<p>Have you guys heard about the controversy with the AMSCO prep book for APUSH? The formerly revered "godfather" of all APUSH prep books has treaded contention recently because of this (<a href="http://goo.gl/hmi1tf%5B/url%5D">http://goo.gl/hmi1tf</a>) wording with the second amendment. The excerpt has caused a heavy onslaught of negative reviews (of people who have obviously never read the entire book) on Amazon. </p>
<p>The summary of the First Amendment is questionable as well. Either way it probably won’t have any effect on your AP score, as I’m sure the College Board will tread lightly around things like these after oarsman:regatta debacle (whether or not review books should make these comments is another story).</p>
<p>This appears to be some scheme - the vast majority of these negative ratings have come very, very recently - I doubt it is legit. The book is fine.</p>
<p>Not sure if you’re just using CC as a place to publicize this, but takes these reviews with a grain of salt (or 10 grains)</p>
<p>Randomly came across this topic & I have to say: DO NOT let this “controversy” (shaking my head - shouldn’t even qualify as one) keep you from buying AMSCO! It is seriously the best. Read it before tests in the year, read it in the month before the exam - and you WILL get a 5.</p>
<p>The Bill of Rights is just one issue… They are automatically assuming that the author is a communist that wants to indoctrinate all of our children, without getting any feedback from him or any of the editors. It’s really stupid. What if the author never intended for his summaries to be interpreted that way?</p>
<p>i just totally read all those comments and HAHAHAHAHA</p>
<p>because that’s totally not what the constitution says, right? i mean, however you want to interpret laws, it’s a HISTORY class. lol “indoctrination” through one line in an ap book that’s taken right from the constitution </p>
<p>lol that’s what I was thinking. Most of the reviewers just came straight from that blog and never even read the book. It gets people 5’s, so why are they complaining about rampant historical inaccuracy?</p>
It’s not. It’s a paraphrase. Read the actual text. Anyways, wouldn’t you think the paraphrase is kind of ridiculous and redundant? A “militia” better be able to have arms to be of much use.</p>
<p>What if, next the the 14th amendment, the author of the review book wrote in parentheses “only applies to whites?” I argue that this change is analogous to the ones the author wrote for the second amendment because it’s not written in the constitution and it’s an interpretation that affects the rights of a significant number of people (the rights of nonwhites in comparison to the rights of gun owners). How would you think of such a change? Would you dismiss it because it’s only one line, it’s a history class, or the book will get you a 5 anyway?</p>
<p>lol a paraphase, taken right from the constitution, that has the same meaning</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s saying the same thing. i guess you’re calling the writers of the constitution redundant? a militia doesn’t HAVE to have guns. they can have any weapons, at least, by the definition of a militia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well considering the actual amendment doesn’t say those words, whoever writes this book would have to more than paraphase to write that in</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>no, because the ACTUAL wording of the amendment doesn’t say “whites only”</p>
<p>Nowhere in the second amendment does the actual wording say what the author of the review book says. To get from the original wording to that is interpretation (one of three competing interpretations, actually). Besides, the 10th amendment distinguishes between states and the people. All other uses of “the people” in the Bill of Rights refers to people as individuals (for example, it’s hard to see in the 4th amendment as to how this would not be the case). And to put the final nail in the coffin, the co-author of the book himself admits his summary (note that he himself thinks that it is a summary) is incorrect and that it will be fixed in the next edition.
[Second</a> Amendment definition in Texas school work book triggers uproar | Fox News](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/18/texas-high-school-work-book-stirs-controversy-over-edited-definition-second/]Second”>Second Amendment definition in Texas school work book triggers uproar | Fox News)</p>
<p>For the thread starter, you should most DEFINITELY use the amsco text. My teacher loved AMSCO so much that she gave the students two different copies (1 AMSCO for history/government and 1 AMSCO for AP) </p>
<p>Very interesting situation, but it’s sad that such an event is made into a controversy, you would expect something more … controversial. </p>
<p>Also, the Brinkley text has a very liberal leaning, but that doesn’t detract from its academic merit at all. Let’s see a right wing extremist professor from Columbia write a better book…</p>
<p>This book has been used for years and has always been lauded as one of the best AP prep books. Very easy read but still has all the information you need. Read it once before the school year, follow along the book as you go through the course, and read it once more right before you take the exam. Guaranteed 5.</p>
<p>I don’t really know about the issue concerning the second amendment, but I don’t even recall there being a 2nd amendment or gun-related question on the APUSH exam last year so it won’t even have an impact on your score.</p>
<p>Yeah, because high school students, who are buying this book for the sole purpose of passing an exam, are even remotely concerned with whether or not a single line in the prep book reflects the actual amendment. Are you kidding me? The reviews are ridiculous and are apparently written by the stupidest people on the planet. Too many people nowadays are only concerned with the most trivial details in order to make their point. I mean seriously? Every one of those reviews is about the same stupid thing. These ignorant people are going to be the only reason some students choose against this book.</p>