Graduate Study and Career Question

I am working on application essays for graduate programs in international security studies. One of the questions I must answer is what I plan to do with my expensive education. While I am not bound to what I write, I would like to provide the best answer I can. Consideration of my interests has led me to the following potential research and career focus:

Research Focus
How the military engages "irregular" forces like insurgents, militias, and terrorists. Studies: Examine theory, doctrine, TTPs, etc. to gain a picture of the most current thinking and literature (publicly available); look at case studies involving US military and other Western and Eastern militaries; and write a masters thesis.

Career Goal
Work for a USG/DOD institution or think tank to produce information products or advise civilian and military officials. The goal being to positively influence thinking and policy in this area.

Key Questions for the Community
1. Can you make a career out of this?
2. Can you do this without military experience?
3. Are there any questions I should be asking?

Since members of this forum come from varied academic and professional backgrounds with relevant expertise, I decided a public request for information might be helpful for me (and anyone else who finds this). Thanks in advance for your comments!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rbn422

Key Questions for the Community
1. Can you make a career out of this?
2. Can you do this without military experience?
3. Are there any questions I should be asking?

---

1. I really cannot tell you. From what I see being written by modern Political Scientists and "COIN Experts" a house trained Chimp could make a living, but that is not really a useful for. My point being the bar for critical, useful or even insightful work is set very low indeed.

2. Yes you can, providing you do not stray into areas where military experience can be the only valid provider of the necessary level of understanding. Biddell, Cordesmann and Gray, are all civilians. Notably, all those three men produce work usually superior to that you see from retired officers.

3. Where to begin? My constant quest is to try an understand why most of what you see in modern military thought is incoherent, evidence free, and not held to rigour.

Quote:

---

Research Focus
How the military engages "irregular" forces like insurgents, militias, and terrorists. Studies: Examine theory, doctrine, TTPs, etc. to gain a picture of the most current thinking and literature (publicly available); look at case studies involving US military and other Western and Eastern militaries; and write a masters thesis.

---

So basically the conduct of Irregular Warfare? This is exactly what Callwell did. I suggest this is more a PhD.
Moreover you are somehow going to have to sift the garbage from the good in way that provides useful insight. That is an immense challenge, and one that will require a very great deal of intellectual honesty.

RBN,

Before answering your questions I just want to point a couple of things out. I was sitting in your position two years ago. I wish that I had known about a forum called the Grad Cafe where they have answers to all kinds of application related questions, and will help you write a better application.

Also, almost as important as these questions is where you intend to go afterwards. You may or may not be aware that certain schools, notably the ones surrounding DC, prefer to recruit students that intend to do what you say you intend to do, which in Political Science or International Relations is called "Policy". However, other schools prefer that you intend to go into academia. Some schools even have different programs within their school with different preferences (Harvard and UChicago come immediately to mind). Ironically in policy it doesn't matter which school you come from, as long as it is decent, but what you write in your statement of purpose directly affects your probability of acceptance into such programs.

Also, you have said graduate programs, but that could include M.A. and PhD. programs. In general, to do what you want to, M.A. is sufficient, at least starting out. You can always go back and get a PhD later if you need to. RAND even offers one. However, if you are going to go the Academic route, then a PhD from a top 20 school is definitely preferable. I wouldn't write academia off out of hand. Wilf mentioned Biddle, who does a lot of work with the military but is primarily an Academic, and a supperlative one at that. Bob Pape, and Bruce Hoffman come to mind of others who match that description, more along your area of interest.

On to your questions:

1. Absolutely, the government has a position for just about everything, and there are tons of contractors who are looking at similar problems. However, most of those are "analysts" who look at individual issues, and small parts of the pie. Some people like that, but others do not. If you want to be a big picture person, you are probably better off pursuing an academic route, or getting politically connected and getting an SES or other political appointment.

2. Yes, but military experience helps. I work both with the military and with academics. I was only in for 7 years, and only did one tour, but when working with the military that gives me a common frame of reference to converse with them, and a degree of credibility. In academia, I have been in the same room with some of the people mentioned above and because of my time in the military, they will defer to me on some questions. That is not to say that I win all arguments, but even academics appreciate a military man. (It actually becomes annoying sometimes.) Insofar as pretty much everyone who studies insurgency etc., starts from one of those to places you are going to have a similar dynamic no matter where you land. Also, most people who study insurgency and so forth have security clearances, and the military is the easiest way to get one.

3. Absolutely, and chief among them is "What kind of students does the University get?" and "What is the Universities placement history?"

If you are looking at military issues, UCBerkeley is probably not the right school for you. Not because you are not going to have excellent teachers, but because the students around you will not be supportive of your research objectives, and because their Alumni association will not be strong in that area. Fitting in is not everything, and no one ever feels like they fit in perfectly, but success in research relies almost as much on the people around you as you. Make sure that you are a good fit with the University, and that you are not the pioneer of their attempt to branch out.

I hate to say it, but placement is the number two reason to attend a University. Of course number one is to learn things, but in truth, by the time you are at the graduate level you are only adding another 5% or so, and touching up what you already know (or you should be). Your University only helps you get your first job, but that is a big step, and influences a lot of what you do later. The reason that Harvard grads, and also West Pointers get good jobs when the time comes is the Alumni. It is all about who you know, and the University is the quick way to get that.

One final question that you need to ask yourself, and this is my way of asking you, is do you intend to do International Security or International Studies? They are two different things. International security is a subset of international relations (IR) or the interaction between states. International studies is the study of other countries and cultures, and what makes them tick. I only point this out because you could study what you want in both of them, but your research focus would be very different. Your jobs would be different afterwards, and actually most schools have totally different departments for them.

If you have any personal questions feel free to PM me. I am at the UofChicago, which I highly recommend for what you are looking at. We have three great 1 year M.A. programs that might fit you quite well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

From what I see being written by modern Political Scientists ... a house trained Chimp could make a living

---

Dammit, Wilf, I'm so annoyed by your comment that I almost dropped my banana... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Dammit, Wilf, I'm so annoyed by your comment that I almost dropped my banana... :D

---

If you do drop it, it'll be gone before it hits the ground - and I count myself as a Chimp with no house training!

On a more serious note....

I think you need to decide here what it is you're trying to decide.

Are you trying to decide on what you want to do as a career? In this case you need to think about the MA/policy shop route, versus the PhD/academic/policy influence route. We've discussed this before in other threads on SWC, and both approaches have strengths and weaknesses.

Are you trying to decide what to put on a graduate application? This is a rather different issue. Having looked at many, many hundreds of MA applications over the years, my advice would be to use the essay/career goals/research interests of the application as an opportunity to show off your ability to clearly frame and communicate relevant social science or public policy research questions, and to showcase particular strengths that might otherwise not show on the application form. Try to avoid these common mistakes:

1) The stream-of-consciousness application. "I remember clearly that day when, at 6 years old, I first saw David Dilegge on television talking about MOUT. In a flash, my life changed. Kermit meant less to me than he once did, although his plush replica always would have a place of honour beside my pillow. Now it was thoughts of three block wars that transfixed me, and a different sort of green that called to me."

2) The everything application. "I want to study irregular warfare, especially as it pertains to the military, the economy, society, politics, and the Great Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."

3) The excessively boastful application. "I am not your ordinary applicant. Rather, I am perhaps the finest young scholar you have ever met, and I have decided to allow your institution a chance to recruit me."

4) Anything postmodern. "In the works of Gaula, a predominant concept is the concept of precultural language in the post-sexist, neomaterialist conceptualization of population-centric counter-insurgency. The premise of the capitalist paradigm of reality holds that the insurgent is capable of intentionality. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a cultural libertarianism that includes consciousness as a paradox."

5) Overt name dropping of people who can't be bothered to write you a reference. "In my most recent conversation with David Petraeus, he metioned that your school would good place to further my studies."

5) Lots off speling mistokes.

Typically what works best is discussion of a well-focused set of research interests that are then clearly linked to both your choice of institution and your future career goals. Ask others to read it with fresh eyes before you finalize it. Most important of all, read the application instructions, and don't simply recycle the same statement for every application regardless of how well is answers the questions on the application form. Remember that tier one research institutions, especially departments of political science, may be far more interested in the social science than the public policy angle, so tilt your application accordingly.

Rex can probably answer this more appropriately, but in dealing with the essay portion, remember that it is important at most universities, and treat it accordingly. Therefore, don't write exactly the same essay for every University. Of course, your focus is not going to completely change regardless of the University you attend, but you are going to follow a very different course of study if you go to MIT than if you go to Georgetown. There are different advantages to each school. It pays to show the school how you play well with those advantages.

I don't know if actually naming professors at the university that you wish to attend helps. I did that in all three years that I applied but I was only admitted once. :wry: Again, at the Grad Cafe some of the actual admissions officers can answer those questions quite well.

Rex, that is so classic :D!

RBN, a couple of other things to keep in mind. First, what you go into right out of school is unlikely to be where you will end up. Right now, people in North American are averaging about 8 "careers" in their lifetime, and the number is accelerating.

Second, it really helps if you identify and contact someone you want to work with at each institution you apply to. In part, this is because one of the biggest concerns is who can supervise this person. Another reason is that if they want to work with you, they will give you institution specific advice.

Thank you all for your comments. The more I learn about program differences and "things to look for," the more I am impressed by the commitment necessary to find and apply to a suitable program. This evening was spent hunting down the references provided.

To be more clear on my interests, I find the range of force compositions, "modern" to "irregular," and the range of operational choices, conventional (utilizing air, land, and sea forces) down to terrorism (road-side bombs), to be interesting subjects of study. Study of all forms, in my observation, is essential to fully understand warfare and most effectively contribute to analytical or forward-looking assessment of a situation. The best way to fulfill those interests seems to be studying irregular warfare.

Some examples of issues that pique my intellectual interest:

• Inexpensive anti-access/area-denial strategies (ex. ASMs and speedboats restricting passage through the Straight of Hormuz)
• Attacks against ISAF lines of supply through/from Pakistan forcing supplies to be transported from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
• Use of SOF or highly mobile units to avoid main enemy forces and attack rear echelon units and vulnerable lines of supply (and create serious disruptions).

I know my focus is still rather broad. I think I can narrow down my interests and research questions as I continue to learn more about which topics and issues within this subject interest me most.

From the AKO website: New GI Bill will heighten professional work force

Quote:

---

More college-educated professionals will enter the next generation's professional work force as a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki said this week at the American Legion's 91st National Convention in Louisville, Ky.

---

Quote:

---

Between 1944 and 1956, millions of veterans took advantage of educational benefits provided by the original bill and helped to fill the nation's work force with qualified and trained professionals. Although they no longer wore the military uniform, the veterans' contributions to the country weren't any less significant, he said.

"Returning World War II veterans leveraged the educational opportunities they had under the original GI Bill into sustained economic growth for the nation, catapulting the nation into the world's largest economy [and into a position of] leadership in the free world," he said. "Our country became richer by 450,000 trained engineers, 240,000 accountants, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 66,000 doctors, 22,000 dentists and [by] millions of other college-educated veterans who went on to lead our great country in the second half of the 20th century.

---