Apush... :-0

<p>mid 110's...</p>

<p>I thought the mc wasnt that bad. the beginning was cake but towards the end they got trickier. i did 2 and 4 for my essays =]...
i hope i got the 5</p>

<p>yeh, I hated all the specific MC questions on the books, which I already confirmed I got all the wrong answers to... lol. I probably guessed on almost half the MC questions. DBQ and essay didn't seem too bad, I answered 3 and 4. I wrote 3 pages for DBQ and 1.5 each for the essays. Does anyone know how likely it would be for me to get a 4+?</p>

<p>I thought MC was pretty easy except for a few toward the end.
I did #2 and 4 for the FRQs
4 pages for the DBQ and 2 1/4 for the others, but i write big (and messy).</p>

<p>thisisanalias, here's a score calculator:
<a href="http://granitebayhigh.org/homework/teacher_sites/brandon.dellorto/APUSSCORE.xls%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://granitebayhigh.org/homework/teacher_sites/brandon.dellorto/APUSSCORE.xls&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>all of my essays now seem really short now. Each of mine was only 2 pages. I hope that I remembered to cite my documents now too... ugh</p>

<p>today at 11 we can discuss the test, since its been 48 hrs rite? Actually, the test began more than 48hrs ago so idk</p>

<p>I'm sure it's okay now. Or at least I hope so. </p>

<p>So, on the DBQ I COMPLETELY forgot to mention Native Americans. I had that in my outline to talk about the Dawes Plan and everything, I don't know how I forgot it. But I did have a lot of other outside pieces of information. Am I screwed or am I okay as long as I had enough outside info?</p>

<p>And does anyone remember the exact wording of the Landslide Election question? Did you have to compare them? And if you did, wouldn't simply explaining both of them suffice?</p>

<p>i myself did 5, but i forget the exact wording. i compared fdr and nixon on how a landslide victory did ensure success for fdr, but not for nixon. anyone do something close?</p>

<p>I actually wrote FDR wasn't too succesful since it asked about his second election and compared that with LBJ but now I just realized that I talked about his assuming the presidency right after JFK's death and that's WRONG.</p>

<p>Uh on the DBQ were you supposed to write about Indians? I didn't.</p>

<p>^^yeah..I didn't write anything about the Indians...</p>

<p>agreed. me neither.</p>

<p>The DBQ, I'm worried I didn't use enough outside info. I used Munn v Illinois, Wabash v Illinois, the Homestead Act, Indian reservations, I named some technological advancements, the Bland-Allison Act, the Sherman Anti-Silver Act, other facts I knew about overproduction, other problems such as middlemen, and then I had a whole paragraph about resulting movements- Patrons of Husbandry, Grange, Populism. Is that enough?
So I screwed up Munn v Illinois and Wabash v Illinois, as in I mixed up the two and said Munn was good for farmers, how many points will I lose for that?
I did talk about Indians very briefly. I didn't address it in huge detail though, it was part of my government policy paragraph. I didn't use the Dawes Plan as I didn't see how the plan to integrate Indians into white society would hurt farmers. I just said they were placed on reservations. I put technology and economic circumstance into one paragraph, had one paragraph about government policy, and one about results like Populism, is that ok?
For the FR I did 2 and 4. 2 I couldn't remember the year of Shay's Rebellion, is that ok? I addressed the causes, but briefly. Then I talked a lot about how the rebellions resulted from the structure in government and how they changed the structure of government. Does that sound reasonable? For 4, I did trusts and foreign affairs. I just realized I put in the Mann-Elkins Act, even though that wasn't under TR. I said that it was in 1910 but somehow wasn't thinking clearly and it didn't click that that was Taft. But since I put the year, do you think they'll realize that I know it wasn't under TR? I said that the attitude towards trusts changed the role of government a lot, but in terms of foreign affairs it barely changed, as earlier presidents had already started imperialism. I did talk about big stick policy, Panama, Cuba, etc, so I hope that's ok.</p>

<p>I said the role of government DID change a lot in foreign affairs. The Roosevelt Corollary became the springboard for intervening in Latin American affairs, and the U.S. gained more clout in world politics by making this declaration.</p>

<p>"I just realized I put in the Mann-Elkins Act, even though that wasn't under TR."</p>

<p>Umm... my teacher told us that this WAS under TR. Thanks a lot, Mr. [insert-teacher's-name-here] !!!</p>

<p>I barely had any outside examples in my DBQ. Tenant farming/ sharecropping, transcontinental railroad, the Grange, gold standard/ silver standard, mechanized reaper (which wasn't even relevant =P) ... yeah. It was bad. And then I erased my sentences about Populists (it didn't really fit where I put it originally), and then forgot to put them back in. Ugh.</p>

<p>Actually, I'm sure that that's a healthy amount of outside information.</p>

<p>^^It was in 1910 if I'm not terribly mistaken. There was something called the Elkins Act which was under TR.</p>

<p>uhh that's definitely enough outside information. the only other part you'd need is for it to be cohesive.</p>

<p>i said TR moderately changed world affairs and trusts. imperialism was already starting, but he accelerated and made it a concrete imperialism, if that makes any sense. in trusts he didn't crusade and break them all up, but he made deals and only broke up ones that didn't follow the deal.</p>

<p>question 2 i totally bsed. i couldn't remember any details except like, what the rebellions were. >_></p>

<p>DBQ: Railroads, Magazines, Special Rates, Reapers, Overproduction, Laissez faire, ICC/underwhelming regulation, Grange, Populists, Bland-Allison, 16:1, Omaha Platform, Populist legacy throughout the 20th century.</p>

<p>2: Shay's and Whisky: Continuity/Change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Mentioned the causes but didn't have a ton of specifics, but really focused on the "signifigance" part with Shay's revealing the weaknesses of a decentralized government that could not tax or put down the rebellion and Washington's quashing of Whisky demonstrating the power of the new federal government.</p>

<p>4: First progressive president:
-Trusts/Labor - Fair Deal, Trustbusiting, Proper use of Sherman Anti-Trust, Mine Worker's talks at White House.
-World Affairs: Big Stick, Corollary to Monroe Doctrine, Intervention in Latin America to Police the western hemishphere.</p>

<p>Enough for a 5 with a good MC?</p>

<p>STOP FREAKING OUT! It's over and done with. You're supposed to be relaxing nwo that APUSH is over, not stresssing out! God, you all sound so lame...you'll all be fine, you used an incredible amount of OI!</p>