<p>The MC was definitely rediculous, I usually can finish all the mc with ~20 minutes to spare. But the questions definitely required a bit more contemplation and I only had 10 minutes to check my answers… I hadn’t even heard of rudyard Kipling or that catholic missionary guy( question about native Americans) at all. </p>
<p>On he essay for #5 would I get in trouble or trying to make a connection between the world wars and emmeline Pankhurst? I only realized she was more 19th century till after the test. I also related to Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir in my world wars paragraph. My othe paragraph was about shifting social trends and conventions (more divorce, Birth control, welfare state to better support children, “new woman” that was more independent, more voting rights which meant more influence, etc.</p>
<p>@dougiezmd
I hope not because that’s what I did too! But I said Pankhurst encouraged women to halt their fight for suffrage to help support the war effort by working during the world wars.
I also talked about Friedan and Beauvoir in my feminism paragraph! My third paragraph was about the ideals of communism and the Soviet Union regarding gender equality and that causing more women to join the workforce.
Gosh I think we’re twins…</p>
<p>@MSC: They base it off how others did. What may have been a 4 last year could be a 5 or a 3 this year. That’s why people hope that others found the test difficult, because if others did bad, then there’s a better chance of you getting a higher score.
That’s how I see it.</p>
<p>@ChocoBubble:
I honestly don’t know why I found it so easy. My AP Euro class wasnt rigorous or challenging at all. I didn’t learn anything. So I basically “self-studied” using Princeton Review and the first half of Modern European History.
So I was surprised that I breezed through the MC. I usually get ~40/80 on the MC’s I’ve done in class or in Princeton but I honestly think 45-55/80 was possible on the exam.</p>
<p>Wait, I’m reading a lot of sample responses from past exams and for their essays, the students say things like “as shown in document 3”
I thought we weren’t supposed to do that, or does it not matter if we do or don’t, as long as we mentioned what the document contained?</p>
<p>It’s helpful to identify specifically what document you used so the graders’ job is easier, but it’s not required. But the graders will know the DBQ well enough that they’ll know the content of the documents, so you should be fine</p>
<p>The multiple choice was more difficult than the practice exam that I took in class, but I still think I got sixty correct. My DBQ was really good in my opinion, and I think I achieved a nine. I grouped my documents into three basic groups; those for religious toleration, those against religious toleration, and those use tolarated other religious as a part of a compromise (ex. Catholics and Protestends in the Netherlands getting along to unite against Spain). </p>
<p>My essay on the differences in economic motives was not as great. I screwed up by talking about the differences in general, but luckily I realized this and fixed the problem by crossing out the irrelevent information. I only had two good “meat” paragraphs of information about new “race” motives versus religious motives. I also mentioned how “new” imperialism was motiviated by growing social tensions caused by socialists. What do you guys think I could get on that one?</p>
<p>On my last essay I choose the essay about women’s entry into the workforce. I discussed femminism, the two world wars, the roles played by socialist and communists government, and the shift to a post-industrial economy as the reasons for their entry. I feel pretty good about this essay, but I am not certain. How do you guys feel the graders will grade you if you know the general theme and discuss it very well, but you don’t use a lot of specific terminology? Also is it okay to discuss Betty Friedan despite her being Amiercan.</p>
<p>The FRQ were released. The DBQ was very easy. I answered the colonialism essay and felt that I had more information for the earlier period than the later one, but oh well. I did well on analyzing the reasons for the emergence of right wing totalitarianism. My reasons were the Great Depression, Versailles Treaty, fears of communism, and propaganda.</p>
<p>My DBQ groupings were pro-toleration and against toleration for the beliefs. Then for actions I made groups for states that granted full toleration and those that granted limited toleration.</p>
<p>On essay #4 I didn’t have much to talk about Newton, so I just said he influenced the way European saw the way things work with his laws of physics. Charles’ was much easier to write about. I wrote about how his theory of evolution challenged the church’s beliefs and how his theory involuntarily influenced social darwinism leading to “new imperialism”
^I hope that was sufficient
For essay #7 I talked about the Weimar Republic and how the factors that let Hitler and the Nazis rise were the treaty of versailles effect on germany’s economy and how the many political parties contributed to the Nazis eventually rising. Then, I ****ed up and accidentally talked about Russia and Stalin’s rise which was contributed to Lenin and Trotsky who wanted communism to be spread.</p>
<p>I found MC pretty easy. The excessive amount of quote questions was ridiculous. My teacher said that it was a sad excuse at saying, “We are creating new questions.”
The DBQ was really easy. Creating groupings and stating point of view was easy. My main points were as follows: (1) pro toleration for some if not all religions, (2) no toleration (his the land, his the religion), and (3) restrictions on different religions for partial toleration or no toleration. My groupings were this: (1) 3, 5, 6, and 11; (2) 1, 7, 8, and 12; and (3) 2, 3, 9, and 10. It was nice that 5 and 7 were given for contrast.
I did FRQ’s 4 and 5. For question 4, I talked Newton’s theological perspective by impact through math and science and Darwin’s secular world view through his discoveries like common ancestry and natural selection and the development of Social Darwinism on the social and political scale like Hitler’s Holocaust. As for question 5, I camped on both World Wars, Feminist movement, and women’s increased political involvement. I also talked about how other movements like the Counter Culture helped challenge political policies and work standard.</p>
thats what i did although i barely talked about stalin or mussolini and my bodies were germany dominated</p>