On death penalty

While browsing the Internet this morning, I came across a quote from Britney Spears (I know, I know...) reported in a French newspaper: "I am for the death penalty. Who commits terrible acts must get a fitting punishment. That way he learns the lesson for the next time." I don't know if she exactly said it that way -I hope, for her sake, that her words were altered - but what made me smile at first, quickly reminded me of the immorality of death penalty and the urgency to abolish it.

"Death penalty is the special and eternal sign of barbarism. Where death penalty is applied, barbarism dominates; where death penalty is rare, civilization reigns." Victor Hugo pronounced those words as early as 1848. And yet, 160 years later, thousands of people around the world are on death row. Abolitionism started a very long time ago. For a brief period of time during the 8th century, China banned the capital punishment. But in spite of some oppositions here and there, every society relied on the death penalty to deal with criminals, with some difference in the methods.

In modern times, the abolitionist movement started in Europe with the publishing of Cesare Beccaria's book: Dei Delitti e Delle Pene (On Crimes and Punishments) in 1764. This book influenced Grand Duke Leopold II of Habsburg who was the first head of State to abolish death penalty in his duchy (Grand Duchy of Tuscany) in 1770. Following, more and more countries and states abolished the capital punishment. Today, every country in Europe has abolished it and the abolition of death penalty is a requirement to enter the European Union.

In the United States, Michigan was the first State to abolish the death penalty in 1847 and since then, it has never been reinstated. Today, 13 American States and the District of Columbia have banned the capital punishment including Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

I believe that death penalty is wrong and should be abolished everywhere.

First of all, I believe that a society cannot achieve greatness by deliberately killing some of its constituents. As soon as they started settling down into societies, men came to the conclusion that killing is wrong and should be prohibited. One of the first human right proclaimed was the right to live. We usually feel appalled when we take a look at History and hear about the torture and cruelties that our ancestors inflicted on their outlaws. Today, arbitrary trials have been replaced by courts and cruel punishments by so called humane ways of dying. But nevertheless, we are still killing. We are still committing the worst act on earth. And we are doing it in the name of the law. The Law is supposed to help us live together. By killing in the name of the law, we are sullying society itself. I agree with Robert Kennedy when he said: "Whenever any American life is taken by another unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in defiance of the law ... in an attack of violence or in response to violence - the whole nation is degraded."

How do you draw a line between what is right and what is wrong if you allow a supreme wrong in the name of justice? Two wrongs do not make a right. Killing a person who has killed will not bring the victim back, it will not remove the sorrow from the victim's family, it will only add misery to the world. If you have concluded that killing was wrong, don't do it in the name of justice.

If anything, a society condemning a criminal to death is a sign of its own failure. Death is an easy way out, death means erasing the individual, pretending that he never belonged to society. Josef Stalin is reported to have said: "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." Instead of trying to work on an issue and solve it so as to make the world a better place, the death penalty tries to forget everything and move on. Now, you can't move on if you don't try to face the issues. Giving the death penalty to someone is also a way of saying that society does not think that it is able to rehabilitate the individual. It is like confessing failure in advance.

Revenge is a natural feeling after horrible things has been committed. However, justice should be kept as far away from revenge as possible. Justice has to be fair and restorative. While revenge is only about punishing the criminal, justice is based on morality and has a responsibility to "bring society back to normal after a wrong has been perpetrated". Most of the time, revenge only aggravates the situation by generating more crimes and more sorrow. Like Gandhi said: «An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.»

I believe that death penalty belongs to a Manichean and dualistic school of thought where there is evil on one side, good on the other and nothing in the middle. I totally disagree with this way of thinking. I don't believe that there is a good and an evil on Earth . I think that there is a lot of gray. I believe that there is an absolute good somewhere but I doubt that it is reachable by humans. Because humans have feelings and emotions, I don't believe that they can attain perfection in which resides good. But because humans can think, I believe that they can and that they should always try to tend to it. Most people refer to the necessity of keeping death penalty for the most horrible crimes, perpetrated by evil individuals. I believe that those cases are immensely rare and that most of the crimes - even the most horrible ones - are committed by normal people, not monsters. I believe that society cannot put those individuals aside by stating that they are different from the rest of us. We, as a society, have to look into our own responsibilities.

On a side note, throughout the years, people have used the term "evil" to refer to enemies so that no one can question their acts against the so-called evil beings. Indeed, when you are fighting evil, anything is allowed. "Fighting evil" is a very easy and a very dangerous rhetoric. It has led humanity into numerous wars. Referring to evil has the advantage of uniting people behind you easily (in the name of good) and having no accountability for the wrongs you can do while fighting evil. But I am going a little further than my initial purpose there which was dealing with the death penalty.

Death penalty carries a culture of violence that tarnishes society. When the law is violent in its methods, it rubs on the individuals. When the killing of people is allowed and is used as a way to regulate society - even if it is properly supervised - people tend to internalize this violence and get more violent themselves.

It has been proved by numerous studies that death penalty is not deterrent. People do not think of the possibility of their own death when they commit a crime. If anything, because of the culture of violence it generates, death penalty may enhance criminality.

The countries executing the most people around the world are: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the USA and Iraq. Do you notice anything weird? Yes, me too. The USA are the only democracy still killing in the name of justice. As the "leader of the free world", it seems important to me that the USA show the example in terms of human rights.

Throughout the years, how many innocents have been killed? How many people have been killed because they were too poor to afford a competent lawyer? Our justice system is not perfect. With money, you can afford a good lawyer and escape death penalty. With no money and no education, being able to defend yourself properly can be a hardship. How many people have been given the death penalty because of their skin color? Even in the fairest justice system, you can never totally eliminate bias. Men are fallible and for this reason, you cannot put the supreme decision of life and death into the hands of men.

Around the world, how many people are killed because they hold different opinions than the mainstream? How many people are killed because they are homosexual or because they had sexual intercourse before out of wedlock? Of course, those cases shock us all because fortunately, in the western world, our laws have evolved. But who is able to tell what tomorrow will be made of? As man advances towards a more and more civilized world, who can tell what our children and grandchildren will think of our world? What will they smile at, what will shock them? To know it, let's look at our History and at what we consider today as the greatest achievements of humanity: the declaration of human rights, the right to vote, the abolition of slavery, the abolition of torture, the abolition of segregation... All those great achievements were going towards more human rights. The next step? Abolish the death penalty everywhere. It is that simple.

«There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.» Montesquieu

The art of patience

"You'll receive your visa in 7 days by Chronopost". Those were the last words that the embassy employee said last Wednesday after my final interview at the consulate in Paris. These words were a relief to me. I thought: "That's it, the wait is over. After more than a year of being processed, my visa has finally been accepted and I will be able to hold it in 7 days." I was thinking that I would be able to make my plane which was already booked for the next Friday, 9 days after the interview.

Now is exactly 7 days later. I am at home. I am doing nothing. I am waiting for this visa. I am waiting for the master key that will enable me to be with Mike again. I am waiting by the window, looking at every car passing by, hoping that one of them is going to stop and hand me my precious visa. Waiting is a real torture. The Chronopost envelop has to arrive before 1pm and it is already almost 11am. Every minute passing by is one less chance to receive it today. And if I don't get it today? What do I have left? Tomorrow. Tomorrow will be 8 days after my interview but since Tuesday was a holiday (nov. 11), it would make sense that the process be delayed by 1 day.

Ok, I guess that tomorrow will again be a "waiting day".

I love Paris in the summer

Working in the center of Paris made me realize that it is such a beautiful city... Here are some of the picture that I took during my lunch breaks.

L'Occitane, a true story

I haven't been writing on this blog for a while and I feel kind of bad but I have been working for the last two months and a half - which i hadn't done for a while!

After spending three weeks of vacation in Gleizé in July, Mike had to go back to Boston and I stayed with my parents, waiting for my visa to be processed. I decided to apply at L'Occitane, a company selling beauty products because I had already worked there last Christmas and I needed a job right away. Being a sales assistant isn't the best job ever but it can be fun and it is only temporary.

I like L'Occitane. They have very good products, made from natural ingredients. Working with those products everyday made me appreciate them even more. My favorite ranges are honey and lemon (the body scrub and lotion, the hand cream, the soap and the perfume smell wonderful), almond (especially the body cream and exfoliating soap) almond and apple for face care and cherry blossom for the perfume. The only downside of the brand, in my mind, is the price: the almond shower oil is amazing for both its texture and fragrance but I don't think that it is justified to charge 14.50 euros for something hat is basically soap and is going to run out pretty quickly.

I started working at a store on l'île de la Cité on August 8th. It was a very nice store in a nice area. I'd stay that 80 % of the clients were tourists and I loved that. I got to speak English of course but also Spanish and Italian with them. Our clients came from everywhere: a lot of them came from Italy, Spain, Germany, England, Ireland, China, Japan, the United States and Brazil but I also met some people from Canada, Venezuela, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, India, Korea...

The downside of being in such a touristic area - right between the City Hall and Notre Dame- was that our store was often mistaken for an information stand: we were asked all kinds of questions about how to go here and there -Chatelet, la Sainte Chapelle, Opéra, the Eiffel Tower, Montmartre, the Latin Corner... Someone even asked my friend Oriane how to walk to the Mont Saint Michel! But the two things that we were asked to indicate several times a daywere McDonald's and Berthillon (the famous ice cream maker).

After working at this store for two months, and given that my green card wasn't ready yet, I continued working at l'Occitane in different stores inside Paris. I got to meet different types of people and I also had the pleasure of helping very weird clients including one who yelled at me because I asked her if "I could be of any help" and another one who tasted the hand creams that I was showing her. Yes, she actually tasted some of it and when I told her that hand creams were not supposed to be eaten, she replied very coldly that you have to taste everything that you put on your body, didn't I know that?!

Anyway, L'Occitane is a good experience (I am still working there for the next three weeks). I worked with wonderful people and even though I was thinking at first that the job would just be a way of passing time while waiting for my visa, I got to like it a lot. I used to feel a little ashamed of liking being a sales assistant, I was thinking of what the people from Sciences Po would think if they knew but I don't really care anymore. I am glad that I am liking what I am doing. I know that I wouldn't want to do that for the rest of my life because my project is to become a teacher and I am very motivated but I don't regret this experience at all.

Waiting for Miss Green

I wanted to write a post about how hard it is to just wait. I don't think that I am a particularly impatient person but sometimes waiting can be some sort of a torture.

Mike and I got married last July in France. We came back to the United States in August and sent an application for a spouse visa in September after gathering together all the necessary documents. Unfortunately, we forgot to add the check (!) to the package so we learned that we had to resend the whole package one more time, which we did a month later in October. At the time, we were told on the phone that the process usually takes 3 to 4 months to come through and I was happy thinking that I would be a legal resident by January or February. Little did we know that because of an increase in the fee (which we were not aware of), the number of applications doubled during the summer months and delayed the process. We didn't think much of it at first and continued to wait. Meanwhile, I had to go back to France in November because I cannot stay more than three months in the United States with a visitor's visa. So, I went back to France, I worked in a store for the Holidays and I came back to the United States mid-January. The immigration officers kept me for a while after I landed in Boston because I didn't have a return ticket. At the time, I was thinking that my green card would be ready by April and that I would take my return ticket once I knew exactly when I can pick up my visa at the American embassy in Paris. Unfortunately (and I should have known that), you are not allowed to come to the USA without a return ticket if you are a visitor. Luckily, Mike was at the airport and bought me a ticket to go back in April. This little event traumatized me a little because I felt like the officers were accusing me of sneaking into the country. One of them told me : "I am two inches to deporting you back to France." I am probably too sensitive but I had just traveled for 10 or 12 hours, I was very tired from the jet lag and this officer scared the hell out of me.

Anyway, I felt better after a couple days. Mike and I started looking for a house because we were still living with his parents at the time. Given the good economic conjuncture for buying real estate (with the prices dropping) and Mike's good salary, we decided to look into buying instead of renting. It was a fun period that kept me busy. I kept looking for houses on the Internet and Mike and I would go to open houses in the week end. After a couple of weeks, we found our dream house in Wakefield. We went to an open house on a snowy day and we put an offer right away. We passed papers in March and became homeowners - rather Mike became a homeowner as they refused to put my name on the deed and the loan probably because of the residency issue. In April, we had still not heard from the visa office. All we knew was that the check had been cashed in January. Mike decided to contact his Congressman, Edward Markey and his aid, Maggie McClory helped us by contacting the visa office for us and sending a letter to have my case expedited. She also managed to tell us our application number.

April came and I had to go back to France. I decided to go for just a week because I didn't want to be apart from Mike for a long time any more. I was very happy to see my family. I told them everything about the house and the town of Wakefield. After a week, I came back. This time, I didn't make the same mistake again: I had a return ticket for July. Nevertheless, the officers were even harder on me. The first immigration officer asked me what I was going to do in the USA. I told him that I was here to visit (because I have a visitor visa). He asked me who I was going to visit. At first, I just said: "some friends" because I know that "husband" is the trigger word that brings me directly to the special office downstairs for further interrogation. But then he asked me if I was married and I always swore to myself that I would never lie to immigration officers because I want to do things the right way. I am convinced that if I do things the right way, everything is going to go fine for my Green Card. That's the reason why I never overstayed any visa, I never worked while being in the USA. I have always done things the right way. So I told him that I was married to an American citizen and that I was coming here on a visitor's visa to be with my husband while my spouse visa was being processed. And of course, as I was expecting, he sent me to the special office downstairs for further investigation. Downstairs, the officer asked me all kinds of questions about me and Mike, where we met, where I went to school, what I studied... He asked me if I had a job in France and I said "no". I told him that I had a return ticket, that I never overstayed any visa and I was just here to be with my husband. He spent a long time behind his computer typing things and it made me really nervous. Then, he told me to go get my bags which I did. He opened them and checked all the items I had. While in France, I went to the store with my mom to buy some little things for the house like place mats and bowls. I also brought some stuffed animals and things that belonged to me. When he saw those, the officer told me that as a visitor, I am only supposed to bring things like clothes and toiletries and that the items I brought make things look like I was going to stay in the USA and not come back. At the end, all my things were scattered on the floor. He told me to put them back into the suitcases and went back to the computer. The people there were all looking at me and I felt a little humiliated. I closed my suitcases and went back to sit on the bench. I waited a long time and eventually, the officer came back and gave me my passport. He told me that it was okay for this time but that I have to be very careful because it might not be as "easy" next time! He told me that if I continue to do this, I will have spent more time in the USA than in "my foreign country" and that it is not normal. I wanted to tell him that all I wanted was to be with my husband, with the love of my life and that I wasn't trying to do anything illegal. Is it wrong to want to be with the person you love more than anything in the world? Is it wrong to try to start building a life with the person you love? Is it wrong to bring personal items to the place I want (and am entitled) to live? In his mind, there was a risk that I was going to immigrate illegally to the USA. But what would be the point for me? As the spouse of an American citizen, I have the right to come live with my husband (or rather my husband has the right to have me live with him) so why would I try to compromise that by immigrating illegally? Is being an illegal alien such a desirable life? Having to hide from authorities all the time, not being able to find a real job, not being able to be part of a community: is that desirable? I know that some people come to America illegally because they are desperate: they live in a poor country, have no job and see no future for themselves. In that case, for them, coming to the USA and living as an illegal alien beats the alternative. This is extremely sad and I feel grateful for not being in that position by my situation is totally different. I am not immigrating to the "USA", i am immigrating to "my husband's country" and it is very different. I really like the USA and I like living here but I would have never come live here if it wasn't for Mike. I am not coming here to have a better job. I went to one of the best universities in France and I know that I could have found a very good job in Europe. If anything, my job opportunities here are thinner because while my school, Sciences-Po, has a very good reputation in France, it is hardly known here. I wanted to tell all that to the immigration officer but I didn't dare. I thanked him and walked away, eager to fall in Mike's comforting arms.

It is now mid-June. We still haven't heard from the visa place. They were supposed to have sent us a letter to confirm that they received our application in January but we never received anything. Congressman Markey asked them to resend the letter in April but we still didn't receive anything. Mike called again on Monday to make sure that they had the right address and they are supposed to resend it another time. According to their website, they are supposed to be done processing the applications from July 31st, 2007 and it hasn't moved since March (it already said July 31st). We sent our application in October but it was opened only in January so I don't know which one counts. I am going back to France on July 6th with Mike. We are going to spend 3 weeks there together and then I don't think that I am going to come back on a visitor's visa. I think that I am going to stay there until I finally have the card. It is getting too expensive to go back and forth. It is already hard enough to pay a mortgage and everything that goes with it with just one salary. I don't really know what to think anymore as far as the how long it is going to take. Mike thinks that once they pass those summer months, it should get faster. I am trying to stay positive and be optimistic but it is not always easy. I always thought that I could start applying to schools by now and that I could start working in September. Now, I don't think that it is possible any more.

I feel really frustrated because all I am doing now is waiting. I am waiting and I don't even know for how long. I feel like I cannot start my life because I don't have this magic pass. That's what the immigration officer tried to tell me by pointing out all of the things I brought with me: I do not have the right to feel at home here yet. I feel like I am not welcome here, I feel like I am a suspect and I have to keep a low profile until they clear me. All I want to is living a normal life with my love: when am I going to be allowed to do that?

cats and lilies

A little while ago I was going to start writing a post about how wonderful my cats are, how funny and adorably mischievous, how affectionate and cute. But then came the lily... Actually the lily was there a day before we got the kitties. On a friday night, we threw a housewarming party to celebrate the purchase of our first home. We invited around 50 people and had a great turnout in spite of the rain. Of course, along with cole slaw, noodle salad and brownies, some guests brought flowers. We got a very nice and colorful bouquet from Mike's parents:

The next day came the kitties. The first 2 weeks with Doodle and Crinkle were wonderful. Little by little, they adapted to their new environment. They checked out the whole house and were pretty curious about everything. Then on a Friday morning, we noticed that one of the cat (we suspected that it was Doodle) threw up on the carpet. We didn't think much of it at first but since we had to bring them to the vet soon for a checkup, we decided to take an appointment for the same night so we could know why he vomited and if it was ok. I noticed that a piece of the big yellow flowers was missing and that another one was on the floor (at the time, I was naive and didn't even know that those flowers were actually lilies). I spent the day with the kitties, trying to check their behavior and I didn't see anything wrong. At 4:30, we went to the animal hospital. The veterinary examined both kitties and according to her, everything seemed to be normal. We told her about the flowers and she told us to check what kind of flower it was because some flowers are toxic and can be fatal for cats. She told us about the lily but believe me or not (and I feel very silly to admit that now), I didn't think that those flowers were lilies - for me lilies are the white long flowers we had at our wedding. Back home, we check out the flower and sure enough, it was a lily. We kinda of panicked because we went on the Internet and saw that if it is not treated immediately, cats who swallow some piece of a lily can die within 72 hours. Meanwhile, Doodle threw up again (including some pieces of flower) which only increased our freaking out. We called the vet in a hurry. She told us that the animal hospital in Wakefield was now closed but she advised us to go the one in Woburn, which is open 24/7. We went there quickly with the 2 kitties. We were totally panicking at that point. We had to wait for about 45 minutes before a doctor came and examined Crinkle and Doodle. She said that the best thing to do was testing their kidney by testing their blood level (because plant poisoning can lead to kidney failure). So we waited while the vet was taking their blood and analyzing it. A little while later, the vet came back and told us that the results from the blood testing wouldn't be available for another hour or so 9it was around 8:30 at that point). She also told us that whatever the results are, it would be preferable to keep them for 24 hours and treat them because the poisoning might not show up in the blood test right away even if they were actually poisoned. Mike and I felt a little strange because she didn't tell us that at first when we arrived. Why didn't she tell us right away that the blood tests wouldn't be reliable and that the kitties would have to be treated anyway? Well the answer probably resides in the bill. She presented us with an estimate of the cost of keeping the cats for 24 hours under IV and giving them charcoal to clean their stomach and intestines. The bill amounted to $1,200! But we didn't have the choice, we had to do it because alternative might have been the death of our cats. We didn't spend time thinking. We knew that it was a serious matter and that we had to do it. Even though we only had them for 2 weeks, we became very attached to Doodle and Crinkle and beyond that, we are their owners and we have a responsibility to take care of them as well as we can. So we said goodbye and we left them there. During the night, the doctor called us to inform us that they received the test results. Doodle's blood test was normal and Crinkle's was a little bit elevated but according to her it was either due to dehydration or to the shot he received at the vet early this night. It made us feel a little better but we still spent a rough night worrying about them. At 6:30, after her shift, the night doctor called us and said that Crinkle and Doodle were doing good and that it was the first time that she saw cats drinking the charcoal without a problem, "no wonder they ate the lily at your house," she said, "they would eat anything!" Later that day, another doctor called us and told us that the cats were doing good but that she would prefer to keep them at the hospital for another 24 hours just to make sure that they are ok. At that point, Mike and I had just balanced our checkbook and we noticed that we were very very tight budget now that we paid $1,200. We could definitely not afford another $8 or 900 to keep them there. She told us that "if it was her cats, she wouldn't hesitate" but she probably doesn't know what it means to be on a tight budget! We told her that we would be waiting for the new blood tests results and that we would decide afterward. Later that day, the blood tests showed that both cats were normal and we started feeling much better. After all, the tests were already good the day before. We went through the treatment anyway as a prevention but now that they are good again, we wanted to bring our babies home. And we did. The next doctor was much nicer and signed a release right away. The next few days were pretty hectic because I was very anxious that they wouldn't feel well. I would wake up in the middle of the night and make sure that they are okay. After a week , we were supposed to have the blood tested again but since it would have another couple of hundred dollars, we didn't do it. It has been 3 weeks now and the kitties are doing okay. Their hair is growing back very very slowly where they were shaved for the IV.

I must admit that I got really really scared. I removed all flowers and plants form my house and bought fake flowers. I would advise any cat owner to check the plants and flowers in their house and make sure that none of them is poisonous.

MTEL test

I took the MTEL last Saturday. I had to be at the English High School in Lynn at 7:45.

In the morning, I took the Communication and Literacy test which includes two subtests: Reading and Writing. The test lasts 4 hours and you need to time yourself pretty well because the test is long. I started with the Reading part which is made up of 30 multiple choice questions based on 6 readings and 6 open-response questions where you have to give the definitions of selected words. I wasn’t too worried about the multiple choice questions at first but I found on the day of the test that some of the questions were a bit tricky. The definition part of the test was what stressed me the most before I took it because since English is not my mother tongue, my vocabulary isn’t as wide as a native speaker’s. However, I found that the list of words to define wasn’t quite as hard as I was expecting it to be. Examples of words were confront, status or peril. Then I went on to the Writing subtest which is more time consuming. The test started with multiple choice questions testing grammar and syntax – especially punctuation, spelling and capitalization -. It continued with 3 open-response questions asking you to define some grammatical terms. The ones I was given on the test were so easy (adjective, interrogative sentence, imperative) that I even felt a little disappointed: after all I knew all about adverbial adjuncts, conjuncts and disjuncts and I was asked to define a simple adjective! Three other open-response questions asked to correct sentences that contained mistakes: I recognized a dangling modifier, several spelling mistakes and a wrong comparative structure and I hope that I corrected the sentences well. The test ended with two essay questions. For the first one, we were asked to summarize a text in no more than 250 words. I didn’t have any time to count how many words I used but I hope that I didn’t write to much and that I rephrased the text in an understandable way. The second essay was an open question and required the candidates to develop an response with several paragraphs, pertinent arguments and relevant examples. The question was about whether or not you consider that “No Pass/No play” is a fair policy in American High Schools. I wrote three paragraphs arguing that it wasn’t an efficient policy. I felt disappointed that some arguments for and against were already given to the candidates in the question itself. I felt like the test makers were spoonfeeding us which is unfortunate especially since coming up with arguments is my favorite part of an essay. It is very hard for me to judge myself on the essays because I know that my English isn’t as fluent as an American’s. I know that the people correcting my essays will probably notice that English is not my first language but I don’t know if it is going to be in my advantage or not. I know that I must have made some errors, either in the construction of the sentence or typos (because I finished just in time and didn’t have time to do any proofreading).

Here are some pieces of advice that I would give to anybody that would be interested in taking the MTEL test in order to become a teacher:

• Watch the time! I think that this is the most important thing. I read that some people even take only one subtest per test in order to have more time. Personally, I preferred to do everything at once, especially since the test is only offered 4 or 5 times a year. Do not spend too long on the essay questions: do not write a draft but just an outline so you know where you are going and try to time yourself at home (I consider that each essay question should take you around 45 minutes).
• review your grammar. Points can easily be won (or lost) because of a comma or a capital letter in the writing section.
• study with a preparation book. The MTEL test is very technical and the same types of questions always come up. Books can help you review the important points on the test quickly. I personally used 2 preparation books: the one from REA and the ones from XAM.

In the afternoon, everybody takes the specialty test that they want to teach. I took the French test. I must say that I was pretty confident about this test. Since I am French and I have lived and studied my whole life in France, I though that this test would be extremely easy (come on, I got 18/20 in French at the baccalaureat!) Unfortunately, I must admit that it wasn’t that easy, even for me. The first part of the test is the oral comprehension: the candidates listen to a tape and answer questions about what they heard. I decided to take notes in order to remember everything I heard. Of course it was really easy to understand simple conversations in French (even with the cute little American accents of the speakers!) but the answers were sometimes confusing, asking you to infer about the conversations for example. Also, for the first listening extract between a dentist and a patient, the dentist said that he would treat the tooth right away and perform a temporary implant. Yet, among the answers that made some sense, there was only:

1. treat after a delay and put a temporary implant
2. treat immediately and put a permanent implant.
   I chose the first answer because I remembered the word temporary very well (I even wrote it down) but I was surprised because none of them seemed right to me.
   

The second part of the test is the reading comprehension. Several extracts of literary texts are given and followed by a lot of questions. The answers can either be found in the text or in the candidates’ knowledge of the author, the historic period, the literary genre etc. I found that some of the texts were rather obscure and I would advise future test takers to take a long time reading and making sure that they understand the excerpts well before answering the questions.

After the reading comprehension comes the grammar questions. Some of those multiple choice questions were very easy for me because I could tell which sentences sounded right and which one didn’t. However, a couple startled me and made me stop for a while and wonder. For one of them, none of the four propositions sounded right. We had to transpose a sentence from Simone de Beauvoir to the active voice. The original sentence was something like this: ”... mes livres n’ont été écrits que pour…” I believe that the correct answer should have been: “Je n’ai écrit mes livres que pour” but this answer wasn’t among the choices. I don’t exactly remember what I picked but I felt very dubious. Another one made me reflect about the usage of the subjunctive in French (something I usually do naturally and rarely think of). We had to conjugate the verb to have in this sentence: "Penses-tu que le parti socialiste (avoir) des chances de gagner les élections ?" My first reflexe was to use the subjunctive "ait"; it seemed logical and sensible and I chose this answer. However, to make sure it was the right answer, I modified the sentence with the other interrogative form, that way: "Est-ce que tu penses que les socialistes (avoir) des chances de gagner les élections ?" In that case, the logical answer answer is the indicative mood - ont - and not the subjunctive. I couldn't even really tell why in that case, we use the indicative and the subjunctive like in the other one but that is the way it is. My guess is that although the second sentence is a question, it is phrased as an affirmative sentence (subject - verb - complement) and therefore requires the mood associated with an affirmative sentences: the indicative mood. In the end, this test made me reflect about my own language which is great.

The next part was history and culture. Some questions were really easy for me but some others were really tricky and required the candidates to have a deep knowledge not only of French culture and history but also Canadian, and other French speaking countries' history, notably Senegal. Some questions dealt with the Acadians, others with la négritude and Senghor. Some questions dealt with French economy, some with ancient and recent history. I was mad at myself for not remembering who François Villon was (14th century poet from La pléiade). As I told my friends, I would have preferred them to ask who François Fillon was (our current Prime Minister). Maybe it is because I am a political science and international affairs major, but I think that it would have made more sense to be quizzed about current events rather than poets that are not even taught in French classes in France, let alone in America. Anyway, I am just maybe feeling a little resentful because I failed this question.

The last part of the written test was an essay question. I am hoping to get all the points on this question because it was very simple. You were supposed to write a letter to a foreign friend that just announced her engagement to you. It wasn't written how long the essay should be so I wrote as much as I could. I actually had fun writing this essay: I tried to be creative and invent things to make my life more interesting!

After you are done with the written part of the test, there is a 2-minute oral test in a different room. You listen to instructions on a tape, have one minute to think about what to say and then you have to pretend to talk on the phone for 2 minutes about the topic. The topic I got was pretty silly: I was supposed to imagine that I spent 2 months in Paris at some friends' place and that the day that I left, I broke a plate. I was asked to call the people I stayed with to apologize about the broken plate. It was really random and the format is not easy. It is not natural to talk to yourself for 2 minutes without anybody answering to you or even nodding in agreement . I kinda invented a story and bullshitted random things for 2 minutes but I can see how this exercise can be hard and stressful for an American, especially since we have only 1 minute to prepare and we don't have the right to take notes.

After all that, I was done and pretty tired after a full day of exams. I wasn't confident that I passed either the French or the English tests. The results will be on June 13th and it will be a pretty scary day!

Now, what I forgot to mention is how hard the French test is supposed to be. When I arrived in class, it seems that everybody was asking me if it was my first time taking the test because apparently a lot of people are taking the test several times. One the girls there took the test 6 times before and missed it by 70 points last time. For another one, it was her 12th time and she has been teaching French for about 10 years I think. Apparently, there are so few teachers that get certified in French that some high schools have to create "critical positions" in the French department which means that they can hire teachers even though they are not certified. I felt really confused and astonished but I did find the test pretty hard and deep. Here are some advice that I would give to someone taking the test:

• Take your time answering the questions. Unlike the communication and literacy test, the French test is much shorter which allows you to spend a lot of time on each question, read the extracts several times and proofread everything at the end
• Take notes during the listening comprehension. Jot down some important information on your test booklet. I noticed that it is harder to remember things that you heard as well as things that you read or wrote (at least for me). If you have time, try reading the questions first so as to be able to look for the answers while you are listening.
• At home before the test, study French history very well (I would say from the barbarian invasions to Sarkozy), and make sure you know the following (you don't need to know everything about every subject but know what they are, what it involved and who were the main characters, also know the dates because they will test you on dates too) : - Vercingetorix - Clovis, - Charlemagne, - Jeanne d'Arc, - Francois 1er, - Henri 4, - Edit de Nantes, -Richelieu, - Louis 14, - Louis 16, - Révolution Francaise (Bastille, 1ere République, décapitation du Roi, Terreur), - Napoléon 1er, - Restauration: Louis 18, Charles 10, Louis-Philippe, - 2ème République, -Napoléon 3, - guerre franco-prusse, - Commune de Paris, -3ème République, -1ère guerre mondiale, -front populaire, -2ème guerre mondiale (Vichy, collaboration, résistance, France libre), -4ème République, - De Gaulle, - guerre d'Indochine, - guerre d'Algérie, -Mai 68, -Mitterrand, -Chirac. Try to know also some canadian history but I can't help as much about that. Try to know the countries that got their independence from France, when they did so (Haiti was the first Black Republic for instance), if it was peaceful or after a war and who were the main protagonists. It seems that Senegal appears frequently on the test so study its history.
  
• You should also study French literature, including the Pleiads (without forgetting François Villon!!), humanism, classicism, romanticism, realism and existentialism, and do not neglect the Négritude.
  
• Review French grammar well.
• Try knowing French geography -main cities, mountains, rivers, seas, adjacent countries- as well as economy - what are the French main resources are and what is produced where.

I know that it is a lot of work but I believe that after studying all that, you should be all set with the test. For the listening part, try renting French movies with English subtitles (I promise that there are some good ones up there). I also forgot to mention that there are some questions about learning languages and some types of pedagogy but I believe that common sense can help you answer those questions (which are written in English by the way).

So good luck to everybody who's still willing to take the test after reading my post. Also, although the test is supposed to be really hard, I believe that we are still lucky because it is not nearly as hard as the test you have to take to become an language teacher in France: http://www.anglaisfacile.com/capesagreg/capes_organisation.php
This test, includes a 5-hour essay on a literature topic, a 5-hour essay on a civilization topic, a 5-hour translation test and a 1-hour oral test (after 3 hours of preparation)! I kinda feel lucky that I want to teach in America now! I had to get used to those 4 and 5-hour essay tests because I took so many between high school and college but I still don't like them and find them exhausting. Now that I am used to the American system, I'd much rather take multiple choice questions although they can be tricky too. Indeed, in an open question, you can try to convey everything you know and avoid the parts you are not confident about, which you cannot do with multiple choice. Still, I'd rather take the MTEL again and not the CAPES!

See more progress on: pass the MTEL test