The hardest thing for me was to make myself sit down and do what should have been done long ago.
I admit that I had been working on the topic of lustration for more than a year. And then I stopped halfway. The working group at First Flight, which I moderated, fell apart because everyone disagreed with me and demanded that we follow international norms, which in practice turned lustration into something meaningless. But by declaring this topic for my course project, I put myself in a situation where not doing it was no longer an option. This was the first benefit of studying at the university.
The second benefit — even more important — was the criticism during the pre-defense.
Nina Yuryevna and Tatiana convincingly attacked my position on lustration from different sides.
As a result of these attacks on my proposals, the problems that needed to be resolved became clear. But I did not know how to resolve them. At that point, a version of ChatGPT that could browse websites turned out to be very useful. In desperation, I asked AI all the necessary questions; it found relevant cases in the ECtHR and gave answers to all the critics’ questions. The third benefit was the requirement to be concise. Fitting my 25 slides into 7 was not easy. The information simmered for three days, and the result turned out quite well.
What I would like to wish future students is this: choose real, relevant, pressing topics — preferably ones that do not yet have an adequate solution in the public sphere. Do not stop at analysis alone, at explaining “how it was and what happened.” Do not finish without synthesizing your own ideas. Propose solutions to problems, and do not be afraid to bring your proposals up for discussion.