When you polish yourself a little too much in the SOPs and CVs

[LateAntique]

I have a feeling LateAntique wears sweaters in the winter, I don't know why.

How did you guess?

[alexis]

Anyway I'm really surprised you don't emphasize the military experience more... I feel like people probably emphasize way less formative experiences in their statements (One time, when on vacation, I totally saw third world poverty between my hotel and the beach, and it was like, really sad. I'm getting this degree to make sure I never have to see it again.). Are you guys worried about "liberal bias" or some such thing?

Well...it can kind of be a sticky issue, at least for me. One of my professors--whose husband is also in the military--said that some academics are skeptical of those who've worked in government, i.e. the military, because while we may have maturity, leadership skills, & ability to commit, we aren't really encouraged to "think outside the box," if you will. So she suggested I try to make sure I get across that I am creative, and can think independently. This is not to say that all academics think this, and being a veteran may very well help in the process. Also, for me, I did realize during this time that my "questioning" nature didn't really fit into the military environment. But, I had to word this to get across that I wasn't dissing on my former employer, and still performed well, and learned a LOT of skills that I can apply in my research and field of study etc., but realized (in combination with my educational experiences) that my calling was academia.

I don't worry too much about so-called "liberal bias." I'm a flaming liberal, but served in the military (and knew plenty of other Democrats in it too, even though we were the minority)...I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

[JerryLandis]

Who doesn't wear sweaters in the winter?

[jacib]

Who doesn't wear sweaters in the winter?

Me for one. I go with hoodies and jackets. For punk kids in Boston, the style for guys used to be one zip-up hoodie on top of another until it got really really cold. Sweaters, except for big captain ahad sweaters, never felt right, no matter how many times girlfriends/hipsters got me to buy them, the only ones I ever wore with any regularity to non-formal occasions were ones that looked like the sweater part of the German-army uniform...

But with LateAntique I pictured a particular collared-shirt sticking out under a sweater combo, a little like a younger version of the guy who writes this blog type look. I have no idea if it actually applies...

[Lauren the Librarian]

I still hope it doesn't sound patronizing.

Nope. Not patronizing at all. But that sense of foreignness is what I'm up against with the adcom. Like alexis said, it can be really sticky depending on the department. Two weeks ago I happenstance met one of the top professors in the department I am applying to. He seemed delighted by my background and encouraged me to make note of the (prestigious) language school I attended on my application. However, I made sure to stick to "safe" topics like grammar and language learning aids. I avoided all talk of the military aspect of my service and even stayed away from my particular research interests which might be considered controversial.

I want to come across as versatile and prepared for graduate study. But there's also the risk that I come across as a militant looney. I was fortunate during my time in the military; I never had to kill anyone. But plenty of my friends did. I've let some of that history slink into the past; I'm focused on the future anyway, so it's easy enough for me to do. But the adcom's very real "liberal bias" might not take kindly to my contribution to the slaughter of their bretheren.

I'm an excellent candidate for grad school. But I have to get past the committee first. And no amount of "polishing" is going to erase how I spent nearly a decade of my life.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Lauren the Librarian

[jacib]

Nope. Not patronizing at all. But that sense of foreignness is what I'm up against with the adcom. Like alexis said, it can be really sticky depending on the department. Two weeks ago I happenstance met one of the top professors in the department I am applying to. He seemed delighted by my background and encouraged me to make note of the (prestigious) language school I attended on my application. However, I made sure to stick to "safe" topics like grammar and language learning aids. I avoided all talk of the military aspect of my service and even stayed away from my particular research interests which might be considered controversial.

I want to come across as versatile and prepared for graduate study. But there's also the risk that I come across as a militant looney. I was fortunate during my time in the military; I never had to kill anyone. But plenty of my friends did. I've let some of that history slink into the past; I'm focused on the future anyway, so it's easy enough for me to do. But the adcom's very real "liberal bias" might not take kindly to my contribution to the slaughter of their bretheren.

I'm an excellent candidate for grad school. But I have to get past the committee first. And no amount of "polishing" is going to erase how I spent nearly a decade of my life.

I know what you mean about avoiding being to controversial in your statement! While Turkey is a democracy and it seems like neither the conservatives nor the military are going to abrogate that anytime soon, there are also a lot of touchy issues here where speech isn't exactly free. All of Youtube, for example, is still banned here because some Greek teenager made a video that said Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, was gay. Google offered to take the offensive video down in Turkey in accordance with Turkish law, but that was unacceptable to the Turkish government, who worried about the sensibilities of Turks abroad. Nobel-laureate Orhan Pamuk got brought up on charges for declaring (in a Swiss newspaper and during a lecture in Germany) that "30,000 Kurds and a million Armenians" died during the events of 1915. Because the EU specifically made it clear that they would view whatever happened to him as emblematic of the whole Turkish justice system, the Ministry of Justice declined to prosecute him on a technicality (penalties would have been higher because he said this stuff abroad), but there is real popular hatred of the man here. Last summer, maybe two summers ago now, a professor (historian I believe) was given a suspended prison sentence for declaring, during an academic lecture to 30-something people, undeniably accurate things about the state of democracy during the early Republic and that many of Ataturk's ideals failed to manifest themselves in practice. I definitely wrote my statement careful with all that in mind, and absolutely wrote it even more careful for the programs where people specialized in Turkey. The way I explained my project to friends (looking at how secularism functions as a religion, complete with its own myths, rituals, and systems of meaning) is definitely different from how I wrote it up in my SoP, where it was couched in much more general terms. What are your controversial topics?

[Lauren the Librarian]

looking at how secularism functions as a religion, complete with its own myths, rituals, and systems of meaning

I wish I could suck all your info on Turkey out of your brain and use it for my own purposes. I study radicalization processes of Muslim immigrants in Europe and the US. Turkey is so fascinating to me because of its (modern) secular framework. I haven't met a lot of terrorists from Turkey, but I have from other countries, and I think there might be a causal relationship. I intend to look critically at public policy, cultural mythologies, and even at the religion of Islam as justification for militant ideologies. I was honest about that in my SoP, but I labored on my word choice. It's a competitive program, so I could be rejected for any number of reasons, not just the controversial nature of my interests. I hope my scholarship shines through and I become a welcomed member of the department.

Go, me!

[jacib]

I wish I could suck all your info on Turkey out of your brain and use it for my own purposes. I study radicalization processes of Muslim immigrants in Europe and the US. Turkey is so fascinating to me because of its (modern) secular framework. I haven't met a lot of terrorists from Turkey, but I have from other countries, and I think there might be a causal relationship. I intend to look critically at public policy, cultural mythologies, and even at the religion of Islam as justification for militant ideologies. I was honest about that in my SoP, but I labored on my word choice. It's a competitive program, so I could be rejected for any number of reasons, not just the controversial nature of my interests. I hope my scholarship shines through and I become a welcomed member of the department.

Go, me!

Yeah it does have a lot to do with secularism, but I think it has a lot to do with having a properly functioning, mostly democratic state too. It's no accident that a religious party in the Muslim world is as likely to have "Justice" in the party name as "Islamic". Turkey has just avoided a lot of the autocratic corruption that lets religious parties gain a foothold by being an effective, and unstoppable, counter power (you can arrest all the communists and shut down all their unions, but you can't arrest all the clerics and shut down all the mosques). The Islamic Revolution in Iran would never have converted the middle class if the Shah hadn't been so autocratic and repressive--Islam offered the only available counter-power, especially after 1954. More recently, look at the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, or even the Taliban's rise to power--both presented the only possible avenue for order and the rule of Law (the law just happened to be Shariah law, but still). In Turkey, setting aside the fact that military plays a very active moderating influence on politics, there are also just fewer grievances in this country that people would die or kill for.

Actually, one of the things that people would be willing to die for is terrorism--the fight against terrorism. Every Turkish soldier who dies fighting the PKK is universal called a "martyr" in the Turkish press (probably as much after the Left-Wing usage as the Islamic one, cf. Haymarket Martyrs). Terrorism is generally seen as an illegitimate tactic -- it is something that "they" do to "us". "They" in this case is both the Armenians (1) (2) (3) and the Kurds (the PKK and others, including some random Islamic ones that fought the socialist PKK as often as they fought the Kurds). The fight against PKK terrorists is incredibly popular here, and has been used to distract from/unify in the wake of national controversies. There have been isolated attacks by religious extremists on Jewish and Islamic targets (in fact, synagogues have been attacked three or four times in this city... but afterwards there's always been a huge outpouring of support), but I think the Turkish people sees itself as a victim of terrorism and therefore couldn't imagine itself being the purpotrator of it. There are constant reminders of terrorism here--every mall has metal detectors and I've been stopped taking a picture in a mall before, but it's more symbolic than effective terrorism prevention because more often than not I'm just waved through the metal detectors no matter what. The appearance of safety (and the reminder that there is a Them attacking an Us) is more important than actual safety. Most of the actual effective operations against terrorism take place in the mountains of Southeast Turkey, in Northern Iraq, and occasionally in Northwest Iran.

Paramilitary action is slightly more acceptable, however, so it's not violent extremism but rather terrorism as a tactic that is rejected. When the Grey Wolves do adopt "terror" strategies, it's almost always highly targeted violence against individuals for individual actions (Abdi İpekçi, Hrant Dink, Orhan Pamuk) that closely resemble state terror campaigns rather than a more generalized strategy of trying to disrupt institutions and frighten civilians in general. The tactic is meant to keep the left wing dissidents and ethnic minorities "in line", not to cause widespread panic.

[profound_g]

This is interesting. The CV I sent in for an application was asking for relevant professional experience only, and plus I read some advice from in-field people about how CVs for grad school should focus on that. I don't mention my military service at all, and have been cautioned about the aforementioned "liberal bias". Then again this is all foreign experience so that could be a factor.

[alexis]

This is interesting. The CV I sent in for an application was asking for relevant professional experience only, and plus I read some advice from in-field people about how CVs for grad school should focus on that. I don't mention my military service at all, and have been cautioned about the aforementioned "liberal bias". Then again this is all foreign experience so that could be a factor.

It could be...however, veteran status is a federally protected status- it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of it (though I assume that's just as a US vet, not sure). You see a lot of universities that post this as part of their anti-discrimination policy. Also, maybe it's my own limited experience, but most liberals I know (myself included, of course) aren't anti-military at all.

I forgot to add: it makes total sense for you not to include it in your CV if it's not relevant to your field and those in your specialization advised against it. For me, it was relevant to my field, and I was asked to include a resume, not CV, so it's a bit different. Just saying that generally, I don't think it would necessarily hurt your application.

Edited December 28, 2009 by alexis