UNIKIN Medicine Admission Concours common mistakes
UNIKIN Medicine Admission Concours · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In mathematics, the candidate stops at the end of the calculation and submits an answer without converting units or checking that the result is expressed in the unit the question asks for (for example, leaving a concentration in mol/L when the options are in mmol/L, or a speed in m/s when the choices are in km/h).
Concours mathematics items are often built around a single conversion step buried at the end of a multi-step problem. Candidates who have practised only on symbolic manipulation feel 'finished' once the algebra is done, and the pressure of a timed multiple-choice paper discourages a second pass. The distractors are deliberately written as the unconverted value, so the error feels confirmed by seeing your number among the options.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed closing routine for every calculation: write the target unit next to your working before you start, underline the unit of the final line, and only then look at the choices. In the last five minutes of the paper, re-read each answered item and ask only 'does my number match the requested unit?'. Train this by doing ten conversion-only drills per session until it is automatic.
In physics, the candidate memorises formulas as strings of symbols and applies them without first drawing the situation or writing the list of known and unknown quantities, so a formula for the wrong regime is used (for example, applying a constant-acceleration kinematic relation to a phase where acceleration changes, or forgetting that a formula assumes zero initial velocity).
Secondary-school physics in many systems rewards formula recall, so candidates revise by copying formula sheets. Concours items are instead built on physical situations with a stated regime, and the wording that signals the regime ('starting from rest', 'uniformly', 'neglecting friction') is easy to skim past under time pressure. The result is a plausible-looking substitution that produces one of the distractors.
What to do instead
For every physics item, before touching the calculator, write three lines: a small sketch, the regime named in words, and a two-column known/unknown list. Only then choose the relation and state aloud why it applies. When revising, convert each formula on your sheet into a one-line condition of validity ('valid only if v0 = 0 and a constant'), and practise identifying the regime from the wording of past-style items.
In chemistry, the candidate balances or reasons about an equation using masses or volumes directly instead of converting everything to amounts of substance in moles, and then compares those raw numbers to decide the limiting reactant or the theoretical yield.
Stoichiometry teaching often moves quickly from the mole concept to routine exercises, so candidates learn the procedure without the underlying invariant. Because the arithmetic still produces a number, nothing signals an error, and the options are usually generated from the same shortcut so the wrong method is reinforced. Molar masses of common species are also misremembered under stress.
What to do instead
Impose a rule: no stoichiometric comparison is allowed until every given quantity has been written as n = m/M or n = C·V on its own line. Compute the mole ratio and compare it explicitly to the coefficients. When revising, redo a small set of limiting-reactant problems where the intuitively 'larger' mass is not the excess reagent, so the mole route becomes the only route you trust.
In biology, the candidate answers physiology and cell-biology items from everyday intuition or from a single memorised phrase, without linking structure to function or tracing the causal chain (for example, predicting the direction of water movement without stating the solute concentrations on both sides of the membrane, or confusing the roles of the two circulatory circuits).
Biology at concours level rewards reasoning across levels of organisation, but many candidates revise by re-reading summaries, which produces recognition rather than explanation. Multiple-choice formats then feel familiar, and a phrase that appeared in the course seems sufficient. Items that invert the usual direction of reasoning expose the gap.
What to do instead
For each major topic, write a one-page causal chain in your own words (stimulus, receptor, pathway, effector, response) and a one-line structure-function statement for each organ or organelle. When answering, force yourself to state the comparison explicitly: concentrations on side A and side B, then the direction of movement. Practise explaining each chosen answer to an imaginary classmate in two sentences before moving on.
In logic and scientific reasoning, the candidate accepts a conclusion because the premises sound authoritative or because the conclusion matches their prior belief, instead of testing whether the conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises and whether alternative explanations were excluded.
Concours reasoning items deliberately use plausible content and familiar vocabulary, and candidates who read for meaning rather than for logical form are swayed by real-world truth. Under time pressure, the fastest strategy is to judge plausibility, which is exactly the strategy the items are designed to defeat. Quantifiers ('all', 'some', 'none') and necessary-versus-sufficient wording are the usual traps.
What to do instead
Rewrite each argument in symbolic shorthand before evaluating: premise lines, then the conclusion, then ask only 'is there a model where the premises hold and the conclusion fails?'. Circle every quantifier and every conditional. Practise with short syllogisms and with items about necessary and sufficient conditions until you routinely separate validity from factual truth.
In French language and communication, the candidate reads the comprehension text once, answers from memory of its general theme, and chooses options that paraphrase the topic rather than options supported by a specific sentence, ignoring negation, concession and scope words in the question stem.
Candidates transfer a habit from speed reading, where gist is enough. Concours comprehension items are constructed so that the thematically correct-sounding option is the distractor, while the key is a precise restatement of one passage. Words such as 'sauf', 'ne... que', 'cependant' and 'dans la mesure où' change the answer but are visually small.
What to do instead
Answer comprehension items by locating and underlining the exact sentence that supports or refutes each option, writing its line reference beside the letter. Reject any option you cannot tie to a specific sentence. Before reading the passage, read the stem and mark its scope words. Do timed drills of three questions on one short text to build the locate-and-verify habit.
In French written expression and communication, the candidate writes or selects sentences that translate spoken habits into formal prose, mixing register (familiar vocabulary, 'on' for an impersonal agent, contractions, missing connectors) and losing track of the agreement of past participles and of the subject-verb group in long sentences.
Everyday fluency is not the same as controlled written register, and candidates who read little formal prose have no internal model to compare against. Long sentences also overload working memory, so agreement errors appear at the end of clauses where the subject is far away. These errors are rarely taught as a system, only corrected one at a time.
What to do instead
Keep a personal register list: familiar word on the left, formal equivalent on the right, and use it in every practice piece. In revision, apply a three-pass check to your own writing: first pass for the main verb of each clause and its subject, second for participle agreement (what does the auxiliary agree with?), third for connectors and register. Rewrite one short formal paragraph per day and mark every correction by category.
In general knowledge and current affairs, the candidate relies on social-media exposure and cannot place an institution, a treaty, or a recent event in its country, date, or institutional function, and confuses organisations with similar names or overlapping mandates.
Current-affairs revision is often passive scrolling, which produces a feeling of familiarity without retrievable facts. Concours items ask for precise anchoring (which body, which year, which mandate), and familiarity collapses under that demand. Similar-sounding institutions and translated names compound the confusion.
What to do instead
Maintain a single structured current-affairs log with fixed columns: event, date, country or institution, what changed, and why it matters. Review it weekly by self-testing from the date and institution columns only. For institutions, build a one-line card stating creation date, headquarters, and core competence, and deliberately compare pairs that are easy to confuse.
Across all domains, the candidate spends disproportionate time on one hard item, then rushes the remaining questions and fills in answers without reading the full stem, so later easy marks are lost and misread items are answered confidently but wrongly.
Concours papers mix difficulty deliberately, and the sunk-cost feeling on a single problem is strong when the stakes are high. Candidates also underestimate how long reading carefully takes, so the first pass consumes the budget and the end of the paper is done in panic mode. There is usually no penalty for a blank, which makes rushing strictly worse than skipping.
What to do instead
Set explicit time checkpoints before the exam (for example, one third of the items at one third of the time) and mark any item exceeding its budget with a symbol and move on. On the second pass, read the full stem aloud in your head, including the final qualifying clause, before looking at the options. Rehearse this with full-length timed papers so the checkpoint habit is trained, not improvised.
In chemistry and physics, the candidate reports a numerical result with more significant figures than the given data support, or rounds intermediate values, and then cannot match the expected choice because the accumulated rounding shifted the last digit.
School exercises often have tidy answers, so candidates never learn how rounding propagates. Calculator displays encourage copying every digit, and the pressure to find an exact match among the options makes candidates distrust their own value. Items are usually designed with options spaced closely enough that early rounding changes the match.
What to do instead
Keep full precision in the calculator memory through every intermediate step, round only the final line, and determine the number of significant figures from the least precise given value. If your answer sits between two options, recompute once without intermediate rounding before choosing. Practise with items whose options differ only in the last significant digit so the discipline becomes routine.