Introduction

Now that you are familiar with the challenges of the oral interview, including the elevator pitch component, it’s time to delve into the art of responding to the jury’s questions.

As you’re aware, during the elevator pitch, you are in control because you decide the content. However, when it comes to the interview, the jury takes the lead by asking their questions. Yet, many of these questions can be anticipated and prepared for, giving you a significant advantage and a sense of confidence. Think of it like driving: if you instinctively know how to operate the pedals, road signs become less intimidating.

In this guide, we will explore effective ways to prepare and respond to the jury’s questions. It’s essential to remember that the interview is not an interrogation but a discussion with the jury. Our aim is not just to react to questions but to guide the jury toward your areas of expertise and anticipate their expectations to take control of your interview.

Module 1: Types of Questions and How to Prepare for Them

A common question we encounter at The Prep is, “What kind of questions does the jury ask during Sciences Po dual degree interviews?” Understanding the nature of these questions is crucial to navigate the interview effectively.

There are four types of questions the jury may ask. 

Questions About You

   – “What is your career goal? Why?”

   – “What is your favorite movie?”

   – “Why did you decide to undertake Project X? What did it bring to you?”

These questions revolve around you and your experiences. While they may seem straightforward, don’t underestimate their importance. The jury expects well-thought-out responses. To prepare for these questions, start by reviewing the list you prepared for the course on “Interview Academy: Excelling at Personal Assessment“ and reflect on compelling answers that reveal insights into your personality and motivations. Be genuine and delve beyond the surface to help the jury understand you better.

Questions About the Dual Degree/Motivation Questions

   – “Why this dual degree?”

   – “In what year was Sciences Po/partner school founded?”

   – “Which student associations are you interested in joining?”

   – “What major do you plan to choose?”

   These questions assess your motivation for choosing the dual degree. You can discuss your plans for the school or demonstrate your knowledge of Sciences Po and the partner university. The best preparation for these questions, as we have previously emphasized, is to thoroughly research the Sciences Po and partner university websites, familiarize yourself with their history and programs, and if possible, attend open house events or conferences.

Questions for Reflection/Knowledge-Based Questions

   – “Tell me about the war in Ukraine.”

   – “What do you think about the reversal of Roe v. Wade in the United States?”

   – “What is your opinion on China’s new Silk Roads?”   

These questions are less predictable than questions about yourself and the dual degree. But in most cases (though not always), they are somewhat related to your areas of expertise or fundamental questions about current events from a few months ago. While the jury typically won’t ask extremely obscure or unrelated questions, they might pose challenging ones, like “Who is the Australian Ambassador to France?” if you’re French and living in Sydney, or questions that demand thoughtful responses, such as “In your view, what is the role of an ambassador?” if you’ve expressed an interest in diplomacy. To prepare for these questions, staying updated with the news and gaining in-depth knowledge in your areas of expertise and current major topics is essential (no, they won’t forgive you for not knowing about COVID-19, sorry).

Out of the Blue” Questions

   – “How much does a BOEING weigh?”

   – “Salt or pepper?”

   – “Surprise us.”

These questions are not meant to test your knowledge but to evaluate your response and adaptability. In other words, the jury asks these questions knowing you may not have precise answers. While these questions can be absurd or unrelated to your expertise, rest assured, they are relatively rare and not asked in all interviews. The best way to prepare for these questions is to consider your potential reactions based on your personality. Are you more analytical and measured, saying, “Salt or pepper? I prefer both; one complements the other.” Or are you more provocative, asking, “A Boeing? With or without passengers?” There’s no wrong answer, as long as you remain polite and measured, but your response should be consistent with the applicant that you are.

Module 2: The Funnel or Prioritizing Based on Your Areas of Expertise

It is evident that the same level of precision is not expected depending on the type of question asked. While the jury may forgive you for not knowing how much a BOEING weighs or who the President of Nigeria is if those are not your areas of expertise, they will expect a high degree of precision when it comes to your favorite subjects or your motivation. So, don’t worry too much about the less predictable questions; they won’t make up the majority of your interview, and the jury will forgive you for not knowing, provided you give them an intelligent response.

To prepare for your interview, it is, therefore, essential to:

  1. Strengthen your areas of expertise. Seriously.
  2. Stay updated on major current affairs and general knowledge.
  3. Know your dual degree inside out.
  4. Identify your blind spots in the three areas mentioned above, your weaknesses, and work on them.

Module 3: Working on Your Blind Spots

There’s no such thing as a perfect profile or a flawless application. Everyone has their weak points. Sometimes, we tend to believe that these weaknesses are all we can see and that they are insurmountable.

Let us tell you right away: this isn’t true. First, because everyone has them, and second, because nothing is insurmountable. The key is to defuse the weak points in your application.

The idea is to anticipate all the areas where the jury might challenge you and to have a prepared response in advance, so you won’t be thrown off by something that was predictable!

How?

We suggest following a three-step method:

  1. Identify your blind spots and potential jury questions through a rigorous self-assessment of your application and the oral presentation (the 5-minute talk about yourself). Seek input from candid individuals like close friends or former applicants who can pinpoint weaknesses.
  2. Understand the reasons behind your weaknesses and whether they are objective or subjective. Consider how to explain them and whether you can turn them to your advantage or practice “damage control” by acknowledging your shortcomings.
  3. Prepare the best response for each weakness. How have you worked to overcome them? What is your plan for addressing these shortcomings in the future? Anticipate jury questions by providing comprehensive responses that demonstrate your maturity and intelligence.

And if possible, try to anticipate the jury’s questions by providing an enhancing response even before they have the chance to ask!

For example, if you have a poor academic record:

  • Identify: Acknowledge that poor academic performance is a weakness in your application.
  • Understand: Reflect on why this occurred; was it due to a lack of interest in theoretical subjects, or perhaps a lack of engagement in traditional lectures? Identify the cause and see if it can be explained or turned into an asset.
  • Prepare the response: Admit the weakness and convey your efforts to rectify it. Express your renewed commitment to excel academically in an environment like the dual degree, where you will study subjects of genuine interest.

What are possible blind spots?

  • Weak academic results
  • Lack of international experience
  • No internship experience
  • Limited extracurricular involvement (e.g., music, sports, volunteer work)
  • Language proficiency
  • Unclear career plan
  • Inadequate understanding of social codes or general culture due to your background
  • Lack of knowledge about the targeted professional sector

Module 4: Guiding Your Jury and Providing What They Expect: Adding Value and Leading Questions

To excel in the interview, go beyond providing good responses; aim for excellent ones. Le Repaire suggests that the difference between a very good response and an excellent one lies in your ability to offer added value. This means satisfying the jury’s expectations before they even ask.

The interview primarily aims to assess three essential qualities that make you a strong applicant  for the dual degree: a) analytical thinking, b) synthesis ability, and c) motivation. To showcase these qualities, knowledge is crucial but should be treated as a tool, not the central focus

So, to demonstrate these three qualities simultaneously, we have a few tips:

  1. Use the The Prep magic formula: Argument, example, connection with the dual for both motivation and substantive/reflective questions. For instance, when asked, “What do you think about social inequalities in France and the US? “provide an analytical response and then connect it to your dual degree: “This is a subject I’m deeply passionate about and it motivates my application to this dual degree. On the one hand, with its pioneering program on Priority Education Agreements, Sciences Po has been promoting education and professional integration for students from disadvantaged backgrounds for nearly 20 years. On the other hand, more than half of Berkeley’s undergraduate students receive financial aid. I believe this diversity is a real asset for the program, and it’s in such an environment that I see myself thriving.”
  1. Incorporate current news knowledge, motivation elements, and knowledge of the dual degree in your responses. Each answer should reflect your command of these three areas. For example, when asked about your interest in the Havre campus and the Asian region, provide an answer that links all three elements: “Asia fascinates me because of the diversity in its cultures, political models, and economies. In high school, I volunteered at a French-Asian daycare in Dijon, where I witnessed the intellectual openness and tolerance in which bilingual children thrive (a motivation element and part of your experience). Furthermore, I’m convinced that Asia is now at the center of global diplomatic relations. With China’s increasing power and its ever-expanding territorial ambitions, as evidenced by the heightened tensions between Beijing and Taipei following the visit of the U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, I believe it’s crucial to understand Asia in order to master the geopolitical challenges of the future (recent news knowledge). Lastly, with its 65% international student body, I’m sure that the Havre campus will be the ideal environment for developing my thirst for intercultural exchanges and debates with students from diverse backgrounds and education (dual degree knowledge).”
  1. Lead the jury towards questions related to your areas of expertise. If you’re an expert on Gandhi and the Indian independence movement, you can subtly bring Gandhi into the conversation by responding to questions like “Who is your favorite political figure?” or “What’s the last book you read?” or “What’s the last movie you watched?” This may prompt the jury to ask more specific questions on the topic. Demonstrating your expertise can significantly enhance your interview. You can even conclude a question about World War II with a reflection on pacifism (with Gandhi as a major figure) and the slogan “Rather Hitler than war,” which implies acceptance of genocide and barbarity. Nothing prevents the jury from picking up on your opening and asking a more specific question about the topic.

Module 5: Response structures

While maintaining flexibility, it’s helpful to develop response structures for different question types. This technique offers two key benefits: it ensures that your answers always appear organized and structured, and it enables you to focus on the content with a predetermined form, especially when facing broad questions. This is a significant advantage when you only have 10 seconds to think about a broad question like “Discuss populism in Europe.”

Exercise 1: Controversial/Opinion-Based Question: “For or against the EU digital covid certificate?”

   – Introduction/Factual Recap: Explain the topic briefly.

   – Opinion A – Arguments, example: Present one side of the argument.

   – Opinion B – Arguments, example: Present the opposing side of the argument.

   – Conclusion – Personal opinion + link to another topic: Share your stance and relate it to another relevant topic.

Suggested response structure:

Introduction/Factual recap: The EU digital covid certificate is a measure that has been adopted by several countries such as France and Canada to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. It restricts the movements and activities of non-vaccinated citizens in an attempt to curb the spread of the virus. This measure has sparked widespread debate due to concerns that it may be seen as contradicting the democratic principle of “equality of rights,” which states that all citizens, regardless of their social background, religion, or other factors, are equal before the law and should not have privileges.

Opinion A – Arguments, example: Opponents of the EU digital covid certificate – A liberty-restricting measure that could lead to an extended “health dictatorship” – Discrimination when not vaccinated – Example: “freedom convoys.” in France and Canada

Opinion B – Arguments, example: Advocatesof the EU digital covid certificate – The government should be allowed to implement measures that restrict freedoms if they are protecting public health and the common good – The EU digital covid certificate can protect individual freedoms of the majority (those who are vaccinated) and support economic recovery.

Conclusion – Personal opinion + connection with another topic: After looking at these two perspectives, I tend to support the EU digital covid certificate as long as it remains an exceptional and short-term measure. I believe the EU digital covid certificate is necessary to save lives, as long as the epidemic is not under control. The question of state intervention in public health matters is not new. During the AIDS pandemic in the 1980s, for example, movements like ACT UP accused Western democracies of inaction in the face of a public health emergency.

We believe this is a good response structure because it demonstrates that you think like a future dual degree student: 1) You gather information on the facts, 2) You explore the arguments of both sides by researching different sources, and 3) You eventually take a position. Furthermore, if you need some time to recall arguments for and against, the factual introduction provides you with that time to think.

Exercise 2: Broad Analysis-Type Question (e.g., “Tell us about the war in Ukraine”)

 – Introduction/Factual Recap: Provide a concise overview of the topic.

   – Issue 1 – Arguments, example: Address the first aspect of the topic.

   – Issue 2 – Arguments, example: Discuss another significant aspect.

   – Issue 3 – Arguments, example (if necessary): Cover additional relevant aspects.

   – Conclusion: Summarize the key points and express your perspective or relate the topic to another current issue.

Suggested response structure:

Introduction/Factual recap: Russian President Vladimir Putin has long had the ambition to restore the territorial unity of Russia before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukraine, which gained independence in 1991, has a history and culture very close to that of Russia, and its independence has often been contested by the Russian leadership. Under President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine has been moving closer to the EU and NATO, which has raised Putin’s concerns. In April 2021, Russian troops began amassing at the borders, and separatist attacks increased in the pro-Russian Donbass region. On February 24, 2022, after recognizing the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia officially declared war on Ukraine, prompting severe sanctions from the European Union.

Issue 1 – Arguments, example: The “return of war in Europe” and the failure of international organizations (NATO, EU) to maintain peace – Example: Ukraine’s desire to join NATO as a cause of the war and the issue of NATO’s Article 5.

Issue 2 – Arguments, example: Europe’s dependence on Russian gas – Example: Germany and Nord Stream 2 (Hello Nancy campus).

(Issue 3 – Arguments, example): Russian imperialist ambitions in Europe and elsewhere – Example: tensions between China and Taiwan rekindled by the war in Ukraine? (Hello Havre campus).

Conclusion – Personal opinion or link to another current topic: I believe that the war in Ukraine represents a major turning point in 21st-century geopolitical dynamics because it questions both the ability of European and international organizations to maintain a form of peace in the world and the energy dependence of European powers in the context of ecological transition. Additionally, it raises questions about the expansionist ambitions of major powers in Europe and Asia. While its scale is different this time, the war in Ukraine is not an isolated incident. We can recall, for instance, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, which, although largely forgotten by the general public today, had already sparked significant tensions in Europe at the time.

These structured approaches showcase your analytical abilities, organized thinking, and the capacity to guide the conversation towards your areas of expertise and interests. These techniques help you respond effectively to a broad range of questions, whether factual, opinion-based, or analytical.

Q&A:

How can I save time and take the time to think?

As we’ve discussed earlier, having response structures in mind is an effective technique. When you encounter a question, use a structured approach to organize your thoughts quickly. If the question is unclear or you’re uncertain, don’t hesitate to request that the jury repeat or rephrase it to ensure clarity and accuracy in your response.

What should I do if I don’t know how to answer a question?

The appropriate response depends on the nature of the question. For factual questions with clear answers, such as “What is the date of Myanmar’s independence?” (which is 1948), it’s best to admit that you don’t know. Attempting to invent an answer is unwise. If you have some contextual knowledge, even if you don’t know the exact answer, share it to demonstrate that you possess some understanding of the topic. For open-ended questions, like “Tell us about the right to abortion in the United States,” if you’re not an expert but have some knowledge, try to provide a preliminary analysis. You can also skillfully transition to related topics, such as the right to abortion in France, if that’s more familiar to you. The key is to respond thoughtfully and acknowledge your limitations.