Bose's story is typical of South Asian immigrants in North America: Her Bengali parents came from India in the 1960s when her father decided to pursue graduate studies in electrical engineering. Bose herself graduated from Pennsylvania State University (where her father was a professor) as an international politics major and went to Princeton for her doctorate in American politics. From there, she moved to Hofstra University and finally to West Point.

Along the way, Bose—who has been featured in the New York Times—found time to write a book on decision-making in the Eisenhower and Kennedy presidencies. Most recently, however, Bose has graced the small screen, appearing on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer to put the recent 2004 elections in historical perspective. That appearance led to appearances on CNN International and a roundtable discussion with Charlie Rose on election night. And while Bose isn't eager to enter the political circus herself, she is interested in exploring the possibility of more media stints, perhaps assisting with a documentary in the future. Bose has also represented the American Political Science Association on the State Department's Historical Advisory Committee—which advises the Office of the Historian on compiling important government documents that relate to US foreign policy.

Nirali talked to Dr. Bose about the ins and outs of teaching and research.

How is teaching at West Point different from teaching at a civilian university?
I guess some of the differences you find are in the style—the cadets are in uniform and they say "sir" and "ma'am," but that's just the code of conduct. What you'd notice at a military academy is that the cadets are especially aware of the gravity of political affairs and very interested in current events. They're following [events] closely, because they know they're going out to the army when they graduate. [Also,] because cadets will serve as Army officers after graduation, they don't have to think about job prospects immediately—they appreciate the intellectual debates and questions of the field and don't treat it as a pre-professional degree, which often happens at other institutions, where students treat political science as a pre-law program. You have more interest in politics as politics. I [have been] especially interested because teaching American foreign policy and being at a military academy and teaching students who would be directly affected [by foreign policy] was very exciting to me.

What's good and bad about teaching?
In general, the best thing about teaching is working with students and seeing them learn. [For example,] my students have a 10-15 page research paper due next week, and it's so exciting to have a student who knew nothing about FDR [in the beginning] talk about the court-packing plan. Specifically at West Point, the best thing is that the students are so motivated. The most challenging part of West Point is that the cadets have a lot of demands on their time. It's a constant juggling effort for them to balance their military responsibilities with their academics, but for the most part they excel they at doing it.

What about the balance between teaching and research?
With a teaching school, you have small classes, at West Point you have 18 or less, so you have a lot more interaction. One of the things I've found is that if you want to be a good teacher, you have to be active in your research. My current project is the changing role of the UN in US foreign policy. It's interesting that cadets want to know what I'm writing about. Your students keep you in your toes. Anyone who wants to be a good teacher over time has to be engaged in research. It's how you keep yourself intellectually agile and active.

What do you like most and least about research and writing?
I enjoy the product of writing and research. I love the research part and reading and learning about different presidents and what they did and [for example] the letters Adlai Stevenson wrote to Kennedy during the [Cuban] missile crisis. Writing I've always found hard. But you have to treat it like a job and get up and do it every day. You'll get past the initial hurdle. I love the results of the research or writing but it's hard work to get there.

You've made some television appearances. Describe that experience, and did it affect how your students see you?
That was really very exciting. I did it for the first time this past election season. The News Hour invited me to give historical commentary on the Republican National Convention. I learned a lot and enjoyed the chance to provide historical perspective on the campaign. I will say that it's time consuming—during the semester I have to be pretty selective. But I think it's an important responsibility that people who study American politics are contributing to the public discourse about politics.

Sometimes with TV, there's very little time and a lot of preparation. Ten minutes [on-air] is an eternity in some ways. The hardest thing is being flexible, and you go in thinking you're discussing something and they start the questioning and it's not what you expected. [It's nice for my students to see that] academia isn't the pure ivory tower. They're glad to see that there's an interest in this material.

Any advice for would-be professors or those who are interested in graduate school?
I would say that it's important to do what you love, so if you're interested in graduate school, do it. I had done grad school because a professor suggested it and a friend in my department had gone to Princeton, so I applied there. So when I got in, I went to graduate school with the attitude that I want to learn about politics, but I don't have to teach. You need to have some sort of flexibility if your job options change because you have to make so many choices—such as the size of the university [you want to teach at] —and it's important to be intellectually flexible.

Have you experienced any problems as a woman or a minority?
I would say that I haven't encountered any direct experience with discrimination or harassment. But I will say I've noticed that in grad school at least, that there were fewer women there, and it took me a while to get comfortable in that setting. I think women tend to be a little more deferential, and it took me a while to get over hurdles like calling professors by their first names—[all the male students were] and it was getting ridiculous that I wasn't doing it. But there's a lot of attention [now] to the need for a diverse workplace. It's a good time for women to be entering academia. South Asians tend to do their own thing, so [being South Asian] hasn't had a big effect. It's more something that's a source of interest.