OCTOBER SAT Subject Test: US History

<p>I really don't even know why I took SAT U.S. History. My school only offers IB, and the entire 20th century is covered during senior year. Had to study on my own for half of the material :( I wish AP US history was offered.</p>

<p>Phew, so I've gotten a total of 3 wrong so far, not bad.</p>

<p>Was the union quote made by the IWW? I figured that no other group would want the destruction of capitalism.</p>

<p>Yeah the quote was from Int. Workers...
IWW = Debs = socialism = capitalism:evil
Kind of.</p>

<p>I was completely shellshocked when I realized I would have to take the USH SAT II! No studying since AP exam sophomore year = at least 10 wrong so far.</p>

<p>My school breaks up AP U.S. into two years; sophomore year covers modern North American history to 1877, and then junior year goes from the end of Reconstruction to 2008.</p>

<p>I realize that "antebellum" is prior to the civil war ("ante" - before + "bellum" war, basic Latin :P), but I don't think the question about internal improvements referred to that period.</p>

<p>I could easily be wrong, though.</p>

<p>Yea it was the IWW.</p>

<p>Haha, I don't remember the question either lol</p>

<p>BTW, Might be helpful:</p>

<p>History curve from PR SATII book:</p>

<p>RAW:
90-81 - 800
80-79 - 790
78 - 780
77-76 - 770
75 - 760
74 - 750
73-72 - 740</p>

<p>I knew that "ante" meant pre or before, but since I've taken Spanish all my life, the closest word that I could relate to bellum was bella, or beautiful haha.</p>

<p>Wow, that's a pretty friendly-looking curve there.
I feel happier now. :)</p>

<p>That curve is ridiculously generous.</p>

<p>Does anyone remember that question about political parties? I don't remember the exact wording, but I think I ended up incorrectly putting down the Whigs.</p>

<p>CH - I said Republicans for that one.</p>

<p>What did you guys say for the Gulf of Tonkin question?</p>

<p>LBJ got complete power to wage war.</p>

<p>I think said something about unsubstantiated reports for that one @_@</p>

<p>Was Polk elected because he was an expansionista?</p>

<p>I think this might be the last question that I had: did the writers of the DOI feel that local government had legitimate power or was it the King George option?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Was Polk elected because he was an expansionista?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yea, 54-40 or fight! :)</p>

<p>The other was Republican. I don't remember the choices for the Tonkin one, but I think I put the one you're talking about.</p>

<p>DOI:</p>

<p>I vaguely remember it, but I think it was the legitimate government one.</p>

<p>Yeah, Polk was willing to take on Mexico, I believe.</p>

<p>WHat was the texas question's answer?</p>

<p>Wasn't the question something about the Kansas-Nebraska Act (political parties)?</p>

<p>Philippines were won by force, right?</p>

<p>DoI: I said local gov't, but I think it may have been wrong. I wasn't sure about that one.</p>

<p>Texas was because of slavery. Phili we took from Spain in war so yes.</p>