Correction to the regional Sciences Po exam questions 2013

Here is one of the suggested correction for the Subjects
Sciences Po 2013 among the many possible proposals. If you have followed this plan, or these indications, it means that you have touched the question and you have a clear advantage.

We are quite satisfied with our predictions,
even if they were not perfect, we had insisted heavily on the
democracies – which still had not fallen since the creation – and that was a good
creation – and that was a good part of the question! Let us look at them in detail.

Corrected exam questions in regional Sciences Po History 2013:

“Democracy in Europe from 1945 to the 2000s.”

Analysis of terms:

Democracy: demos, the people, Croatia, power,
Political regime, system of government in which power is exercised by the people exercised by the people, by all the citizens.

Europe: the trap was to reduce Europe to the European Union. It
it was indeed a question of treating the whole of the European continent. Europe of the
North, South, West, East, Central

1945 to the 2000s: not to say the whole period studied and targeted by the competition, which makes it a particularly vast subject (with equally vast geographical which makes it a particularly vast subject – with equally vast geographical boundaries –


We had to see that democracy was the heart of the topic. The
the question that pinpoints the problem had to turn around this notion.

Democracy in the singular, but doesn’t democracy cover several forms from one side of Europe to the other, and from 1945 to the

Using the technique
of the question that pinpoints the problem in 2 minutes:

How could democracy in Europe in 1945, characterized by a multiplicity of its forms, to the point of sometimes hiding only an authoritarian regime, has an authoritarian regime, has it become a solid political framework that has imposed itself on the continent despite a certain instability until the 2000s?


I. A democracy or democracies in Europe?
—European construction, democracies disrupted by decolonization /
democracies in Eastern Europe, Central Europe, National Fronts, Prague coup, Yugoslav schism, CAEM, democracies of the southern countries)
of the south)

II. The emergence of European democracy: towards a supranational democracy that extends to the extremities of the continent (construction of a European
of a European democracy, treaties of Rome, evolution of democracy regimes of the South, Willy Brandt, crises of popular democracies,
Glasnost, Perestroika, end of the popular democracies)

III. Democracy in Europe between two centuries (German reunification,
Maastricht treaty, Amsterdam and Nice treaties, Europe from Brest to
Brest-Litovsk, Todor Zhivkov, Velvet revolution, Romanian revolution,
free” elections, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic)

To go further:

Fact sheets on Europe are available, as well as a chronology on the
European construction.

Correction to the Contemporary Issues topic:

  • Is science everyone’s business?

In the possible topics
that we proposed to train you, there was.
“Can the state control science?” This is in fact exactly the meaning of this topic.

Topic Analysis:

Science – from the worksheet
on science:

First meaning: All knowledge acquired through study or practice
Second meaning: Form of knowledge based on logic, the experimental method and the method and the search for theoretical explanations of phenomena.

Case – in this case for this subject there were two meanings:

First meaning: That which is in a relation of causal dependence with regard to this value or value or of classification in relation to this category; that which looks at, that which comes under, that which interests.

Second meaning: An abstract or concrete thing in which one or more persons are interested in. The exam question matter of a dispute,
a discussion.

All: it can also be understood in two different ways

First meaning: all in the sense of the entire population without exception, even the scientists, the politicians, those who have

Second meaning: all understood as “the common people”,
i.e. in the sense of an opposition with those who control
science, the scientists.

Problematic and plan:

Giving a question that pinpoints the problem would not really make sense, on the one hand, because the question of the question that pinpoints the problem is given by the question, on the other hand,
because there was a multitude of possible relevant problems.
The most important thing was to point out the fact that there is a certain monopoly of science on the part of scientists, like a technocratic society, but technocratic society, but also possibly by the public authorities. The
paradox comes from the fact that science has an impact on everyone, and should therefore be everyone’s business, which is not necessarily possible in possible in the facts, or in any case what is not in the facts at the moment. It was then a question of finding the right way to out of this paradox. Can science not be reconciled with the

The same reasoning for the plan. The outline had to trace this approach.
One could thus construct a paper along the following lines: I. Science is
everyone’s business… II. … but it is controlled by some… III.
… who should act according to the morality of the respect of all, this is “all” which sees to it reciprocally

It is thus all the more true for the plan, many other reasoning was possible and would be just as effective – in two large parts, or in two large parts, or in three large parts.

Ideas for the question on Is science everyone’s business?
Everyone’s business?

Comte was an essential figure, by posing the primacy of the science on all the rest.

Jules Ferry questions the all, not only within a people but between peoples: “[the superior races]We have the duty to civilize the inferior races” by means of science.

A figure to show the implication of the top of the State, thus of a handful of people for science: the share of the civilian budget for research and development represents 1,948 million euros in 2010. (see sheet
on science)

Is science really everyone’s business?
In other words, who has science in his hands who should have it in his hands,
and is it in good hands?

François Rabelais’ quote “Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul,” which is almost systematically used in general knowledge of science, was not
science, was not appropriate as we reminded you.

key quote was from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who clearly states that science must be science must be everyone’s business, because “No one is expected from the first duty of man excepted from the first duty of man; no one has the right to rely on the judgment of others – Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile or On Education.

Heidegger – whom we recommend that you quote – shows how the modern society sees in the technique a mode of thought of the man who wants to manage everything, alone, and perhaps to the detriment of all.

Karl Popper is an essential part of the reflection on science. For
him, science is a matter of criticism. “I came to the conclusion towards the end of 1919, to the conclusion that the scientific attitude was the critical attitude.”

Jacques Testart was an ideal reference.

“Everyone is responsible for the planet and must protect it on his or her own scale.”
Yann Arthus-Bertrand

Corcuff: “The non-commitment would thus be illusory and the scientist who would like to isolate himself would still participate in the course of the world.”

For each of these references, we had to find relevant examples. The shale gas,
for example, the progress of biotechnology, and the results
results, or in the news – see the press review
press review.

  • Should we trust the justice system?

Two exam questions that we proposed to
be proposed to you to train you were related to this question: Who
has the right to exercise justice? And does the State allow ensuring justice

Analysis of the terms:

Should we:

First meaning: Be required to, legally

Second meaning: An obligation, not necessarily binding, to which one feels obliged by virtue of a moral principle or a rule drawn from experience.


1st meaning: Firm hope that one place in someone, in something,
certainty of the loyalty of others.

Second meaning: A feeling of security experienced by one who relies on himself.

Third meaning: The feeling of assurance that comes from faith in the future.


See the 7
different definitions of justice.

Issue and Plan:

Just like the question of science, there is a plurality of
reasoning. The question that pinpoints the problem asked above all: can we trust justice?
Can we trust justice? Are we obliged to trust justice?
Justice? To trust justice as a judicial institution,
laws, or to trust justice as a moral virtue of men?

The outline could follow the same steps, or be organized differently according to the aspects you wanted to deepen.

Ideas on whether to trust the justice system:

You could have drawn your hook from current events, in particular from the wall that we had highlighted in the
press review. In view of this controversy, can we really believe that justice is independent, and should we trust it?

to have confidence in justice: “It is to have innocent people arrested and innocent people and to put them on trial without reason and, most of the time,
most of the time – as in my case – without result.” Chapter III, The Trial

Should we trust justice?

The history of judicial errors
in France proves it: 9 judicial errors since 1945.

But if confidence in justice collapses, one can only take justice into one’s own hands
only oneself: ’The need to take justice into one’s own hands is a cul-de-sac
and the necessity of taking justice into one’s own hands is a cul-de-sac in which one sometimes finds oneself involved. ’Victor Hugo in Claude

In spite of these difficulties, it is quite necessary
to institute a justice. Because otherwise justice would only be a vengeance. (Even though
vengeance can be a justice?)

But isn’t this justice
in fact hide a pure revenge? “I tear your veil so that from your hole of lies your rage makes you come out and that behind your word “justice” your vengeance may emerge.”
Friedrich Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1883–1885

According to Rosanvallon,
society must be able to trust in justice, and society demands of justice.

But justice
justice is not reduced to the right, as the myth of Antigone can make us feel the myth of Antigone.

It is then necessary to distinguish justice as a virtue, from justice applied justice. Aristotle
is one of the first to have distinguished it, allowing us to find a solution to the problem.

Indeed, in the article on justice
on justice: “It will be some time before the justice of men has made its junction with justice – Victor Hugo, The Man Who Laughs

Alternatives and other possible correction

Some good quality comments on our website
deserve special attention. You can compare the different visions:

Contemporary issues, English, History: @Pol
; Science and history topic: @Sofya
; Science and history: @youssef
; Science and history: @Jybet
→ Find the answer key for Sciences.
Po Bordeaux 2013
, and the answer keys of Sciences Po Paris 2013.

25 thoughts on “Correction to the regional Sciences Po exam questions 2013

  1. totally agree with ”Kira”. I also treated the question in the logic where after the war, 2 antagonistic blocks are formed: USA USSR, one has democratic values and the other not. At first the USA pushes Europe to unite to prevent Soviet expansion (Beginning of European construction) / but in the East the USSR seizes the PECO (popular democracy) and places them de facto under their dependence, same regime .. In a second time the popular democracies revolt (Spring Pragues, Hungary, Albania … to be independent) and the European construction continues until the German reunification and the fall of the ussr and finally the EU offers these countries programs to instil democratic values in them and finally for them to join the EU in 2004 What do you think?

  2. In my opinion, there is no corrected type, so peace! Imagine, 11,000 candidates, 11,000 identical copies! The 1000 admitted are, in my opinion, copies that have distinguished themselves by the singularity of their approach, and any argument, if it is explained and has a logical link with the question, is admissible! So wait one last month before debating in such an unfriendly way about what to do and what to say. At the end of the year, keep your baccalaureate in your sights, don’t worry about the correction offered online, they are nothing more than the reflection, the point of view and the approach of a particular person, one example among so many ‘others. Keep hope and get to work, the exams are not over! 😉

  3. You may be educated, but the way you react only portends a notorious weakness of intelligence. You wish me misfortune on others, you believe yourself superior and you do not accept the plurality of opinion as well as the error.

  4. Boulcy, it is quite possible to work out a three-part outline in such a short time… To make a three-part outline is not to say to write sixty pages, but rather to support a reasoning and to make it richer than a 2-part. Doing one more game does not take more time but requires more technique. This requires special training.

  5. You are not contradicting facts and history. You don’t understand anything about French and the words that make it up. You made misinterpretations and off-topic in your subject. See you again on the 27th when you miss it 🙂

  6. @Keynes. Eh ? You are confusing direct and indirect universal suffrage. It is not because the President was elected by a college of electors that the election was not democratic. Your definition of democracy seems rather vague or even downright false on certain points. As for the Algiers putsch, it is precisely he who pushed – among others – Coty to call De Gaulle, because he was afraid that a real coup d’etat would take place. Review your timeline. I will not take up all the misinterpretations with respect to the story and the question you are doing, good evening. @siegrist: You forgot some aspects of the concept but that’s pretty much what you had to put in

  7. Not at all conceivable to treat it chronologically? I-45-62 II-62-89 II-89-ajd

  8. Trap subject to read with caution, a simple problem: does the end of nazism in europe symbolize the advent of democracy on the old continent?? From here we oppose the liberal democracies of the West to the popular democracies of the East, on the one hand by emphasizing the republican refoundation in France and the denazification in Germany and on the other hand by describing the rapid changeover Eastern countries towards dictatorship. In a second part, it will be a question of underlining the establishment of an area of peace, prosperity and democracy in Western Europe through the construction of Europe and the failure and contestation of communism in the east which will lead to the fall of communism and the establishment of democracy in the western sense of the term. Finally, to show that the end of the bipolar world makes the European Union think in its entirety, which requires a deepening of democracy, at a time when the EU faces the challenges of globalization and is strongly criticized for its technocratic and undemocratic. This is my humble opinion and reassured you I made an epic off-topic two days ago by dealing with democracies instead of democracy, I inflicted a diabolical punishment on myself which will remain engraved on my private parts for a long time 🙂 Good continuation the Palian sciences!!

  9. And I would like to point out that René Coty in 1958 appealed to De Gaulle who had retired from political life, and who the latter worked out and then had the Fifth Republic voted by referendum. The putsch of the generals in Algeria, of which you make the reference, did not take place until much later. The events therefore took place in the spirit of democracy, and the remarks made by Mitterrand are only an amplification of the situation. Moreover, in view of the political conjecture of the time, it was necessary or even vital to avoid any scandals to filter information as well as to have a secret police.

  10. But you make me say things I didn’t say! I have drawn up a contrast, figure yourself, between the 4th and 5th centuries, saying that we could observe a pre-eminence of democracy from 1969 to the present day (the 5th), but that the post-war period was very controversial. in terms of democracy, and I cited the example of the election of the president which is not done by universal suffrage but rather by a college of electors, as in the United States. Explained like this, I am certain that the French republics could take a certain place in the body of duty, showing well the contrast between two periods.

  11. Iop, I treated the duty by thinking above all about one thing .. what would be in Europe the liberal democracy such as one hears it today if the Americans had not intervened? Wasn’t communism a threat against democracy? Wasn’t it then logical to speak of the evolution of democracy during the Cold War? When in the second part did we not notice a democratic trend after 1991 despite the humanitarian and political problems of Europe in The only problem, I miss the political culture of the countries of southern Europe.

  12. You did not understand. The Fifth Republic opened with an attempted putsch. A coup. The opposite of a seizure of power by the people, therefore democracy. Hence the title of Mitterrand’s book, where he has very harsh words against De Gaulle. A so-called government party (UMP or PS today, UDF, RPR and PS before) no longer uses these very harsh words. Another reference, OSS 117, maybe you will understand better: revealing of the relativity of the notion of democracy, including in France. History is not smooth. Democracy is won over the long term (hence the limitation of the question by the way) and it is never really won. Never. A subsection is 2 ideas, so almost a page. This is way too much in my opinion, you will only be filling to fill at the expense of more important information and developments within the framework of this subject. Afterwards, I haven’t read your paper so I can’t judge how you integrated this sub-part into an assignment…it seems difficult and risky to me.

  13. They could still constitute a sub-part! Mitterrand was on the left, the opposition party, it is normal for him to say a government in place, as Aubry or Hollande often did under Sarkozy! Your outline looks pretty good to me Kira, but obviously, given the copy that some had to make in history, because of the difficulty of the question, a good or average copy will be immediately elevated.

  14. @Keynes: I don’t share the same analysis of the question at all. in Europe it is not in France. We must talk about democracy in France in a restricted framework to show that it has been able to recover quickly and come together under the GPRF. Afterwards, I’m not sure that we can talk about the Gaullist regime, which came to power after a coup d’etat. Mitterrand also writes I call the Gaullist regime dictatorship because all in all that is what it most resembles, because it is towards a continuous reinforcement of personal power that it inevitably tends in the Coup d’ Permanent state. In short, we are far from a smooth history of the French Republic 🙂 We had to talk about it, but it was not at all the center of the question. Kira, I think you put it all in, maybe even a little too much about the Cold War and not enough about European construction. It’s an interesting angle on the question. On the other hand, I didn’t understand much about the structure of your plan… For factual errors, I think I have the Palme d’Or after writing hyberique (sic) instead of iberian haha

  15. To add on the period 1991-2000: I studied the retrenchment of the USSR to become the USSR, because of its territorial losses. I would love to hear everyone’s opinions. knowing that in this subject, I have weighed the scales of history in the analysis of democracy. I have endeavored to penetrate the intelligence of our time.

  16. History test Question: Democracy in Europe from 1945 to the 2000s Analysis of the question Keywords democracy: it is the government of the people by the people (the ancient Greek philosophers) Europe: it is a continent taken through the prism of the Karl Marxist-Leninist temptation for half a century and saved from himself and by American power. 1945: date on which the Second World War ends. years: this is the present time. Europe has regained its integrity and democratic strength. Topic Issue(s): The question designer asks the student/candidate to explore the evolution of democracy in Europe after the end of World War II. It must be understood that the construction of Europe rhymes with the strengthening of the democratic frameworks of societies. But the notion of democracy is a subject of discord between the big winners (USA and USSR) to the point of triggering on the European terrain especially a new relatively different war (from what Europe has known). In these 2000s, Europe can congratulate itself on having regained its letters of nobility of yesteryear, despite the economic crises that are eating away at the social and political fabric. Overview of ideas Dates to highlight 1945: end of World War II 1946: Churchill’s speech on the Iron Curtain. 1947: Truman Doctrine.Marshall Plan/ Jdanov Doctrine.COMECON.Cominform 1945-1947: march towards the Cold War. 1948-1949: blockade of Berlin. 1956: Hungarian revolt 1968: Prague Spring 1985: coming to power of Gorby. Implementation of Glasnost (freedom of expression) 1989: November 9, fall of the Berlin Wall. 1991: breakup of the USSR around the 1990s: war in the former Yugoslavia, reunification of Germany. In the 2000s: Europe reaffirms itself and becomes a model of democracy in the world. Plan (analysis, analysis! that’s what I did. The development I made is unheard of. because the events of the Cold War, I analyzed them under the critical eye of democracy) Crisis during the Cold War Warning signs (= Sovietization of Europe) * Yalta conference (February 4-11, 1945): decision to establish free elections in the liberated territories. (retained in the press publication of the conference). But they will never take place in Eastern Europe. * Civil war in Greece and serious crisis in Turkey: weakness of Great Britain in these zones of influence. * Speech on the Iron Curtain in Fulton, in 1946. * Truman Doctrine Vs Jdanov Doctrine * Marshall Plan Vs COMECON * NATO (protection of liberal democracy by military means) Vs Warsaw Pact (suppression of bloody riots = Spring of Prague, riots of Budapest) * Arrival of Gorby (note!) in power in 1985: glasnost (freedom of expression) and perestroika (economic reforms, not really interesting for the duty this reform). * Fall of the Berlin Wall * Explosion of the USSR The post-Cold War period (1991 to 2000) * Inter-ethnic war in former Yugoslavia: ethnic cleansing. In the 2000s (Showcasing my geopolitical knowledge of Europe in terms of democracy) Subject writing Introduction By declaring that democracy is the government of the people by the people, the ancient Greek philosophers give a dimension particular to the role of citizens in the exercise of power and society. Nevertheless, after the end of the Second World War, the notion of democracy became a subject of contention between the great victors, in particular the United States and the USSR, to the point of starting a new war on European territory relatively different from this they have known before: this is the Cold War. In this case, Europe is a continent caught in the prism of Karl Marxist-Leninist temptation for half a century and saved from itself and by American power. What becomes of Europe then? To answer this question, it will first analyze the evolution of democracy in Europe during the Cold War, then it will highlight the new democratic trend in the post-war period (after 1991) in this Old World. (*). Conclusion In conclusion, it is necessary to recall that after the end of the Second World War, the strengthening of democratic frameworks in Europe continued with difficulty. Because it provokes the struggle of two relatively different models, Soviet and American. Nevertheless, currently in these 2000s, Europe can congratulate itself on having regained its letters of nobility of yesteryear, despite the economic crises that are eating away at the social and political fabric. Nota bene: I used by confusion the word old-world instead of old-continent to designate Europe differently. I hope the proofreader won’t pay attention because the meaning of the outline hasn’t changed in the end, I think. And then I realized later that the quote is from Abraham Lincoln. Have I then lost my shot?

  17. Of course, 3 games is too much, unless you rush English. As for your Iop analysis, I personally think that it is necessary to develop French democracy, because it constitutes a fundamental example of untainted democracy. It’s a bit of a definition of democracy, and we could have shown that despite this, it nevertheless accumulates political and economic, and even social, divergences.

  18. Yes 3 parts is too much in 3 hours including 1h30 to 2h of writing maximum, unless you sell off either the draft or the quality of the copy rendered in terms of form (style, calligraphy, spelling/grammar…) There’s interesting elements in the outline you are proposing but difficult to judge as it stands. Some information seems to me superfluous or off-topic. It is necessary to keep a coherence in the outline and a clear common thread that the proofreader must be able to identify easily. And a red thread is to speak of the USSR and popular democracies only on the margins of duty and to feed the question of democracy in Europe. And no, boulcy, the French Republic was not important in the question. We have to talk about it to show that in 1945 we were in a republican overhaul after Vichy and before the Fourth Republic. At the limit to say that it is a pillar of Europe and will help denazification… apart from that, it is useless to mention it. Just because it’s in the course doesn’t mean you have to talk about it!

  19. Your outline skips one of the most important parts: the French republics, which constitute an exemplary democracy, and being an integral part of the program, it was necessary to dedicate a part to them.

  20. Your outline in history is completely utopian, it is impossible to make 3 games in 3 hours unless you know the question in advance. Moreover , the ideas that you state do not for the most part fit into the notion of democracy . Admittedly, we must talk about other regimes, but not develop them.

  21. Hello, thank you for the fixes. Europe from Brest to Brest-Litovsk I don’t understand what this means, can you please clarify? .

Comments are closed.