Question: Is there leniency in what 3 categories you make for the documents? I organized them in those that were against her rule because of sexist stereotypes, those that proved her to be resilient, and those that proved her to be loyal. The first category demonstrated the gender influences, and the second 2 portrayed her response.</p>
Aww dang, how costly might it be if I accidentally said Petition of Rights instead of Bill of Rights in my frq (4)? I misplaced the names/events :/. Other than that, it was pretty good (2.5 pgs long with a bunch of facts and stuff). Hoping for at least a 7 on this one.</p>
I used all my docs and interpreted them all, if not most, correctly for the most part. However, my organization was rather weak (I think, obviously could have been better)…it was bs’d, lol. My first body paragraph was on traditional social norms that challenged Elizabeth’s rule, second was on her response, and the third was kind of bs’d in that it included the positive response that she had which allowed her to continue “responding” to all the traditional norms that she had to face in terms of her being queen. I forget how much outside info I had. I provided three groups for documents and three points of views (religious, biased support from her personal acquaintances, and her own point of view since some documents had her speaking directly). Anyway, even though I kinda had poor organization and some vagueness, anybody think I can pull at least a 6?</p>
My other frq was the Lenin-Stalin one…only wrote like 1.5 pgs even though I knew a lot but I just ran out of time. It had facts and stuff but only 4 paragraphs…anybody think this is 4-5 worthy?</p>
I did essays 3 and 7. I thought the mc was pretty easy, there were just a few that I had no idea on, but I had at least heard of most everything. As for the DBQ, I was excited, it seemed pretty easy. For enlightenment vs. romanticism I talked a lot about religion and the “natural order”. Finally for the integration one I talked about the Marshall Plan, EU, euro, etc. and how France, Britain, Germany, and the US had involvement in all of them. I even talked about the debt crisis a little bit, using some not so historical data that I heard on NPR on my way to school that morning. Overall, I’m happy about it.</p>
phoenix, yes he did. I even did my research on the internet. It was because of Charles I’s strict rules and stupid policies, that Cromwell emerged… WHICH started the war.</p>
Hey guys… so, uh, I’ve been growing wheat in my backyard for a while, and I want to switch to potatoes… but I have to convince my mother first. Can anyone think of a good reason to tell her? ;)</p>
Btw guys, the question said to analyze problems with the monarchy that led to the Civil War - I don’t see how Cromwell is useful except for a passing remark.</p>
Haha! That pun was hilarious, I have to admit ^^</p>
^SuperCuber, I would tell your mum that it will feed many more people in your family per acre than the wheat. I speak from experience! :)</p>
impersonations:
The question asked about things in the MONARCHY that led to the civil war. I think Charles I fits that better than Cromwell but that’s just me personally.</p>
The 2011 Form B FRQs are up on the CB website. The Form B questions are SO much harder than the ones we took, I would say.</p>
^ I agree. Those are some tough FRQ’S</p>
i did frq’s 4 & 5. i only wrote 1.5 pages for each, is that bad? on the plus side, i think i did pretty well on the mc!</p>
I saw a highly similar question involving the 2nd Vatican Council just before the test when I was scanning through an old AP ;). Thank goodness I was looking through that old AP … </p>
In any case, your correct :D. </p>
</p>
I don’t see how Maggie Thatcher and Konrad Adenauer had anything to do with political and economic integration of Western European states. </p>
They did, however, revive the economies of their respective countries. </p>
</p>
As my teacher said, the more proper nouns you drop, the better ;). </p>
</p>
:o</p>
I’d like to make a couple points of my own - </p>
-
Lenin was <em>less</em> socialist. Lenin was behind the NEP. </p>
-
Lenin was <em>less</em> oppressive - Stalin was behind the Great Purges and the mass slaughter of the kulaks. </p>
-
At least your third point is correct - Lenin did want to spread the revolution; Stalin was content about keeping it localized to Russia; later the USSR :). </p>
</p>
Part II of my replies:</p>
Yes, there are numerous ways to group the documents. Your groups sound good to me. </p>
</p>
The Petition of Right was a document issued by Parliament to one of the Stuart monarchs asking for several rights the king had trampled on. The monarch was Charles I. But I don’t see how the Bill of Rights has anything to do with the causes of the English Civil War (FRQ #4). </p>
I don’t see why you couldn’t get a 7 if that was the only mistake you made. As long as it didn’t detract from your central argument too much, your OK. </p>
</p>
Cromwell can be incorporated in a carefully crafted argument. Throwing him in an essay in an last ditch effort to get points or to sound knowledgeable won’t help though. I definitely wouldn’t use him as my main argument though. </p>
If I put Cromwell in my response to FRQ #4 (below) I’d make the following points: </p>
Analyze how the political and economic problems of the English and French monarchies led to the English Civil War and the French Revolution.</p>
-
First, I’d put Cromwell in one of my my political groups. </p>
-
I’d emphasize how he led a political faction within England and how that caused instability. Mind you, a militant political faction - the Puritans. He amassed people and formed the New Model Army.</p>
-
I’d also point out how the Puritans (related to Calvinists) believed in a government of “the elect” or the souls predestined for salvation. Therefore, he’d wouldn’t want a Catholic such as Charles I as ruler. </p>
-
In conclusion, Cromwell led a militant political faction committed to carrying out his beliefs about the proper ruler of England. </p>
</p>
Yeah you guys might be right, I know I nailed the french rev part, I mentioned Charles I obviously in the English Civil war, so we’ll see.</p>
I can see where I might be wrong, but where I could also be right.</p>
Also i’m pretty sure the question said economic and political factors, not in the monarchy… so that spans over a wider range.</p>
^ It asked for economic and political challenges/issues IN the monarchy.</p>
Holy … nice catch - I don’t remember reading that the problems had to be within the monarch when answering the FRQ and now I’m just hoping what I wrote for FRQ #7 pertains enough to the prompt for me to get a 6 or 7. </p>
I guess opposition facing the monarchy due to the monarch’s religion, tax policies, careless spending, are valid. </p>
I’m a little concerned now :(. </p>
</p>
^ Ah, well, problems in the kingdom are the monarch’s problems anyways, right? I’m sure you’ll be fine.</p>
No i’m pretty positive it didn’t include monarchy in the question. That would limit one’s answer too much. By political you can interpret monarchy in all means.</p>
Sorry, but " Analyze how the political and economic problems of the English and French monarchies led to the English Civil War and the French Revolution" - I copy/paste the prompt. Also, reflecting on the documents again - it’s sad how badly reading Kingdom in “I have already joined myself in marriage to an husband, namely the Kingdom of England” as King messed up my DBQ score… I hope they recognize my grouping and I still get the expanded core. 7/8 -> 5 is a big drop.</p>
Also, for #7 - I only had like 15 minutes to write it unfortunately but how do you think this will do? Thesis: Not anything specifically about the two nations, but I said economic integration to a large extent and political integration to a smaller extent. Economic - I wrote about the EEC and the open markets with lower tariffs and the one plan for a free coal/steel market throughout Europe. I talked at some length about the Euro - I quickly tacked on a few sentences about how France supported the Euro, to get my specific nation thing it. For political I wrote about the EU and also the reunification of Germany as my specific example - does this look like 4ish material? If I can get better than a 3 on this and a 5 on the DBQ (or if the graders are nice and recognize my grouping :D), my 1st essay and MC will take me to a 5. </p>
Also, for the DBQ - unfortunately my misinterpretation of the document left me with a somewhat weak grouping. This is what I had (<a href=“http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap11_frq_european_history.pdf)-%5B/url%5D”>http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap11_frq_european_history.pdf)-</a> 2nd grouping as Doc 5 and Doc 4 to show that she was less dangerous than people though she could be - 4 showed that she didn’t have all the authority and 5 showed that she wasn’t trying to change the existing social order. Then my 3rd was something like - Doc 6 and Doc 9 to gain credibility - 6 showed that she was taking advice from men and so this would dilute and “danger” she may have posed to the state, and 9 shows that she cared about the people and stuff.</p>