us who routinely do, and I like the fact that they do this. In short, let the professors deal with us "gunners". They know how to control their class and the discussions that take place.
Now one thing that I don't like seeing is the when people turn a law class into a social policy class. We have one particular student who loves to try to turn the conversation to social policy and what is right and wrong morally and ethically. While this conversation is great to have if you're working on a masters or PhD in political science, it has no place in a law school classroom. Empty head/pure heart arguments in court are not going to help you. In fact, those types of arguments can possibly get you an FRCP Rule 11 sanction or your state's equivalent. What I believe is right and wrong is fine and good, and I make my decisions in life based on that, but in court, we have to defer to the precedent set by the court and to the court's rules of law. I can argue for change in the law if I think it's wrong, but I would have to have some logical basis supported by research or it would likely be thrown out as frivolous. Passionate arguments have their place, but the courtroom is not one of them.
Now I'm not saying that people should stop fighting for the causes they believe in. I have causes I believe in and I am going to law school so that I can fight for those causes. What I'm saying is that if you're going to fight for your cause, you have to play by the rules of the system. It doesn't do any good to go into court with a pure heart argument if a judge is only going to decide a case on facts and logic. Inevitably there are judges that vote their conscience purely, but these are and should be in the minority. Most judges, from what I've seen, seem to add their personal spin on things, but can still come up with their decision using logical reasoning. Even if I don't agree with the decision, I can still understand where they're coming from. In short, if you want to argue for your cause, find a way to do it logically and rationally. Do it from an objective perspective rather than a subjective emotional one. It will garner much more weight with the court.
posted by VSAvatar at 10:10 AM
5 Comments:
I H8 GUNNERS
Good, good for you. Now please learn spelling and grammar so you can write coherent legal documents.
Hey, Ken - you are not even a gunner! Your comments are always very insightful and your questions are well thought out. You are one of the very few people whose questions I actually listen to and pay attention when the professor replies. Keep studying actively like you are! And ingore the other two comments!
:o)
Thank you kindly to whoever you are.
Ken,
I honestly would not consider you a "gunner" in a negative sense. Your questions are certainly not unreasonable -- neither in content or in quantity. In my opinion, you will certainly be elligible for a grade bump under the terms given by some of our profs who say that questions that "contribute" will count toward a potentional grade bump.
Post a Comment
<< Home