Burkina Faso ENSOG Gendarmerie common mistakes
Burkina Faso ENSOG Gendarmerie · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the French written paper, the candidate drafts the full essay or summary directly onto the answer sheet, then crosses out whole paragraphs and rewrites them, leaving a messy, shortened final text that falls under the required length.
Time pressure and the habit from school of writing straight into the clean copy; candidates underestimate how long a structured plan takes and believe drafting is a luxury they cannot afford.
What to do instead
Spend the first 10 minutes on a bare outline (thesis, three main ideas, conclusion) on scrap paper, write the body on scrap paper, then copy it out cleanly in the last 20 minutes, keeping 10 minutes for rereading. Practise this three-phase timing on two full past-paper essays before the exam.
In the text-comprehension and grammar section, the candidate answers questions from memory of the passage's general meaning instead of returning to the exact sentence, and picks options that sound natural in spoken French rather than the grammatically correct form.
Candidates read the passage once, feel they have understood it, and rush the questions; spoken-French habits (e.g. confusing the past participle with the infinitive, or the conditional with the future) override the written rule under time pressure.
What to do instead
For every comprehension question, underline the line in the passage that justifies the answer before choosing. For grammar items, systematically substitute the verb into a fixed test frame (e.g. 'il a [verb]é' vs 'il va [verb]er') and drill the ten most frequent agreement and homophone traps until each takes under 15 seconds.
On general-knowledge and current-affairs items, the candidate answers from vague impressions or from social-media headlines, mixing up institutions, dates, or the names of officeholders, and cannot distinguish Burkina Faso's national institutions from regional ones.
Preparation is passive (scrolling news) rather than structured recall; candidates memorise isolated facts without a framework, so similar names and dates collapse into each other under exam stress.
What to do instead
Build a one-page fact sheet per theme (national institutions, ECOWAS/AES, recent national events, major world organisations) reviewed weekly, and self-test with closed-book recall rather than rereading. For each fact, write one line of context (who, when, why) so similar items are stored distinctly.
In mathematics, the candidate reads the problem once, starts calculating immediately without writing down the given data and the unknown, and produces an answer to a question that was not asked (e.g. computing the discount instead of the final price).
Exam-time anxiety pushes candidates to 'do something' fast; school habits of jumping to the operation without a modelling step leave the target quantity unstated.
What to do instead
Impose a written three-line routine on every problem: list the data, state the unknown in words, then choose the operation. Before marking the answer, reread the final question and check the answer's plausibility (units, order of magnitude). Drill this on 20 word problems until it becomes automatic.
In logical-reasoning series (numbers, letters, figures described in text), the candidate assumes the first pattern that fits the first two terms and applies it to the whole series without verifying it against every term.
The brain prefers a quick, familiar rule (e.g. '+3 each time') and confirmation bias stops the candidate from testing alternatives; time pressure discourages checking.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed checklist: compute successive differences, then ratios, then alternating sub-series, and only accept a rule once it reproduces every given term. For each practice series, write the rule and prove it on the last term before answering.
In civic and moral education, the candidate answers according to personal opinion or customary practice rather than the legal or institutional rule, for example confusing the role of the gendarmerie with that of the police, or misstating duties and rights of the citizen.
These questions look like 'common sense', so candidates do not revise them; everyday experience and hearsay fill the gap where precise institutional knowledge should be.
What to do instead
Revise from a structured outline of the citizen's rights and duties, the organisation of the state, and the distinct missions of the forces of order, learning each item with a concrete example. Answer practice questions by citing the rule first, then the example, never personal opinion.
In history and geography, the candidate learns dates and place names as an unconnected list, so in the exam they place events in the wrong century or on the wrong continent, and cannot explain causes and consequences when asked.
Rote memorisation without chronology or maps; candidates never locate events in space and time, so recall fragments under stress.
What to do instead
Maintain a single timeline from pre-colonial times to the present and a sketch map of West Africa and Burkina Faso, adding each new fact to both. Practise 'cause–event–consequence' answers in three sentences, and test yourself by covering the dates and reconstructing the order.
For the physical aptitude tests, the candidate arrives untrained, goes out too fast in the endurance run, and is eliminated on the timed run or the strength tests despite being fit enough.
Candidates prepare only the intellectual subjects and assume natural fitness will suffice; without pacing practice they cannot judge effort, and they ignore the specific test order and recovery rules.
What to do instead
Follow a progressive 8–12 week plan with at least two timed sessions per week that replicate the actual test distances and order, including pacing (even splits) and recovery between events. Record times after each session and taper the last week before the tests.
At the medical and psychological assessment, the candidate hides a known condition or previous injury, or arrives sleep-deprived and dehydrated after last-minute cramming, and gives inconsistent answers under interview.
Fear that disclosure means elimination, plus the belief that the medical visit is a formality; candidates do not read the pre-assessment instructions or prepare documents.
What to do instead
Declare conditions honestly and bring medical records; treat the assessment as a fitness review, not a trap. In the final week, protect sleep, hydration, and normal meals, and prepare a short, consistent account of your health history so answers match across the file and the interview.
In the professional-motivation interview, the candidate recites a generic patriotic speech, cannot give a concrete reason for choosing the gendarmerie over other forces, and has no specific example of service, leadership, or handling a conflict.
Candidates memorise model answers found online instead of reflecting on their own record; they underestimate how quickly a panel detects a rehearsed script through follow-up questions.
What to do instead
Prepare and rehearse aloud five personal stories (a time you led, resolved a dispute, helped someone, faced a failure, took responsibility) in a fixed structure: situation, action, result, lesson. Link each to a gendarmerie value, and practise answering unpredictable follow-ups with a partner who interrupts and probes.