tep Tips For A Good Essay Theory Of knowledge

The dissertation, let’s face it, is one of the most technical exercises of Sciences Po’s entrance examination . We are certainly taught it for the baccalaureate Dissertation Writing Help but the level required for the competition (even if it is affordable otherwise we would not be here) is higher.

Nothing really good if you master the methdological bases of this exercise. Rigor and organization and the trick is (almost) played!

Know also that the allotted time often seems too short: it is not necessary to be overflowed by the stress and to keep the control of its test.

Even if knowledge is important, it is not everything, and we should rather see the scale as 1/3 knowledge and 2/3 methodology.

Let’s start with THE essential thing, the skeleton of your dissertation: the PLAN.

The “myth” of the Sciences Po dissertation plan is II / 2, ie two parts / two subparts. Know that this plan is possible, but that it is in no way obligatory.

Of course you are free to do what you want, but if ambition is needed, do not try the impossible. Normally, if your ideas and arguments are consistent, the plan appears as obvious.

Classic plans:

– II / 3

– III / 2

– II / 2

– III / 3 (to be chosen only if you have a lot to say, the risk being to have very unbalanced parts).

You can choose another more “folkloric” plan, but you really need to be sure of your shot …

For a plan II / 3 for example:

I / Party (two times)

1) Subpart (three times)

  • Argument 1

➣ Example / illustration / quote

  • Argument 2

➣ Example / illustration / quot Argument 3

➣ Example / illustration / quote

All this must of course be linked fluidly and naturally; the words of connection are thus primordial and must be coherent, without falling like a hair in the soup.

Now that we know what a plan should look like, how to proceed and in what order when we learn about the subject to be dealt with? This methodology is just one of many, but most of the time it is quite effective.


It is said and repeated, and yet it does not fit: it is the most important stage of the dissertation, and if it is well done, the one that will save you precious time.

As soon as you have the subject, think carefully about all the terms and write on a sheet of paper all the ideas, references, synonyms, antonyms and others that come to your mind thesis writing help You will be able to delimit the subject in the best way, and to target the meaning that it is necessary according to you to give it to you in your duty. With your ideas will come your arguments and examples: make yourself a column for the arguments, one for the quotes and one for the examples then link them to each other. Little by little, your plan will be drawn up, gathering big ideas together. Two or three major axes must emerge. If it does not come naturally, do not panic! Dig a little deeper, or change your angle of approach.


Once your ideas are lying on paper and your axes are roughly defined, it’s time to find your problematic, which will be your red thread throughout writing your essay.

Prepare in several consistent with your axes, to determine which seems most relevant. Never lose sight of it: it is she who must guide you. If you are not comfortable with this problem, it is that it is not the good: it must change, and quickly! However, once you start with one, do not change it 30 minutes before the end of the test … But fix it!

Then make a draft plan around this problem by taking up your ideas of I /. This plan must be clear and concise: be as efficient as possible without wasting time!


Another ESSENTIAL element of your dissertation. The introduction introduces (without joke) your duty, it is somehow the first impression so we must send heavy. (A word of advice: write it directly in the draft, to save time and clarity!)

An introduction can not be improvised and can not be done at the last minute: it must be given the time it deserves. There is no “formal” length, but at least half a page is appreciable.

Here is an indicative plan of the methodology to follow to build a good introduction:

1) Identify the keywords of the subject . They must always be reduced to 3, at best 2. The wording of the subject often gives them. The real problematic word is often the conjunction of coordination. It’s the “and” or the “or” that must be defined first! It is this word that articulates the subject, which is the link between the key words.

2) Phrase hook (essential because these are the first words of your duty, they must “hook” directly the reader). You have to go directly into the subject. This is the general tone of the subject.

3) Definition of the terms of the subject : some terms being polysemous, it is necessary to really target the direction which interests you for your dissertation. We must not define one after the other, but jointly, not to make a “catalog effect”. It must remain fluid, it is essential!

4) Contextualization : the subject must be placed in a context: give it both its historical and topical dimension. Show that the subject is both in the past and in the present.

5) Interest of the subject  Resume Writing Help the art of convincing the corrector that yes, the subject is interesting, and even more than that: essential to your life (do not be afraid of hyperbole). Show an angle of attack, approaches a little original.

6) Problem : it has already been discussed, but it is the question to which the dissertation must answer. It can consist of several questions, but always related to the subject given at the beginning!

7) Announcement of the plan

To give you an example, here is the (modest) introduction I wrote in the first semester for a dissertation in Political Institutions on the hyperpresidentialization of the Fifth Republic, and that my corrector had validated:

[Hangs] What a confusion that reigned around the 1958 Constitution and its implementation! A regime transition that did not go unnoticed, far from it: from debate to debate, from advice to meetings, the hectic premises of this new Republic predicted an existence of perpetual negotiations and questionings for the least animated.

[Definition of terms] The Fifth Republic is a scary regime. Fear because unclassifiable: neither really presidential, nor totally parliamentary … A hybrid regime, innovative, that we do not know how to apprehend. Upsetting the traditional French order perpetuated by the Third and Fourth Republics, he placed the executive in his heart, thus sweeping away years of overt parliamentarianism.

From his impeller, Charles De Gaulle, to his successors, the Fifth Republic knew only great figures to lead it, far from the time of the small presidents without posterity of the Third Republic. In recent years, we have seen the term “hyperpresidentialization” blossom, particularly to describe the policy pursued by N. Sarkozy, but the idea is present from the creation of the regime; Michel Debré thus designates himself General de Gaulle in power as a “sovereign monarch”. How, however, can not a totally presidential regime be hyperpresidential? How to explain this deep French need for the image of the leader, the dominant figure of power at the end of the Second World War,

[Contextualization]In 1958, the Constitution drafted by Michel Debré comes at the end of the war in Algeria, in a context of crisis deeply rooted in French society. This new text tries to provide an answer to problems that affect citizens and political class at the end of the Ivory Republic. The French need a new impetus and a reconstruction of the country that they do not think possible under the government instability and party governance of the last two regimes. The Fifth Republic, its rationalization of parliament and its prominence of the executive therefore appear to many as a solution, and the French people validate the project by the constituent referendum of 28 September 1958. The people of metropolis expressed themselves, but also and especially that of overseas

The president of this republic to come affirms the guarantor of the national unity from the speech of Bayeux in 1946, condemning the partisan fights.

The 1962 struggle led by the president to impose direct universal suffrage in France is a strong act, illustrating the desire to guarantee a powerful state with a legitimate leader, and thereby perpetuate the Fifth Republic; here is all the interest of the subject.

Even today, the President of the Republic, “legal colossus”, derives its legitimacy from the popular vote. He is the “voice of the people”, which magnifies his function even more.

[Interest of the subject] It is also interesting to note that the executive / legislative struggle began even before the adoption of the Constitution, when De Gaulle modified the procedure of revision of the Constitution in order to avoid having to submit draft revisions to Parliament and have them accepted directly by the people (this is the big debate around Article 90).

From the preparation of the preliminary draft of the Constitution in June and July 1858, a dispute broke out between the Gaullists and the ministers and former presidents of the Council from the Ivory Republic as G. Mollet or P. Pflimlin: for De Gaulle, the President of the Republic was to become not only the head of state but also the head of the executive, heard as the political leader of the nation (like the president of the United States). For the elders of the Ivory, on the contrary, the political leader was to be the Prime Minister; they finally won the battle. We can thus see that from the beginning of the Fifth Republic, concessions were made in the sense of the parliamentarians, and that the president was far from being ultra-powerful everywhere. The premises of a latent bicephalism put in place, we can perceive a certain desire not of coup d’force but of alliance, of seeking a new balance. It will be the same for the use of the referendum: the President of the Republic wanted to use it at his discretion any disagreement on a draft law with the parliament, but this has not happened and more restrictive conditions have have been put in place.

It is also striking that the Constitutional Advisory Committee that drafted this constitution was composed of two-thirds of representatives appointed by the assembly: a certain parliamentary control was therefore carried out as soon as the basic text of this new regime was drafted.

It is therefore surprising but not incongruous to hear Michel Debré, in his speech to the Council of State on August 27, 1958, affirm that “the government wanted to renovate the parliamentary system. I would even be tempted to say that he wants to establish it because for many reasons the Republic has never succeeded in establishing it. In law, the Fifth Republic sought to combine state power and democratic power, compromised between the forces of the past and the forces of renewal.

But in practice, how are these resolutions and conciliation and stabilization projects applied? Does the regime in which we live overstate the figure of a leader, or does he use it to mask a more parliamentary character? De Gaulle wanted to restrain the freedom of the assemblies but paradoxically give them their prestige by inscribing them in the Constitution.

How is positioned, 50 years ago as today, a president of the Fifth Republic? Is he referee or captain?

[Problematic] Can we speak of hyperpresidentialization to characterize the regime of the Fifth Republic? Hyperpresidentialisation or hypopresidentialization, overpower or under power? The set of suffixes is not innocuous here but carries meaning: can one define over 55 years the particular status, at the heart of the political and daily life of France, that is the one exerted by the chief of the State?

[Announcement of the plan] We must first see that the President of the Republic, by the new powers conferred on him and the legitimacy he enjoys, is the main character of the French political scene.

Its reserved domain assures it a predominance national as international and thus allows a stability governmental as begged by the country. The figure of the leader, peculiar to the so-called hyperpresidentialization, gives a face to France and makes the man appear at the head of the state for five years as a providential savior. But this President, who oscillates between “referee and captain” is not the only centerpiece of the state puzzle. Indeed, a very bicéphalisme present exists from the first moments of the Republic; the place of the Prime Minister is preponderant, and the Parliament not so effaced as popular speech does not grant it.


Perhaps less essential in its style than the introduction, the conclusion remains nonetheless indispensable. ESPECIALLY NOT BACLER OR WORST, FORGET. That’s why I advise you to draft it right after writing your introduction: if you are caught by the time at the end, you will only have to mechanically copy your own words rather than lose a word. precious time at the last moment. Shorter than the introduction, it must remain relevant because it is it that closes your duty: the last taste that you can give.

If we say that the introduction is a funnel (we start from the widest to get to the most precise), the conclusion is a pyramid, the opposite. It is necessary to resume your partial conclusions of axes, and to reformulate them so as not to repeat to you. The purpose of the conclusion is to answer the problem, do not forget it.

You can finish with an opening if you wish, but remember: it is better not to open than to choose a heavy or useless opening.


It is here that you will have to be the most effective (you can only be so if your draft – and your thoughts – are clear). This is the part that takes the most time, and will be judged in a very demanding way by the jury: attention to writing (some correctors do not bother to try to decipher what seems too neglected)! Also beware of spelling, formulations and repetitions.

That’s why it’s essential .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *