<p>Some say it was easy, some say it wasn't. But the fact is, it was NOTHING like any of the multiple choice you had ever given out before, and people who knew the kind of material you USUALLY tested probably did bad.</p>
<p>On your old practice exams, I usually got extremely high 5's on the multiple choice section. I liked those, not because I did well, but because they truly tested my knowledge of US History and how I applied it. These? Not so much.</p>
<p>I'm expecting a lot of people who are good at figuring stuff out to score loewr than people who know a whole lot of worthless material.</p>
<p>Somebody block this if im being too specfic, k?</p>
<p>I completely agree. This year’s exam was so heavily biased towards a certain era. And the thing is, the era was so easy that even people who didn’t study knows the stuff. It really is quite unbelievable, that the questions didn’t cover much to say the least.</p>
<p>And yeah if I’m being too specific, please say, thanks.</p>
<p>I agree! I have the 2001 and 2006 AP Exams and those questions were nothing like the ones on the exam! I literally wrote “WTH” in the margin next to certain questions as I read them.</p>
<p>Also, since it’s been 24 hours, are we allowed to talk about specific things? Or am I thinking of the ACT/SAT?</p>
<p>REA’s Crash Course is based off of previously administered MC questions and it pretty much covered 95% of this year’s MC. I thought this year’s MC was an absolute joke and an 80/80 is definitely possible.</p>
<p>The college board has the right, I am sure, to change things as it wishes.
One example:</p>
<p>If you notice, normally, the history tests have “cycles” of 1-8 questions that go from the colonial era to post-WWII. And then it cycles again and does this like 6 times or something to make the total 80. But then, on our European History test last year, the college board decided to change it and just did a single stream from Renaissance (at the test’s beginning) to Post-WWII (at its end).</p>
<p>Of course the above is mild so a much more serious example is: one year, for the Chemistry, they changed it randomly from having “8 questions: choose 5” –> “3 questions: you must do all”. How do you think people felt about suddenly not having a choice?</p>
<p>IT wasn’t so much the content as it was the style of the questions being asked.
I’m not saying there was like, medieval chinese history on the test. Obviously it’s the same material, its just the way in which it is asked.</p>
<p>Same for the guy below him:</p>
<p>It’s still the same KIND of question.</p>
<p>And besides, even if it has happened before, does that make it any more legitimate? I would say that they have the right to complain about that.</p>
<p>I totally agree. I REALLY studied a wide variety of topics, major things, and I feel like none of that was tested at all. Infact, I feel like I may not have done as well because so much of it was geared toward one specific topic/et cetera stuff. I know my major stuff, and I can analyze it well, but a lot of the questions were just… bizarre.</p>
<p>I didn’t feel like the exam accurately tested my knowledge of US history. Honestly I don’t even know how well I did on it. It wasn’t difficult, but the fact that it blatantly ignored so many incredibly important aspects of U.S. history is just… incredibly. The whole test was just odd. I feel like I would have done a lot better had the MC actually asked about a wide variety of topics pertaining to U.S. history.</p>
<p>Yeah, they were structured the same way (there’s really only one way they could structure it anyway), but this test didn’t ask about so many important topics. Just think about it. It blatantly ignored so many huge parts of history.</p>