Concours Commun ScPo common mistakes
Concours Commun ScPo · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the dissertation d'histoire, the candidate recites a chronological récit ("en 1815… puis en 1830… puis en 1848…") and never formulates a problématique or a plan announced in the introduction.
School history rewards exhaustive narrative coverage; candidates transfer that reflex and treat the sujet as an invitation to 'tell everything I know', without having practised the shift to a question-driven, argumentative exercise under time pressure.
What to do instead
Before writing, force yourself to convert the sujet into one explicit question and a two- or three-part plan written on a draft sheet, and make the introduction's last two sentences state that question and that plan verbatim. Drill this on ten past sujets with a strict 15-minute planning cap before any writing begins; if you cannot state the problématique in one sentence, the plan is not ready.
The candidate treats the sujet de dissertation as a theme to be illustrated ('la IIIe République') rather than delimiting it in time, space and concept, so the copy drifts into everything from 1870 to 1940 without hierarchy.
Concours sujets are deliberately broad and often use a single word or date; candidates fear excluding material and prefer breadth, which feels safer but produces a flat, ungraded catalogue.
What to do instead
In the first five minutes, write the bornes (dates, territory, regime, actors) and a one-line definition of each keyword, then discard every idea that falls outside them. Practise by drafting only introductions plus plans for ten sujets, checking each time that every partie answers the problématique rather than merely naming a period.
On the étude de document, the candidate paraphrases the text paragraph by paragraph or, conversely, jumps straight to outside knowledge, using the document only as a pretext.
Two opposite school habits collide: commentary litteraire training teaches paraphrase, while history revision teaches reciting the course; neither teaches the specific contract of the exercise, which is to extract information from the document and confront it with historical knowledge.
What to do instead
Impose a three-step written routine on every document: (1) fiche d'identité (nature, auteur, date, destinataire, contexte, idée principale), (2) two or three citations between quotation marks each explicitly analysed, (3) one paragraph of confrontation with the course and one on the document's limits. Cite at least three times and never let a paragraph run without returning to the text.
The candidate ignores the nature and provenance of the document (a propaganda poster, a memoir written decades later, a law, a newspaper editorial) and reads it as a neutral window on reality.
Under time pressure the student rushes to content, and the critical apparatus feels like a formality; many candidates also lack practice in identifying the genre conventions and intended audience of a source.
What to do instead
Memorise a fixed checklist to apply in the first three minutes: nature, auteur (statut, position), date and context, destinataire, intention, statut de vérité (témoignage, source normative, source construite). Then write one sentence in the introduction explicitly stating what the document can and cannot prove, and use that sentence to structure the critique.
In the langue vivante paper, the candidate produces a translation or a word-for-word rendering of the source text in the expression exercise, or answers the comprehension questions by copying long extracts verbatim.
Candidates with a good passive level but limited active production fall back on calquing French syntax and copying the text, because it feels accurate and avoids grammatical risk; the copying also stems from fear of missing a marking point.
What to do instead
For comprehension, answer in your own words in one short sentence per question and quote at most three or four words to justify. For expression, learn ten fixed structures per theme (concession, cause, consequence, nuance) and rehearse them aloud; ban literal calques by re-reading each sentence asking whether an English or Spanish speaker would actually say it.
The candidate writes a long, fluent langue vivante essay with no thesis and no structure, or answers the expression prompt with personal anecdote instead of argument.
Conversation classes reward fluency and personal opinion, so students import a spoken register and a 'for/against' list without a guiding line, and they underestimate how much the mark depends on organisation and register.
What to do instead
Use a fixed skeleton every time: introduce the question in two sentences, state a thesis, develop two arguments with an example each, add one concession and rebuttal, conclude. Write the plan in the target language before drafting, and keep a personal list of five reusable examples per recurring theme (environment, technology, inequality, culture).
In culture générale, the candidate answers with vague moral generalities ('la société doit être plus solidaire', 'les jeunes sont perdus') without a single dated fact, name, figure or institution.
Candidates revise by reading press summaries passively and retain impressions rather than precise references; under stress the abstract formula feels safer than a fact that might be wrong.
What to do instead
Build a fiche of 60 to 80 dated, sourced references (one line each: date, actor, what it shows) across institutions, international relations, economy, society and culture, and force yourself to place at least two precise references per paragraph in every practice essay. Verify each reference in a primary or reputable source before memorising it.
The candidate treats actualité as a list of headlines from the last fortnight, citing events with no context, no chronology and no link to a broader issue.
Revision is driven by the news feed rather than by themes; students confuse knowing what happened with understanding why it matters, and the concours explicitly tests the capacity to situate current events in a longer perspective.
What to do instead
Keep a weekly log organised by theme rather than by date, and for each event write three lines: what happened, the historical or institutional background, and the underlying debate. Before the exam, reduce the log to one page per theme with two or three anchor facts and one open question each.
At the entretien, the candidate cannot explain why they want a Sciences Po-type programme beyond 'l'ouverture pluridisciplinaire' or 'la réputation', and cannot name a single specific course, professor, campus or association.
Candidates prepare the interview as a general oral rather than as a motivated match between themselves and an institution; they recycle institutional marketing vocabulary, and genuine research into the programme feels unnecessary or is postponed.
What to do instead
Write a one-page fiche per targeted IEP listing two specific courses, one research centre or association, one campus feature and one recent development, then rehearse a 90-second answer linking each of these to a concrete personal experience (reading, project, internship, engagement). Test it by asking a teacher to interrupt you with 'pourquoi celui-là et pas un autre ?'.
At the entretien, the candidate presents a prepared speech and then freezes or becomes defensive when the jury challenges it, or answers a question on a book they have not read with bluff and vague generalities.
Preparation is scripted as a monologue to be delivered, not a conversation to be held; candidates fear admitting ignorance more than they fear being caught out, and they have not practised being contradicted.
What to do instead
Rehearse with a mock jury that deliberately interrupts, contradicts and asks 'quel est le dernier livre que vous avez lu ?'. Prepare three genuinely read works with a clear personal position and one admitted reservation each, and learn a formula for honest limits ('je ne connais pas cette référence, mais ce que je peux dire de ce que je sais, c'est…') before redirecting to solid ground.