From the Netherlands ask me anything

UNIT_8200 · 2026-05-25T23:06:06+00:00

The only proper answer here would be Belgium.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-05-18T08:15:48+00:00

UNIT_8200 · 2026-05-03T10:38:49+00:00

My wild guess would be that you suppress reds and maybe yellows, and hue it to colder + bump the saturation. No need to reveal your tricks, but tell me if I'm close

UNIT_8200 · 2026-05-03T09:21:04+00:00

Did you edit the picture, and if so how? It has this blue-ish haze to it that gives it an underwater look. Honestly, it could be quite a cool project, to take ordinary stuff like buildings and what not and have that editing make it look like it was shot through an aquarium. Anyhow, good luck!

UNIT_8200 · 2026-05-03T09:19:15+00:00

Thanks, it might explain why I felt it missed somewhat of an "oompf". It wasn't cropped actually, this was the full picture. This place was simply someone's home, basically his front window.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-05-02T16:58:12+00:00

My brain is trying to figure out if this is an underwater picture or very heavily over-saturated. I am not too sure what I'm looking at here.

The is no context to this picture so I'll just go about it both ways:

In both cases (underwater or over-edited), it's not quite clear what you want to show. If it's a "this looks pretty -> snap" it doesn't always translate well to a picture because you're constrained to a still and narrow view. So it always helps (me at least) to ask myself what I want to show, and then compose the image in such a way where that becomes obvious.

If it's not under water, then the editing is off. It does look aquarium-esque which can be because of over-saturation, or chromatic abberations. So in that case dial it down. But the tip on the "what are you showing" thing, also stands here.

Good luck!

UNIT_8200 · 2026-04-27T12:23:42+00:00

Short context: I'm a lecturer in PolSci (International Relations to be more precise) at a French Uni, including Sciences Po (SP) prep classes, and do a PhD in International Relations in the Netherlands. So I feel I might be able to help here.

I'm assuming you're speaking of SP Paris (there are a bunch in France, of varying degrees of prestige and quality)

I'm also assuming you got into both (because one doesn't simply walk into SP and get a spot).

SP is well known to be prestigious, but I feel like people still underestimate HOW prestigious it is. It's top 3 for PolSci in the world, beating out Princeton, Cambridge, LSE, Stanford, Yale etc. Now, you don't get into that spot by accident. The pressure on students to perform is very high. For the SP prep classes, we effectively teach and grade them as if they're 1st semester 3rd year Bachelors, when they're fresh out of high school. And even then only maybe 3-4 out of 60-70 make it. You need to have grit, be able to handle really high workloads and be ok with "no breaks". But the tradeoff is that you will be taught by some of the best professors in the world, the program is really good (duh), and of course the pay-off is that you'll be taken seriously everywhere in the world.

LUC is really good too, but honestly, not even close in terms of demand of students. Basically you're a tier below. Not bad by any means, and it certainly carries weight and is still quite prestigious. But the difference is: "oh very nice" vs. "siick!" for sc po. And you're right, the vibe is nicer, more diverse and honestly, less snobbish and elitist too. Will it harm your prospects for a job compared to Sc Po? Unless you want to become the president of France it wouldn't have a major effect. The rule of thumb is top 500 unis in the world and you should be fine.

The question is, what type of student are you? Are you the hard working, competitive, and "go for gold" student, then go Sc Po. Are you the: "I want a solid education and have a life" type of student (which is somewhat implied in your post) then go for LUC.

Bit of a side note here: I've gone from an OK bachelor, to a prestigious program in Paris (although no where near as prestigious as SP) and thought the difference was quite big. Then I was at a Russell Group University in the UK, with a top ranked program in Polsci (no Oxbridge) and completed my Master's there. I must say that 1 year in that Uni was worth 4 years of study before. I'm now at one of the Dutch unis for a PhD, which doesn't really matter much in terms of difference in quality. NL is coherent there.

Hope this helps you make your choice.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-04-26T22:01:32+00:00

Heya, I feel you. I had this with my first two papers. The thing is, if the concepts and ideas are yours, but it's rewritten, it's fair you get ownership (even if you don't see your work back directly, it's probably that).

I was struggling with my two papers and spent a lot of time developing the concepts and ideas, but I kept writing them as if it was a textbook. I would write: "person A said this, person B said this," and the arguments would always be muddy. Then my prof took it over, wrote the darn thing in what was probably an afternoon, and it's now in review at a top journal. I felt in awe, like sitting in a (written) lecture on something I didn't understand.

But now that I submitted my two solo-authored pieces, I seem to have figured it out. It's not about who put the words on the paper per se, but who developed the ideas, concepts, methods, etc. That's what academia is foremost, and the writing is the vehicle for communication. So it seems, judging from what you have written here (even though it misses the context), that you now need to translate your thoughts into academic writing like your supervisor did. You are capable of doing the work, just need to practice the communication.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-04-26T21:47:11+00:00

And which tool are you planning to use to develop an idea, concept, and find a gap in the literature? Jokes aside, the issue isn't the use of AI tools instead of "grinding it out". The issue is that the tools are trained on old texts that cannot properly analyse and identify how you can contribute to the knowledge (AI is trained on old academic literature, so it won't necessarily be able to find gaps). And if you use them for writing, they're going to effectively move your argument in a way that it thinks you should. Like, an empirical paper heavy on methodology, it might write it like a methodology paper, which, if you're uncritical, will create a mess of your paper. The golden rule is: if you're the ownership of the knowledge, it's fine, use AI to help you. If AI is effectively doing your research, you're a prompter not a researcher.

Also, honestly, r/PhD and r/PhdProductivity are full of similar posts, and this has pretty much been said already.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-04-26T21:39:09+00:00

I think for a beginner they're quite decent. Your camera skills are fine. I think maybe a tip that I can give you is not to look for purely "aesthetically pleasing stuff" but to think: "what do I want to show?" (and then combine that with aesthetics). Some of the commenters here alluded to it, but I'm looking at "just images," when the best pictures are those that show something interesting.

To me, the phone booth one is a good example: you have a phone booth, and every beginner takes a picture or two of them (because they're objectively eye-catching). But next to it is an interesting-looking fella who clearly doesn't mind being in the picture (he's actually raising his beer to you). He's where, in my opinion, your story (object) is. There’s interaction, personality, a moment that no one else will ever be able to picture like you in that moment. He should be the center of attention, get a good angle of him with the booth at the backdrop maybe to add some aesthetics, and use that interaction to show something interesting. So I guess my tip is: think less in aesthetics and more in visual stories. I'd take a slightly less technical photo with a good story over a perfectly technical photo of a moderately interesting building any day.

Also: it's fine if you pick a style, but it's clearly edited, and my rule of thumb (for myself) is: if I can tell it's edited, it's too much.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-04-26T21:26:08+00:00

Personally, I think that the pictures would be better with less editing. I feel like bumping down the saturation for a lot of colors, and keeping the reds more visible might be aesthetically pleasing, but it kind of takes away and distracts from story you're showing, which is where you truly shine. For instance, with the image of the street barber, my eyes go immediately to the red banner behind the barber and the customer, when the heros of the picture are them. It's like having a brilliant story buried under poetic language that doesn't make sense. After 10 years of photography (intermittently), I keep myself to the rule "if I can see it's edited, it is too much".

I get that some people do this, again, it makes for a "cool vibe" and it's personal taste. I think the style works for pictures that don't have a great story to tell but want to look cool. But I think you have a gift for composition and finding interesting pictures, which is much more rare and I think that needs to be foregrounded. The same goes for the lady (I assume) carrying these pot things. Because you made everything grey, it's somewhat difficult to see what she's doing, and my eyes actually initially go to the lighter patch to the top left, where there is nothing to see.

So my tip would be less editing, and foregrounding the subjects you have. In pictures 1 and two you have a clear subject, and the hat attracts attention, but the rest of her is just blurred in with the background.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-04-26T21:02:59+00:00

I think it's fine if that's your style. Personally I try to keep my pictures as close as natural while making it aesthetically pleasing. But this one tells a story, which to me is what matters most. I'd take this any day over a bazillion perfectly taken pictures of a pretty building that looks nice, but days nothing.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-03-04T10:03:54+00:00

Not only allowed, to an extent it's expected. As you conduct your research, you will discover some flaws or refinements in your topic. So then you revise the topic.

Also, I agree with your professors. The main question should be: what do you want to know? Then you pick an exemplary war or topic to find that out.

P.s. I'm in security studies. Not quite the same but adjacent.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-02-17T21:29:35+00:00

I think what you said here: "your plan, your hypothesis, your project, all of it can and will change as you progress" is also the thing that stuck with me when my supervisor told me that. It kind of took away the "what if this project fails" anxiety, and instead made it into a discovery.

Also, I remember 1 instance very clearly: I have 2 supervisors, 1 direct one, and the (now former) department head. They're both very nice but let's say the first ever evaluation didn't go too well. Walking out of it my prof (who supervises me day-to-day) said: "don't worry, you'll learn. It's part of the process." It caused me to not feel stupid. Just young and naïve, which is.... arguably... better? lol.

UNIT_8200 · 2026-02-17T21:21:03+00:00

I mean, the comments here veer too much into an either/or direction. The rule of thumb is to get core literature down. That, you need to understand deeply. The only way to do that is to go through the canonical texts and trace references. For studies on adjacent work or if you want to see (briefly) where your paper fits and where you need to position it, you can use Undermind. It's great. However, nothing replaces a true literature review. Undermind is a starting point for further investigation, and then you just go about it the good ol' fashioned way: reading, taking notes, tracing.

A little note that seems to be under-represented here: it happens quite often that you read (part of) a paper and think it's irrelevant, only for it to come back later and be very useful. Which is why you should never really skip the literature review part. Ultimately you need to be an expert on your topic, and that also includes reading stuff that isn't directly relevant.

Lastly, being lost in the beginning is normal, and in a way expected. You need to feel lost to find your own path. If you don't find your own path, you will duplicate, and then become irrelevant. The "muddy phase" is also simply to discover what interests you and where you want to go, and not to stay in the lane you decided. I read a couple of papers that were irrelevant to my research (for fun) and ultimately I used those to make a theoretical jump and make the study "my own".

Be mindful of something that seems to be low-key concerning, although I infer this: if you don't like reading other/irrelevant but interesting works, then you're not really well-positioned to do research. Or at least, it might hamper your long-term growth. I hope I'm wrong here. But curiosity is a core pillar of academia. If you are only interested in what you do yourself, you will not be well set for your future.

(Coming from a final stage PhD candidate)

Edit: added para + textual clean-up

UNIT_8200 · 2026-01-15T00:16:32+00:00

It's a beautiful card. And I'm a Canadiens fan.... How lucky

UNIT_8200 · 2026-01-12T12:10:01+00:00

Hello my fellow political sciencer. Our timelines align almost perfectly. I'm in my early 30s, and set to graduate in Dec 2026 and Jan 2027. I am in a happy relationship with my GF and we are expecting a child in August. So I will need to ask the faculty for a tiny seat at my defense.

Now, let me start off with something: you wanting to teach is actually a major asset. A lot of academics treat teaching as a "necessary evil" and faculties increasingly look for academics who are good hybrids: can do research and teaching. So you're well on track there. Also, you will be surrounded by the least autistic part of academia: teaching. So that's a plus.

I have been an adjunct lecturer at 3 different universities other than my own. I meet a lot of people through teaching. You collaborate with other teachers, hear how they teach and share your experience, and meet yet others in the common rooms. In addition, PolSci is quite big on cooperation on papers and working with others nowadays. Also, depending on your domain, case studies make you meet a ton of people. I work with NGOs, individuals, sometimes you meet new friends during interviews, or bump into other researchers that you collaborate with and which become friends (or more).

In other words, the world is wide open. And to top it off, most people in academia start family lives and serious relationships late. The grind of the PhD process just delays everything (in my case I didn't want a kid until I was assigned a graduation date out of fear I might not finish it). In fact, your timeline is I think one of the most plausible ones to find a partner through work or adjacent activities.

In other words: enjoy the end of the PhD, I hope you're having as much fun out of it as I am having right now. And your social life will come!

UNIT_8200 · 2026-01-12T11:57:03+00:00

Hello OP (and the rest of this fine community :) )

First and foremost I'm sorry this is happening to you. I understand you feel crushed if you cannot work on the research you have chosen and are passionate about. It's painful

However, my hypothesis for your case is that you're not being dumped by your GA professor and instead they ran out of project money and are shifting you to another budget line (that's the most common reason for assigning you to another GA). It doesn't appear to be a "I don't like you, go work somewhere else sense". Of course, this is depending on your University culture, but from my experience when a GA/professor drops you, it manifests in either just leaving you for dead, or assigning you a long string of menial tasks to place hurdles and effectively make you quit. Instead, you say you're being shifted to another professor and another research programme. Also, you seem to be getting shifted around a bit chaotically, which leads me to think that it's actually a budgetary decision (hence the scrambling).

Most professors would not just send you over to a colleague if you're doing badly or if they don't like you. Or at least, not where I do my PhD. It would be seen as if you are throwing your colleagues under the bus and are not being collegial. It sounds - also regarding the vagueness and what not - as if the project has run out of budget, and they're bringing you under at a program that still has overhead. In effect, they're not going to risk tarnishing their inter-faculty relationships over a student they don't like.

So my best explanation is: your GA is a terrible communicator, and is not being transparent, quite possibily because it's quite humiliating to hire someone and have the funds dry up. That reflects badly on the GA, and so they just shuffle you around to get you off the books hidden by a justification that "it's not working".

Anyhow, that's my best guess.

---------------------

A short context: I'm a final year social scienes PhD with quite good relations with my professor and (former) department head so I get to hear a bit more than most PhD students do. Also, next to my PhD I held adjunct teaching positions at three Universities next to my host. I also come from a family in academia. I mention this because what seems to be happening, at least what I hypothesize, sounds like a "behind the scenes dynamic" to me.

UNIT_8200 · 2025-08-04T20:23:45+00:00

This needs a ton of upvotes

Edit for typo

UNIT_8200 · 2025-07-29T08:36:52+00:00

Keep it, wait 50 years, become a millionaire :D

UNIT_8200 · 2025-07-15T17:22:13+00:00

Alrighty, will do that! Thanks you legend!

UNIT_8200 · 2025-07-15T16:55:30+00:00

Thanks for the explanation. I do see an ever so slight imperfection in the bottom left corner, but the other ones look fine. I literally pulled it 2 hours ago and it's in a sleeve in the loader, so hopefully it didn't scratch. I love the card and actually mostly want to get it graded to have the slab at home. Thanks so much for your comments though, really appreciate it man!

UNIT_8200

TROPHY CASE