Becoming a French bureaucrat

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Everyone knows it.

I might have expected that in the Anglais-sphere, but how does a Croatian first encounter it? Subtitled, dubbed, au naturel?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor


As for "culture générale", I'd think it would be a welcome (though fairly minor) test if it tested a candidate's intellectual curiosity, and his ability to put news or issues into a broader perspective. However, the way it is today, it is a major test (more important than languages FFS), and the importance of formal culture and language is essential.

I actually think it goes against the common good. In this day and age, there are plenty of French people who have trouble understanding formal speech. Popular culture doesn't use it at all (but it probably never did), but the TV also doesn't use it anymore. Even the news now use a looser language than what's expected of prospective civil servants (i.e those who'll still be civil servants years from now on, when this trend will have increased dramatically).
In order to serve the public, I think it would be much better to do it in the public's language, instead of focusing on a language that only a part of the population easily understands, and masters without overwhelming difficulty.

Regarding "culture générale" and intellectual curiosity and abilities to put news or issues into a broader perspective, the famous "note de synthèse" is not an appropriate answer? If not, what would be the appropriate test?
One can understand from your ideas about language that ignoring the public's language is only a matter of style, and that writing in that language would be as efficient as writing in the rigorous language expected of prospective civil servants. Unfortunately this is not possible because you can only express complex ideas with a rich language; the public's languages you are referring to are extremely poor in vocabulary and building constructions. You can test this assertion in translating your opening post in this public's language.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You can become a civil servant without an exam, just through actual experience? Wow.

Not really. Our civil service doesn't have an exam, per se, it's a selection proceedure. You have your application form (~2000 words in total) where they select ~10-20% of people to go through. Then the telephone interview, which is about 30-40 mins. This time they probably let nearer 20-30% through. Then the first assessment centre, which is where you have interviews, written tests, problem solving tasks, group discussion tasks and some form of logic test. Then if they have lots of applicants, there's a second assessment day. Usually between 10 and 40% of people are accepted from that. The percentages are very rough though, depends on which stream you apply for.

The thing is, they now have the same proceedure for the summer internships. So I went through all that last summer in order to get my 11 week placement before my final year at uni. If you then do well on your placement (you have two performance reviews) then they offer you a graduate job for when you finish your degree. So all I have to do now is pass my degree with an upper-second class grade (something ~87% of Oxford students get or better) and I have a job. However I'm hoping to postpone it for a year to do a masters, but that's a lot harder to get, as I'm applying for a ridiculously oversubscribed scholarship.

Having said that, almost every prestigious graduate job in the UK has a very similar selection proceedure. Investment banks are easily the worst - you can expect to go through 5+ sets of interviews. But when there are 1000 applicants for each of the top jobs, you have to be a bit special. And sell your life to them (one of their grad recruiters told me that if you get through, they pretty much own your life 24/7, and you can be expected back into work at 1am if there's work to be done. Or just not to leave).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Regarding "culture générale" and intellectual curiosity and abilities to put news or issues into a broader perspective, the famous "note de synthèse" is not an appropriate answer? If not, what would be the appropriate test?

The "note de synthese" is about summarising a dossier, in spirit more than in content. However, you are barred from using any knowledge beyond what is in the dossier for that test. It shows that one can put things in perspective, but not necessarily into a broader perspective. The "note de synthèse" tests a skill that is very useful to the civil servant, but not really intellectual curiosity.

I think an adequate test of "culture générale" should first and foremost not weight too heavily on the mark. Being intellectually synamic might give you an edge over a competitor whose mastery of law or economics is as good as yours, but it shouldn't give you an edge over someone who clearly has a better mastery of the knowledges that will most matter in his carreer.
Also, the test should completely do away with the artificial Plan. The judges should evaluate the argument's cohesiveness, not its conformity to arbitrary standards. If the argument holds well together, and is easily readable, without a plan, then so be it.
Finally, the jusges shouldn't give a better reward to those who use their classical culture, while punishing those who use their popular culture. On the same page, the judges shouldn't condemn the use of "clumsy" words, whose usage has become self-evident to large swathes of the population.

As a result, the "culture générale" will much more accurately reflect a candidate's creativity and intellectual dynamism. It would love most of its conformism, in the name of which the candidate must conform to artficial codes, on which there's a social unequality.

you can only express complex ideas with a rich language; the public's languages you are referring to are extremely poor in vocabulary and building constructions. You can test this assertion in translating your opening post in this public's language.

I don't have much time these days, but maybe next week.

[Spiffor]

Drogue: thanks for the description. Interesting

[DAVOUT]

The "note de synthese" is about summarising a dossier, in spirit more than in content. However, you are barred from using any knowledge beyond what is in the dossier for that test. It shows that one can put things in perspective, but not necessarily into a broader perspective. The "note de synthèse" tests a skill that is very useful to the civil servant, but not really intellectual curiosity.

Making a meaningful synthesis of a chaotic dossier on a subject you totally ignored until you receive it requires a strong intellectual curiosity; at this stage, the “broader perspective” is not approached in lieu of the synthesis but after, based on it. You will be asked to demonstrate your broader perspective when you will apply for higher positions.

Also, the test should completely do away with the artificial Plan. The judges should evaluate the argument's cohesiveness, not its conformity to arbitrary standards. If the argument holds well together, and is easily readable, without a plan, then so be it.

Most of our activities are directed by “artificial plans”; maps, table of content, blueprints etc are artificial plans which direct our acts. Our thoughts need also to be directed, particularly when they are to be expressed. Depending of the public and of the support and of the result you want to obtain, you will decide to adopt the plan you think more appropriate, but there always will be a plan aiming to convince or seduce or simply explain. Contrary to what you think, the value of an explanation depends not only of its content but also of its structure which commands its effectiveness. Never eared of the elegance of a mathematical demonstration? The best example of the general recognition of the effectiveness of the two parts plan is the universal use of “pros and cons” classification which is a true and simple two parts plans

Finally, the juges shouldn't give a better reward to those who use their classical culture, while punishing those who use their popular culture. On the same page, the judges shouldn't condemn the use of "clumsy" words, whose usage has become self-evident to large swathes of the population.

Dictionaries qualify words as vulgar, slang, popular, familiar, classical, farfetched, old, and dialectal; when you prepare the exam, you are informed what level of language must be used; this level is of course the level of language that the civil servant will have to read, to write, to speak. What would you achieve in selecting people who want only to use their popular culture and language which are not understood by their bosses and colleagues? Incidentally could you mentioned some clumsy words that are better or easier than the classical equivalent?

As a result, the "culture générale" will much more accurately reflect a candidate's creativity and intellectual dynamism. It would love most of its conformism, in the name of which the candidate must conform to artficial codes, on which there's a social unequality.

It seems that you missed a point : the selection of civil servant cannot be usefully compared to the selection of artists, poets and novelists who certainly require much more creativity and intellectual dynamism than civil servants.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Making a meaningful synthesis of a chaotic dossier on a subject you totally ignored until you receive it requires a strong intellectual curiosity; at this stage, the “broader perspective” is not approached in lieu of the synthesis but after, based on it. You will be asked to demonstrate your broader perspective when you will apply for higher positions.

Not quite. All tests, from the lowest to the highest echelon of the administration, follows the same pattern. Tha main difference is the amount of available jobs, and the quality of the competitors.

Most of our activities are directed by “artificial plans”; maps, table of content, blueprints etc are artificial plans which direct our acts. Our thoughts need also to be directed, particularly when they are to be expressed.

I absolutely agree with the notion that one's argument has to be clear, cohesive and progressive. And almost everybody needs to plan his argument ahead to do that. As such, I have nothing gainst a plan per se.

However, I am very much against forcing people to adopt a two parts plan. The "pros/cons" you're mentioning is actually a big no-no (well if it's too obvious). And of course, this is not the only common form two-parts plan: "yes, but"; theory/praxis; before/after; quantity/quality etc. are common forms of a two part plan. And these forms have been invented after the fact, as students and their professors had to conform to the set amount of parts.

Dictionaries qualify words as vulgar, slang, popular, familiar, classical, farfetched, old, and dialectal; when you prepare the exam, you are informed what level of language must be used; this level is of course the level of language that the civil servant will have to read, to write, to speak. What would you achieve in selecting people who want only to use their popular culture and language which are not understood by their bosses and colleagues?

That they speak to people who don't speak classical?

Incidentally could you mentioned some clumsy words that are better or easier than the classical equivalent?

"On"
"Faire"
"Il y a"
Yeah, I know, they aren't really accurate words. But their meaning is often obvious. And they are almost alays a big no-no at the test.

It seems that you missed a point : the selection of civil servant cannot be usefully compared to the selection of artists, poets and novelists who certainly require much more creativity and intellectual dynamism than civil servants.

Indeed. This is why I advocate "culture générale" to be overall much less significant in the exams than it is today, with skill-based-tests keeping their importance. However, if we are to keep "culture générale", it shouldn't be to evaluate whether the candidate conforms to the cultural canons the Bureacrats expect from their caste, but to see whether the candidate is intellectually aware.

[DAVOUT]

Spiffor

Not quite. All tests, from the lowest to the highest echelon of the administration, follows the same pattern. The main difference is the amount of available jobs, and the quality of the competitors.

From bottom to top, all civil servants are paid to apply decisions made by political bodies; the most qualified of them prepare those decisions and the exams are made to select the best preparers of decision; those who want to make decisions have to chose an other way.

I absolutely agree with the notion that one's argument has to be clear, cohesive and progressive. And almost everybody needs to plan his argument ahead to do that. As such, I have nothing against a plan per se.

However, I am very much against forcing people to adopt a two parts plan. The "pros/cons" you're mentioning is actually a big no-no (well if it's too obvious). And of course, this is not the only common form two-parts plan: "yes, but"; theory/praxis; before/after; quantity/quality etc. are common forms of a two part plan. And these forms have been invented after the fact, as students and their professors had to conform to the set amount of parts.

It is an ordinary concern of any organization to provide their empoyees with directives regarding communication, and particularly the written communication, in order to make sure that the information flows in the most effective way. For instance most employees are not authorized to communicate with the outside, this communication being strictly limited to people with specific powers and competences; internal communication takes generally the form of reports defined by rules and reflect procedures dealing with the ordinary life which is made of a bunch of problems already identified and solved. The form of dissertation is only used about new problems; and those problems have to be solved as quickly as possible; it is not surprising that the structure recommended for a report informing responsible managers of an immediate problem requiring urgent decision is 1/standard and 2/quite simple.

That they speak to people who don't speak classical?

They speak the language supposed to be understood by the vast majority of the population.

"On"
"Faire"
"Il y a"
Yeah, I know, they aren't really accurate words. But their meaning is often obvious. And they are almost alays a big no-no at the test.

In my professional life I considered that my writing gave an image of the company I was working for and this creates an obligation of quality; in this case the style is part of the message. This all the more that it does not require a lot of efforts to avoid repetition, poor or unprecise vocabulary or vulgar tournure. The words that you quoted justify the big no-no, and I am sure that you will find the same reaction in all activities where the writing has some importance.

Indeed. This is why I advocate "culture générale" to be overall much less significant in the exams than it is today, with skill-based-tests keeping their importance. However, if we are to keep "culture générale", it shouldn't be to evaluate whether the candidate conforms to the cultural canons the Bureaucrats expect from their caste, but to see whether the candidate is intellectually aware.

With so many candidates for one job, you get more “intellectually aware” candidates than you need; how do you make the last selection? Drawing lots, awareness of other matters but which ones, cross country run? In fact the “culture générale” reflects an intellectual attitude which at 20 years owes not much to the social origins.

[MRT144]

ill **** on this **** cause im drunk

[:) Smiley]

a noble career choice, and best of luck!

[MRT144]

CAL BEARS MOTHERFU{CKER~!`