The standard essay questions may require that you relate developments in different areas (e.g., the political implications of an economic issue); analyze common themes in different time periods (e.g., the concept of national interest in United States foreign policy); or compare individual or group experiences that reflect socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, or gender differences (e.g., social mobility and cultural pluralism).
Although historiography is not emphasized in the examination, you are expected to have a general understanding of key interpretations of major historical events. Some questions are based on literary materials but the emphasis will be on the relationship between the material and politics, social and economic life, or related cultural and intellectual movements, not on literature as art.
Standard essays will be judged on the strength of the thesis developed, the quality of the historical argument, and the evidence offered in support of the argument, rather than on the factual information per se. Unless a question asks otherwise, you will not be penalized for omitting specific illustrations.
yeah, i'm done here. teachers, especially AP teachers, have to teach their content geared toward the content of standardized tests. if there isn't historiography on the test (which, like i fuckin' SAID, there isn't), guess what? it's not as likely to be taught.
i've taken four 100 level history classes. two that were required by my major, and two others that i needed to take to meet state liscensure requirements. ALL of these classes involved historiography in some fashion, and students who don't take them are missing out on an important intro to the historical method. they aren't some "special" classes that i take a rocketship to the moon to take that's taught by the ghost of lincoln. it's SOP.
As said before, if the school's entry-level history courses use and teach historiography, then they shouldn't accept AP credit for the course RARRHG RARARHH RAARRRGGH.
It's not like a school is forced to give you college credit for your score on an AP exam. Many schools don't.
In my experience the only people who think SATs / ACTs / GREs mean anything are the people who do well on them, and everyone else sees them as needless.
This is not true. I am a prodigy at standardized tests and I think they are ridiculous. The problem is that high school grades are similarly ridiculous.
How so? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I just want to know why you think the grades are rediculous.
Jast on
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
In my experience the only people who think SATs / ACTs / GREs mean anything are the people who do well on them, and everyone else sees them as needless.
This is not true. I am a prodigy at standardized tests and I think they are ridiculous. The problem is that high school grades are similarly ridiculous.
How so? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I just want to know why you think the grades are rediculous.
I feel pretty much the same way. I hate standardized tests, but, at this point, the SATs are my only redeeming quality on applications, since my cumulative GPA is under 2.0.
The problem with high school grading standards is the immense focus on exams. Failing an exam when you've maintained a C average can actually lead to failing a course for the year, which is absurd. When a single, hour-long test accounts for twenty percent of your grade, there is clearly an issue.
Also, in some schools, theres a pretty pervasive "success at all costs" attitude. We're told from day one, Freshman year that high school is essentially responsible for the course of your entire future. Are you going to fail classes? Drop out? Low GPA? You're nothing. And this dispotion is maintained among teachers, too - they tend to accord respect and opportunities to people based solely on their numerical value, going so far as to ignore more subjective factors entirely. I've seen kids break down and cry because they had a "B" on their report card.
The entire system places undue stress upon individual students. It's too objective. I understand that the best way to accomplish mass education is via a beurocratic system that revolves around numbers bequeathing value, but individuality is being pretty effectively quashed in a lot of public schools.
In my experience the only people who think SATs / ACTs / GREs mean anything are the people who do well on them, and everyone else sees them as needless.
This is not true. I am a prodigy at standardized tests and I think they are ridiculous. The problem is that high school grades are similarly ridiculous.
How so? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I just want to know why you think the grades are rediculous.
The are unbelievably arbitrary and unreliable. In an ideal world one could trust grades and throw one shot standardized tests to the wolves but IMHO human nature makes this hard.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
In my experience the only people who think SATs / ACTs / GREs mean anything are the people who do well on them, and everyone else sees them as needless.
This is not true. I am a prodigy at standardized tests and I think they are ridiculous. The problem is that high school grades are similarly ridiculous.
How so? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I just want to know why you think the grades are rediculous.
I feel pretty much the same way. I hate standardized tests, but, at this point, the SATs are my only redeeming quality on applications, since my cumulative GPA is under 2.0.
The problem with high school grading standards is the immense focus on exams. Failing an exam when you've maintained a C average can actually lead to failing a course for the year, which is absurd. When a single, hour-long test accounts for twenty percent of your grade, there is clearly an issue.
Also, in some schools, theres a pretty pervasive "success at all costs" attitude. We're told from day one, Freshman year that high school is essentially responsible for the course of your entire future. Are you going to fail classes? Drop out? Low GPA? You're nothing. And this dispotion is maintained among teachers, too - they tend to accord respect and opportunities to people based solely on their numerical value, going so far as to ignore more subjective factors entirely. I've seen kids break down and cry because they had a "B" on their report card.
The entire system places undue stress upon individual students. It's too objective. I understand that the best way to accomplish mass education is via a beurocratic system that revolves around numbers bequeathing value, but individuality is being pretty effectively quashed in a lot of public schools.
I agree. That's why I loved elementary school so much. It was so simple. It wasn't all about grades, standardized tests, and GPAs. We did have the SOLs though in Virginia, but they were simple and there wasn't much pressure.
In my experience the only people who think SATs / ACTs / GREs mean anything are the people who do well on them, and everyone else sees them as needless.
This is not true. I am a prodigy at standardized tests and I think they are ridiculous. The problem is that high school grades are similarly ridiculous.
How so? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I just want to know why you think the grades are rediculous.
I feel pretty much the same way. I hate standardized tests, but, at this point, the SATs are my only redeeming quality on applications, since my cumulative GPA is under 2.0.
The problem with high school grading standards is the immense focus on exams. Failing an exam when you've maintained a C average can actually lead to failing a course for the year, which is absurd. When a single, hour-long test accounts for twenty percent of your grade, there is clearly an issue.
Also, in some schools, theres a pretty pervasive "success at all costs" attitude. We're told from day one, Freshman year that high school is essentially responsible for the course of your entire future. Are you going to fail classes? Drop out? Low GPA? You're nothing. And this dispotion is maintained among teachers, too - they tend to accord respect and opportunities to people based solely on their numerical value, going so far as to ignore more subjective factors entirely. I've seen kids break down and cry because they had a "B" on their report card.
The entire system places undue stress upon individual students. It's too objective. I understand that the best way to accomplish mass education is via a beurocratic system that revolves around numbers bequeathing value, but individuality is being pretty effectively quashed in a lot of public schools.
I agree. That's why I loved elementary school so much. It was so simple. It wasn't all about grades, standardized tests, and GPAs. We did have the SOLs though in Virginia, but they were simple and there wasn't much pressure.
So everything stays like elementary school, if you show up to class and keep awake you get an A?
I have to agree with President Bush, we sort of have to know what schools are succeeding, because NCLB isn't supposed to be about the kids, its supposed to say that even if you're a poor minority you should be learning at the same level as the rest of us, tyranny of low expectations and all that.
t. Fandyien: Doing away with grading and testing in American high schools for the sake of preserving individuality is pretty damned unrealistic. I hate to break it to you, but living in a capitalist society is not easy, and high school absolutely needs to prepare you for surviving in a competitive environment. I had "one-size fits all" issues with my public education, too, but you don't get hired into a company because you are a unique and beautiful snowflake.
Testing in particular really is a necessary evil. Going through a class and feeling like you're learning a lot is all well and good, but only for the individual. For that to be of any worth to other people, you need to have proof that you learned it, and testing is the only feasible way to do it at present.
I'm from Michigan, so I endured a whole host of MEAP tests, in addition to a lot of optional testing my parents wanted me to go through, and college entry exams. That said, I know from experience that it's not fun, but students can be prepared for them and do well, they just have to put in the work.
Posts
As said before, if the school's entry-level history courses use and teach historiography, then they shouldn't accept AP credit for the course RARRHG RARARHH RAARRRGGH.
It's not like a school is forced to give you college credit for your score on an AP exam. Many schools don't.
How so? Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I just want to know why you think the grades are rediculous.
I feel pretty much the same way. I hate standardized tests, but, at this point, the SATs are my only redeeming quality on applications, since my cumulative GPA is under 2.0.
The problem with high school grading standards is the immense focus on exams. Failing an exam when you've maintained a C average can actually lead to failing a course for the year, which is absurd. When a single, hour-long test accounts for twenty percent of your grade, there is clearly an issue.
Also, in some schools, theres a pretty pervasive "success at all costs" attitude. We're told from day one, Freshman year that high school is essentially responsible for the course of your entire future. Are you going to fail classes? Drop out? Low GPA? You're nothing. And this dispotion is maintained among teachers, too - they tend to accord respect and opportunities to people based solely on their numerical value, going so far as to ignore more subjective factors entirely. I've seen kids break down and cry because they had a "B" on their report card.
The entire system places undue stress upon individual students. It's too objective. I understand that the best way to accomplish mass education is via a beurocratic system that revolves around numbers bequeathing value, but individuality is being pretty effectively quashed in a lot of public schools.
The are unbelievably arbitrary and unreliable. In an ideal world one could trust grades and throw one shot standardized tests to the wolves but IMHO human nature makes this hard.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I agree. That's why I loved elementary school so much. It was so simple. It wasn't all about grades, standardized tests, and GPAs. We did have the SOLs though in Virginia, but they were simple and there wasn't much pressure.
I have to agree with President Bush, we sort of have to know what schools are succeeding, because NCLB isn't supposed to be about the kids, its supposed to say that even if you're a poor minority you should be learning at the same level as the rest of us, tyranny of low expectations and all that.
Testing in particular really is a necessary evil. Going through a class and feeling like you're learning a lot is all well and good, but only for the individual. For that to be of any worth to other people, you need to have proof that you learned it, and testing is the only feasible way to do it at present.
I'm from Michigan, so I endured a whole host of MEAP tests, in addition to a lot of optional testing my parents wanted me to go through, and college entry exams. That said, I know from experience that it's not fun, but students can be prepared for them and do well, they just have to put in the work.