Sciences Po: Your two programme choices

1,500-2,000 characters including spaces (about 250-350 words); this piece is ungraded

Please specify the two programmes you are most interested in and explain your motivation for choosing each.

What it’s really asking

They want you to name your two preferred undergraduate programmes (for example a specific campus with its regional concentration, or a dual degree) and give a real, distinct reason for each. It checks that you understand the structure you are applying into.

Why they ask it

Even though it is ungraded, this answer reveals whether you have done your homework on the actual programmes and campuses, or whether you are applying to a brand. Specific, well-matched reasons signal a serious applicant.

Three ways in

Name each programme precisely

Include the campus and its regional or thematic focus, so it is clear you actually know the options on offer.

Give each its own distinct reason

Tie each choice to your goals separately; do not let the two motivations blur into one general statement.

Anchor the regional focus in your life

Connect each concentration to something concrete in your background, languages, or future plans rather than to vague interest.

✕ Weak opening

“I am interested in Sciences Po because it is a world-class institution with an excellent reputation.”

✓ Strong opening

“My first choice is the Reims campus Europe-North America programme, because I want to study transatlantic policy from inside the disagreement, not above it.”

✦ Annotated example · Politics and Government, with Economics. Written by EssayLens to teach, not a real applicant’s essay. Tap a highlighted line →

My first choice is the Bachelor in Political Humanities, and specifically its Politics and Government track. I am less interested in who wins power than in how power is constrained once held: the procedural plumbing of constitutions, the boring clauses that quietly decide whether a crisis becomes a coup or a footnote.¹I came to this through a small experiment. Tracking how three European parliaments handled emergency powers during the pandemic, I found that the same legal tool produced very different outcomes depending on oversight rules written decades earlier.²I want a programme that treats those rules as primary objects of study rather than background detail, and the political science core here does exactly that. The fit is not aspirational; it is the obvious next room for a question I am already inside.³My second choice is the track combining the social sciences with Economics. I add economics not as a separate ambition but as a corrective: I have watched well-designed institutions fail because they ignored incentives, and elegant economic models fail because they ignored institutions. I want to be uncomfortable in the space where the two disciplines disagree.⁴Concretely, I expect economics to discipline my instincts. When I argue that a regulation should exist, I want to be the kind of student who immediately asks what behaviour it will quietly reward and who will route around it. That reflex feels essential to studying government honestly.⁵Together the two tracks map a single question I cannot put down: why do good rules so often produce bad outcomes, and what would it take to design ones that survive contact with real human incentives? I am choosing these programmes because they refuse to let me answer that question with only half the tools.⁶

1Opens by naming a real Sciences Po track and immediately gives a precise, idiosyncratic motivation. 'Procedural plumbing' shows the candidate is drawn to institutional mechanics, not vague ambition.
2Backs the choice with concrete prior work and a specific finding, signalling that the motivation is evidence-based rather than aspirational.
3Ties the finding directly to what the programme offers, making the case for genuine fit explicit and grounded rather than flattering the institution.
4Frames the second choice as intellectually complementary to the first rather than a hedge. 'Uncomfortable where the two disagree' signals appetite for rigour and the pluridisciplinary ethos the school prizes.
5Gives a specific, almost self-critical reason for the pairing, showing maturity. Naming a 'reflex' to acquire is more convincing than listing course titles.
6Unifies both choices under one driving question, demonstrating coherence. The closing line restates fit cleanly and concisely, respecting the tight character limit even though this prompt is ungraded.

Stuck? Start here

Which two campuses or programmes genuinely fit your interests, and can you name their regional or thematic focus?
What in your background, languages, or plans makes each one a real match rather than a guess?
If you had to give two clearly different reasons, one per programme, what would they be?

Before you submit

Have you named both programmes precisely, including campus and concentration?
Does each choice have its own distinct, concrete motivation?
Have you connected at least one choice to something specific in your own life or goals?

Drafted it? Get an honest, admissions-style read, free.

Score my essay