<p>Haha, bluefalcon makes a good point with his last point</p>
<p>If you guys think the test was easy, you should've seen the make up test: no no bonding or structure, no acid base or solublility equilibrium, 2 redox and a strong acid strong base lab question.</p>
<p>I did not think it was easy...I had a pretty good teacher and my school district is decent and hardly anyone who took the class thought it was "easy", not even the geniuses. The free response consisted of two of the chapters that no one was comfortable with: buffers and electrochemistry, and our teacher was surprised when she found out that there was an electrochem problem worth that many points</p>
<p>It's all relative to what your teacher concentrated on. I noticed past exams placed more emphasis at certain topics while the one I took took emphasis at other points, mainly electro-chemistry and less on thermodynamics. So in reality it probably isn't dumbing down anything, they're just placing more emphasis on topics the OP and others know better while the same topic might not be cover as throughly in other classes making the exam harder then practice exams. </p>
<p>======
I was just glad there wasn't a gaseous equilibrium question on my exam. :D</p>
<p>2002 was one hell of a lot easier than this year's 2007 exam. At least the FR. The MC was similar I guess</p>
<p>
[quote]
there was no equilibrium this year...was there?
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure the 1st section is always equilibrium.</p>
<p>I thougt it was hard...</p>
<p>I heard that the exam this year was easier than before.
That's quite interesting, but for people who study a lot and score a 5, that can't be good.</p>
<p>The reactions were waaay too easy this year, in my opinion. i suppose General chemistry students could do them (except maybe for the acid+carbonate question). If this is the most challenging college-prep chemistry course offered by collegeboard, i think that's sad</p>
<p>I'm guessing everyone hear boasting about the easisness of the exam got 5's.. ;)</p>
<p>No one's boasting...we're making an observation</p>
<p>Sarcasmus?
But yea.. I noticed that this exam was easier than many of the past ones too.</p>
<p>BTW, coolatroopa, have u gotten ur AP's yet lol. i live near long island</p>
<p>I got them in the mail today</p>
<p>gotta love collegeboard's efficiencyness</p>
<p>I think the difficulty was the same. perhaps even harder for a lot of people due to the slightly greater than usual number of nuclear chem questions which many people don't even go over.</p>
<p>Anyways, here's my review:</p>
<p>Multiple Choice:</p>
<p>-Same content but harder math (everybody agrees here).</p>
<p>-Most people in my class who took the exam were flustered not by the difficulty of the exam but rather all the number manipulations and arithmetic without a calculator.</p>
<p>-Time was enough for kids average at arithmetic, and more than enough for kids good at arithmetic</p>
<p>Free Response:</p>
<p>-By far, hardest section of test</p>
<p>-Reactions were okay (I messed up on writing reactants for the acid rain question; anybody remember the answer?).</p>
<p>-Lots of places to mess up with careless errors, but for the most part easier or the same as before. I used an incorrect conversion factor for an electrochemistry reaction sign for time or mass of solid CU or something. I used 5 e- per Cu instead of 2 e-.</p>
<p>-Descriptive chem question about titration of Mn would cause what color change was totally unexpected.</p>
<p>-The question asking about SO2's lewis dot diagram or something; did it require resonance structures to be drawn or an octet to be broken with 2 sets of double bonds on the S?</p>
<p>-The thermodynamics question was confusing as hell. Was the enthalpy per mole of reactant or per each "run" of reaction? They wrote 231 KJ/mol or something like that but didn't specify per mol of what even though 2 moles of the product formed.</p>
<p>OVERALL:</p>
<p>Confident of a 5. Prepared me well for SAT chem (which had much easier math than the AP chem exam). I got a 790.</p>
<p>afruff...just a quick question...how was the SAT II chemistry compared to the AP chem exam? I took AP chem last year but am taking the SAT chemistry in October, so I'm restudying a chem textbook and a prep textbook. You think that's a good idea?</p>
<p>@ afruff...we have the same sat II score (790) and the same AP score (5) lol</p>
<p>@PKswmr76</p>
<p>yeah, I think I posted that somewhere before. I still haven't got my AP scores back yet but I am very confident of a 5.</p>
<p>@aznsensazn17</p>
<p>SAT Chem was much easier, but you have to love chemistry to get an 800. For instance, I got a question that asked which of the following elements is usually radioactive. You never go over anything like this in AP chem. I guessed and got it wrong.</p>
<p>Looking back I could have got it right by inferring from my knowledge that many heavy elements are radioactive so the heaviest element to choose from should be the most radioactive. Hindsight is 20/20.</p>
<p>I'd say you are set for SAT chem. The textbook might be a little overkill in my opinion (coming from somebody who never used a textbook or took notes for AP chemistry).</p>
<p>^ lol for that one question about radioactivity, there's some sort of rule that says that all elements with atomic number > 83 are radioactive to some degree. i could be wrong but that's what i learned.</p>
<p>some questions were really hard though like the one about the modern atomic theory or w/e</p>