EMIG Concours Technicien common mistakes
EMIG Concours Technicien · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the general-knowledge section, the candidate answers questions on recent French and international current affairs using only vague memories from several months earlier, mixing up names, dates, or institutions (for example confusing two ministers or two reform laws).
Current affairs are revised passively by scrolling news feeds rather than by building a dated timeline; EMIG-style general-knowledge items often target events from the past 12–18 months, and candidates underestimate how quickly details fade.
What to do instead
Keep a dated log: one page per month listing 5–8 major French, European, and international events with the actor, date, and a one-line description. Review the last 12 months weekly and quiz yourself by covering the descriptions.
On French language items, the candidate writes a long, unstructured answer to the written expression task - a single block of text with no introduction, no linking words, and no clear plan - losing points on organisation despite correct grammar.
Under time pressure, candidates start writing immediately and treat the task as a grammar test rather than a communication exercise; many have never practised the expected text types (formal letter, summary, argumentative paragraph).
What to do instead
Before writing, spend 3–4 minutes on a skeleton: identify the text type, the recipient, the purpose, and 2–3 arguments. Use a fixed template (opening formula, one idea per paragraph with a connector such as 'en effet', 'toutefois', 'en conclusion'), then re-read once only for agreement and tense errors.
In mathematics, the candidate applies a formula without checking units or orders of magnitude, giving a result such as a flow rate in m³/h that is off by a factor of 1,000 or a length in centimetres where metres were required.
Exercises are often drilled mechanically without unit discipline; candidates convert at the end (or not at all) instead of converting inputs first, and they skip the sanity check because they fear losing time.
What to do instead
Adopt a three-step reflex on every calculation: convert all data to SI units before computing, carry units through the working, and finish with an order-of-magnitude check. Practise 10 mixed unit-conversion drills per session (mm/cm/m, min/h/s, W/kW, bar/Pa) until it is automatic.
When reading a technical drawing, the candidate ignores the title block and the projection symbol, then interprets a third-angle view as first-angle (or vice versa), inverting the position of features and misreading the part's geometry.
Candidates jump straight to the views because the title block looks like administrative decoration; the difference between the European (first-angle) and American (third-angle) layouts is often learned once and never applied under exam conditions.
What to do instead
Train a fixed reading order: title block (scale, material, projection symbol), then views, then sections and details, then dimensions. On every practice drawing, state aloud which projection system is used and where a given hole appears in each view before answering.
In applied mechanics, the candidate sets up a statics problem without a correct free-body diagram, forgets a reaction force or a moment, and then solves equations that are consistent with the wrong model.
The tendency is to write equilibrium equations directly from the figure, skipping the isolation step; distributed loads and moments about a point are the usual omissions because they require an explicit modelling decision.
What to do instead
Always draw the isolated body, label every force with its point of application and direction, replace distributed loads by their resultant at the centroid, then write ΣF=0 and ΣM=0 about a well-chosen point. Check that the number of unknowns matches the number of equations before solving.
In electrotechnics, the candidate confuses RMS and peak values, or applies single-phase formulas (P = UI cos φ) to a three-phase load without the √3 factor and without distinguishing line and phase quantities.
Formulas are memorised as strings of symbols without a physical picture; the star/delta distinction and the meaning of cos φ are not consolidated, so the candidate picks whichever formula looks familiar.
What to do instead
Build a one-page reference sheet linking each formula to a circuit diagram, and solve the same load in star and in delta to see the √3 appear. On each exercise, first label U, I, and φ as line or phase values before substituting numbers.
On maintenance-methods questions, the candidate proposes corrective action as the default answer ('replace the part', 'call the supplier') when the question asks about preventive or predictive strategy, or mixes up the order of the maintenance workflow.
Field experience is dominated by breakdown repair, so corrective reflexes dominate; the vocabulary of maintenance types (preventive systematic, condition-based, predictive, corrective) and of the work-order cycle is not mastered precisely.
What to do instead
Learn a clear taxonomy with one industrial example each, and a fixed workflow (request → diagnosis → work order → intervention → report → feedback). On each question, identify which maintenance type or which step is being tested before choosing an answer.
On health-and-safety items, the candidate answers from common sense rather than from the hierarchy of prevention, for example proposing personal protective equipment as the first response to a risk instead of eliminating or isolating the hazard.
PPE is the most visible measure on a shop floor, so it feels like the 'right' answer; the regulatory hierarchy (elimination, substitution, collective protection, organisation, then PPE) and the meaning of key terms are not firmly known.
What to do instead
Memorise the prevention hierarchy as an ordered list and apply it explicitly to five workplace scenarios (noise, dust, electrical hazard, manual handling, chemical product). For each scenario, write the measures in hierarchy order and identify the PPE only at the end.
On professional-aptitude and reasoning items, the candidate reads the situation, reacts to the first plausible option, and moves on without eliminating the others - especially on questions asking for the 'most appropriate' or 'first' action.
Reasoning items look easy and the time saved feels valuable, but distractors are designed to be plausible and slightly wrong; candidates also ignore qualifiers such as 'first', 'immediately', or 'in priority'.
What to do instead
Underline the qualifier in the question, then eliminate options explicitly: mark each as impossible, possible, or best, and justify in one short phrase. Practise sets of 15 items with a strict two-minute-per-item cap to build the habit under time pressure.
Across the whole paper, the candidate spends too long on a few difficult questions in one domain, then rushes or leaves blank the last section, and hands in a paper with unanswered items that carried no penalty for guessing.
Perfectionism on calculation-heavy items plus poor awareness of the clock; candidates do not do a first pass over the whole paper and do not know the scoring rules (whether wrong answers are penalised).
What to do instead
Do a timed mock under real conditions and adopt a two-pass strategy: answer every question you can resolve quickly, flag the rest, and return to them with the remaining time. Before the exam, confirm the marking rules so you know whether to leave blanks or answer every item.