Concours SESAME common mistakes
Concours SESAME · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the oral, the candidate recites a memorised self-presentation for three minutes without ever naming a concrete project or a reason to join that specific school, then stops dead when the jury asks 'why this programme rather than another'.
Most preparation time goes into writing and rehearsing a polished monologue, because that feels controllable. Candidates assume the oral is a test of fluency and confidence, so they optimise for delivery rather than for the substance the jury is actually scoring: coherence between background, project, and school.
What to do instead
Build the presentation around a single sentence: 'I want to do X, this school gets me there because of Y, and here is what I have already done that proves Z.' Prepare three concrete evidence points (a project, an internship, a reading or competition) and rehearse the transitions between them rather than the whole text. Train explicitly on follow-up questions by having someone interrupt you mid-sentence and ask 'why' three times in a row.
In the English oral, the candidate answers a question about a document or a topic with a two-word reply or silence, waiting for the examiner to fill the gap, instead of producing a structured answer even with limited vocabulary.
Candidates fear grammatical mistakes more than silence, so they self-censor. Many have school English built on written exercises and have never spoken for two uninterrupted minutes to a stranger, so the first unexpected question triggers a freeze.
What to do instead
Practise a fixed scaffold that works with simple language: position, reason, example, link back to the question. Record yourself twice a week answering unseen questions for ninety seconds without stopping, mistakes allowed. Learn twenty functional phrases ('the document shows', 'what strikes me is', 'I would argue that') so you always have a bridge sentence while you think.
The candidate treats the Parcoursup dossier as a form to fill in at the last minute, pasting the same motivation text into every school's 'projet de formation motivé' with only the school name changed.
The application window overlaps with mock exams and the written preparation, so the dossier is deprioritised. Copy-pasting feels efficient and candidates underestimate how visibly generic a motivation text reads to someone who reads hundreds of them.
What to do instead
Draft the motivation text once as a modular structure (why this field, why me, why this school, what I will do afterwards) and rewrite the 'why this school' block specifically for each programme, citing a named course, a lab, an association, or a partnership you actually checked on the school's site. Start the dossier in December, not in March, and have a teacher or a student already in the programme read one version cold.
The candidate writes a 'projet de formation motivé' that narrates their personality and passion ('I have always been fascinated by...') for most of the word count, with no mention of grades trend, no evidence of work, and no link to the school's actual curriculum.
School writing rewards literary expression and personal feeling, so candidates transfer that register to a document that is read as an argument. Passion statements feel safe because they cannot be factually wrong, whereas concrete claims can be checked.
What to do instead
Apply a two-thirds rule: at least two thirds of the text must be verifiable specifics, such as a project carried out, a result that improved, a book or competition, a course from the school's syllabus, and a stated next step. Keep the emotional register to one sentence maximum. Read the final text and delete every sentence that would still be true if written by another candidate.
In the written general-culture or argumentative essay, the candidate produces a two-column plan (advantages/disadvantages, yes/no) and piles up examples without ever defining the terms of the question or taking a position.
The dissertation format learned in school is often reduced to a memorised template, and under time pressure the safest reflex is a binary plan. Candidates also fear that committing to a thesis will be marked wrong, so they hedge with a catalogue of facts.
What to do instead
Before writing, spend five minutes on a definition and a reformulation of the question in your own words, then build a plan that moves (thesis, objection, resolution) rather than juxtaposes. For each part, state the idea in one sentence first and only then attach one example; if an example does not support the sentence, cut it. Practise on past-style questions under a strict timer so the planning phase becomes automatic.
The candidate manages the clock badly on multiple-choice and short-answer written papers: spending fifteen minutes on one calculation or one vocabulary item, then leaving a third of the questions blank or guessing randomly at the end.
There is no partial credit anxiety in a single hard question, so candidates lock onto it to protect their ego. Many have never sat a paper where the number of questions makes pacing a scored skill, and they do not know their own speed per question type.
What to do instead
Take two full timed mock papers and record the time per block, not just the score. Adopt an explicit rule: if a question resists for more than a set number of seconds, mark it and move on; return only after the paper is complete. Practise answering the last ten questions first in one drill so the fear of the end-of-paper rush disappears.
The candidate prepares current-affairs material by memorising headlines and dates from the last two weeks, but cannot explain a single ongoing issue, its actors, or the arguments on each side.
Revision feels productive when it produces lists of facts, and scrolling news gives an illusion of coverage. Candidates assume general culture is a memory test rather than a test of whether they can reason about an issue and connect it to a broader context.
What to do instead
Track a small number of dossiers over several months instead of everything, and for each write a one-page sheet: what happened, who the actors are, the two main opposing arguments, and one link to a historical or economic concept. Rehearse explaining each dossier aloud in ninety seconds without notes. Replace fact accumulation with the habit of asking 'what is the underlying tension here'.
The candidate walks into the oral with no knowledge of the school's programme, specialisations, campus, or admissions format, and is surprised by questions about why they chose it or what they know about the curriculum.
Candidates treat the oral as a generic interview and prepare only their own story. They also rely on second-hand rumours about the school rather than reading the official programme pages, so they cannot name anything specific.
What to do instead
Build a one-page school sheet from the official site: the programme structure, two named courses or tracks, internships or international options, student associations, and the format and length of the oral. Prepare two specific questions to ask the jury at the end, drawn from that sheet. Know the difference between the school's programmes well enough to explain your ranking of choices.
The candidate prepares the dossier and the written tests in isolation, so the activities listed in the application (a job, a club, a project) are never used as material in the written argument or the oral, and the file contradicts what the candidate says in person.
Each phase is revised separately by different teachers or at different times, and candidates see them as independent hurdles. They do not realise the jury may have the file in hand and that consistency across phases is itself evaluated.
What to do instead
Keep one master inventory of five concrete experiences with what you did, what you learned, and how it links to the field. Reuse the same three stories, adapted in length, across the motivation text, the general-culture examples, and the oral. Before the oral, reread your own dossier and prepare to defend every line of it, since anything written there is fair game for a question.
The candidate answers oral questions about their own dossier with vague generalities ('I learned a lot about teamwork') and cannot give a single precise detail about what they personally did, decided, or would do differently.
Reflection is confused with self-evaluation, and candidates have never been asked to analyse their own work concretely. Under stress they reach for the safe, socially acceptable formula instead of a specific situation.
What to do instead
For each experience, prepare a structured answer: the situation, what you personally decided, the obstacle, the result, and what you would change. Force yourself to include one number, one name of a role, and one difficulty. Rehearse being interrupted and asked 'and what did you do exactly?' until the specific answer comes first rather than the general lesson.