<p>Regarding the idea that you can't "lose points" - that's not quite true. They don't subtract points in the sense of ending up with a negative total score, but they will take away points you've already earned for that particular question. I'll provide two examples.
Example 1 - A common question requires explaining why substance X has a higher MP than substance Y (or BP, deltaHvap, etc. etc.) Let's say they are both halogens and you explain that both have LD forces but one is more polarizable than the other - correct and worth 2 points. If you also say that one is more polarizable because it has higher molar mass you just lost both points. They will never award points if you even imply that polarizability depends on mass.
Example 2 - Question asks you to calculate dH - you do and that's worth 1 point. I've seen scoring rubrics that say "units aren't required, but if included, must be correct" so obviously if you slapped the wrong units on you lose your point. BTW, I've also seen rubrics that say "units required", so it's not safe to just leave units off of everything.</p>
<p>Since we'll be the experimental year for the new FR format, will there be a more generous curve? And what has the curve generally been around anyways?</p>
<p>wait... if we have to do all of the free response then will we have more time to them or will they be easier?</p>
<p>more time i belive but someone validate that, </p>
<p>i second, NYJUNIORs question. </p>
<p>how r u guys preparing other than goin over stuff in ap chem class and old tests?? i got barrons for ap chem and intend to read the whole god dam* thing over this weekend.</p>
<p>omarr2321, by "old tests" you mean actual old AP exams right, and not old tests as in old chapter tests you took in class? 'Cause the best thing to do is to definitely take the real AP exams, since many of the questions are renewed.</p>
<p>lol, after the chem olympiad debacle I'm just doin a few practice tests to keep my brain sharp.</p>
<p>I'm going to glance through Princeton Review, do one more practice multiple choice practice, and as many free responses as I can really force myself to do.</p>
<p>"more time i belive but someone validate that"</p>
<p>More time on the calculator section since there are more questions, less on the non-calculator section since there are fewer questions.</p>
<p>Calculator section was 2 questions in 40 minutes, now its 3 questions in 55 minutes.
Non-calculator section was Question 4 plus 3 essays in 50 minutes, now its Question 4 plus 2 essays in 40 minutes.</p>
<p>i meant old tests as in old ap tests. do they really reuse questions? that would be grand. </p>
<p>by the way, anyone use barrons ap chem book?</p>
<p>My teacher gave us 2 practice APs, and he's taking the better of the 2 as a final grade. I got a 5 on my first one (raw score of 108, and I needed a 107 for a 5), so I have a 100 as a final exam grade. 4 would've be 90, 3 = 80, 2 = 70, and he said he'd give a 0 for 1's; he's never had a 1 for anyone of all his years of teaching AP Chem. Out of 30 kids, he mangaed 7 5's on our first test. On our 2nd practice, I need to get 46.7 raw points of something still on the MC part (missed it for AP Stat) to get another 5.</p>
<p>Our AP Chem teacher kicks a*s. He finished the cirriculum about a month ago. We did a brief review on reactions (which he dispersed throughout the year), and then we spent 3 days on a practice, and some time going over it, pero nuestra clase no tiene bastante tiempo a repasar el segundo examen...</p>
<p>Sin embargo, I'm still scared out of my mind over the need test. No choices... I love choices!</p>
<p>I'm using Princeton Review...anyone else using it? I'm really thinking that Princeton Review is a waste of time since it is sooooo darn easy, a sixth grader can do the problems in that book, whereas I actually had to think when I was doing problems from the textbook and old APs.</p>
<p>I'm doing PR, I think they're pretty good in terms of what the collegeboard tests on.</p>
<p>im in chapter 5 of barrons ap chem right now, attemptin to cram the whole book this weeekend, its extremely thorogh i think. i liike how it refreshes my mind of old stuff and also tells me new stuff that i shouldve known from class if i had stayed awake for any of it all year :'/</p>
<p>barons goes soooo much in depth though....</p>
<p>i took this test last year.. the whole year i struggled in the class, but then i used princeton review and went through the whole book twice within the 4 days before the test and i got a 5.. i'd recommend princeton review</p>
<p>so there are 7 questions in the FR in all? or 6?</p>
<p>6...you have to do them all this year instead of choosing.</p>
<p>I'm using PR and have noticed several errors in the book. :( One problem had Pb, K, Cl, and NO3 ions and asked for the relative concentrations(which is greatest and which is next greatest?). The answer was right but the explanation was wrong, it implied that the wrong thing was the limiting factor when forming a precipitate. It should be in the solubility chapter.</p>
<p>Another one is in the titration graph, the weak acid graph is that of a strong acid and the equivalence point is mislabeled. It's in the review part of acids and bases chapter.</p>
<p>"If you also say that one is more polarizable because it has higher molar mass you just lost both points. They will never award points if you even imply that polarizability depends on mass."</p>
<p>What? I thought polarizability does depend on mass and linear shape.</p>
<p>The strength of London Dispersion Forces depends on the number of electrons. Molar mass has nothing to do with it. Now granted, with increasing atomic number, you do have increasing molar mass, and increasing number of electrons, but the increasing # of electrons have to be in there.</p>
<p>EDIT: I was responding to the post above me. I interpreted "polarizability" as instantaneous dipoles.
If you mean permanent dipoles, they are also not dependent on mass; they are indeed dependent on geometry.</p>