sternman318
Hazard to Others
Posts: 121
Registered: 21-4-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
How would you do on the 1972 AP Exam?
For those of you unfamiliar with AP courses, they are courses offered at the highschool level to give students a college level course ( for example, i
have used my score to recieve credit for 2 general chemistry courses at the university I will be attending this fall). At the end of the course, they
then take an exam, which is the same nation wide and is run by the same people who run the SAT.
Anyway, I ran across a copy of a portion of the 1972 exam from when I was practicing for the exam last year. How many of you actually took this exam,
by the way? 
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/7039/dsc0908rr.jpg
[Edited on 16-6-2011 by sternman318]
[Edited on 17-6-2011 by sternman318]
|
|
|
redox
Hazard to Others
Posts: 268
Registered: 22-2-2011
Location: The Land of Milk and Honey
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chalcogenetic
|
|
Congratulations on your doing well!
I asked my father about this, and he graduated high school in 1970. He said his school didn't give AP exams, but instead gave instead generic
achievement tests, on which he scored "exceptionally."
Is that test really from 1972? It says "NO CALCULATORS MAY BE USED," which I found odd, because calculators were neither cheap nor common back then.
My quite small but growing Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/RealChemLabs
Newest video: Synthesis of Chloroform
The difference between chemists and chemical engineers: Chemists use test tubes, chemical engineers use buckets. |
|
|
Mr. Wizard
International Hazard
Posts: 1042
Registered: 30-3-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The reason calculators were not used was because they were not cheap or available. Imagine multiplying dozens of numbers and their exponents with a
handful of pencils and a pile of scratch sheets. This was common with many questions. How much of an advantage would it be to have an error free
calculator. My first calculator wasn't even a dedicated scientific calculator and it would have saved 75% of the effort of the achievement tests of
that era. They were quite expensive and quite out of reach of most students of the time. Many were LED display, and quite the energy hogs. Most
could only operate a short time on batteries. The ban on calculators was an effort to level the field and judge peoples' skills not their skills as a
function of their wealth.
Chemistry, physics and engineering tests were allowed slide rules in tests, as it was considered a normal skill , and the instruments were cheap and
available. More money bought you more accuracy, but if you got the answer right and could calculate your error you got credit.
This was the in the mid 1960s to the 1970s. When I went to high school they didn't have AP courses, but I went to a Catholic parochial school, which
may be the same as an AP course.
|
|
|
albqbrian
Hazard to Self
Posts: 73
Registered: 26-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Alternatingly paranoid or pi**ed
|
|
Wow, what a flashback...
I graduated from HS in 1975 and got my BA in Chemistry in 1979 so I'm right in this period. I'll ramble on about what I remember.
I went to a small school so they didn't have any AP classes. We either took the SAT or ACT. The ACT had a generic science section; unlike the SAT
which only had verbal and math. The SAT did have advanced tests in multiple areas. I took the ones in Math and Chem. I don't remember any specifics,
but I did place out of the 1st classes in both Calculus and Chemistry.
For the record, I wouldn't recommend that if you can help it. One is logistical; you're now sort of out of step (especially since my school was both
relatively small and on the trimester system) with the main sequences of those courses. Most importantly; if you're serious about academics (you want
to go to grad school) you need the best grades you can get. Rushing through and getting a 3.0 isn't going to do that. A sad, but true fact. Heck, I'd
recommend doing as much as possible at a community college. Your competition will be easier, you'll have much more teacher involvement, and by time
you apply to grad school all they'll care about is that you got an A (we hope) in this or that required class. If you do go straight to college, take
it easy your 1st semester or two. I'd take as few classes as possible (two would be pretty good) if you can get away with it. The point is to
establish the habit of getting A's. So what if it takes an extra semester.
About calculators. I'd bet NO ONE had them in HS in 1972. Certainly no one in my HS had one in 1975; our calculations in Chem and Physics were done
with a sliderule. As I recall from 1974 to 1975 there was a huge price break in the field. In 1974 they were above $500, probably closer to $1,000!
This is when the tuition at a good state university was $200 a semester and $5,000 a year at a top notch private school. The good old days! I got a
TI-50 (I think) for my birthday present in April 1975. It was one of the 1st affordable scientific calculators; it cost $150. The real nerds at my
school had an HP one. It allowed the most basic of programming. The real sign of geekdom then was playing Moonlanding with your HP calculator. I'm
pretty sure our class, 1975; was the 1st one where everybody had a calculator. During my four year chem program I used a computer exactly once! That
was for a mass spec lab. Yup, it was a much simpler time.
OK, thanks for letting my have that semi-senile stroll!
|
|
|
peach
Bon Vivant
Posts: 1428
Registered: 14-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think you've misread Redox's point there Wizard, he said they weren't cheap or easily available.
But digital calculators were becoming available to the public around that time. So I suppose it's much akin to modern tests saying "no mobile phones".
Scientists didn't retain an encyclopaedic knowledge of all equations and physical properties then and they don't today. They check it in online (more
up to date) journals or references. Being a scientist now means being able to find information online. Which makes an Internet capable phone more like
a calculator; although the analogy is blurred since direct answers without any scientific problem solving are more possible. However, I certainly
don't have £300+ to spend on an iPhone (in fact, I don't use a mobile phone and have never bought one), and I know for a fact there are many kids who
can't afford £3 for a new note book on their own. Meaning the same wealth bias would exist as Wizard mentioned for calculators.
I recently joined the ranks of true nerds by buying my first collectible calculator (I may never touch a girl again if this carries on).
I can't find mine to take a photo of it, but it's a dark green version of this model, the RapidMan, which was introduced in 1972 as the first 'cheap'
model for the public; it was the first to cost under $100. Making it a very important item in my eyes, as it's essentially the printing press, a major
root, that's driven us so rapidly forward since then. Imagine what we wouldn't have if this hadn't been produced. I can imagine in some of the better
schools, the kids with richer parents could possibly have access to one of these, and it does actually fit in a pocket (and it's extremely light, it
feels hollow).
12AX7 might like this photo. 
The case is the kind of plastic envelope you'd expect on something costing 99p now and the buttons are a moulded in part of the case (making them feel
even more cheap), but it was high tech stuff inside in 1972 (the chip actually looks more high tech than a lot of modern IC's, the way it's white with
gold pins). These older calculators had issues with certain functions. It has problems with the idea of -0 and / 0. I believe an older man (possibly
now deceased) owned this up until a year ago, and had kept it with it's instructions. He's even written on the back how to perform certain functions.
These are critical artefacts in human history. The silicone alone is enough to be of interest. They can't all go into incinerators!
[Edited on 17-6-2011 by peach]
|
|
|
trb456
Unregistered
Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline
|
|
I took the AP Chem exam in 1982 (got a 5, I think). The page you showed reminded me of what my chem teacher said at the time. I took two years of
chem, and the instructor was very good, but when it came to the AP exam in the 2nd year, he seemed a little depressed. He basically told us that the
bulk of the AP exam was balancing equations, and that was what we were going to learn.
A very early example of "teaching to the test", though in this case I'm not certain it was forced. I think he was doing what he though was needed to
do well on the AP exam (correct in my case!), but seemed to think it was a shame. And I'd agree: the rest of his course was a good mix of theory and
lab, and was a lot of fun. I imagine in the early 80s high school students still had access to real chemicals (like H2SO4 for a Molisch test).
|
|
|
peach
Bon Vivant
Posts: 1428
Registered: 14-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Would you take this paper when you're 16-18 in the US?
That's the AS and A-Levels in the UK, which are the mandatory examinations for the course.
I did my A-Levels about eight years ago. We did use concentrated sulphuric a few times, but the staff would aim to start with diluted bench acid if
the concentrated acid was going to be diluted down in the practical anyway***. I seem to remember using a phosphorus chloride at some point as well. I
would hazard a guess we may have been making an alkyl chloride from an alcohol of some sorts. Quite amusing we had a fairly large container of it sat
in the fume hood for us to use and so many adults struggle to get hold of it. Kids are far more interested in stealing magnesium ribbon.
The vast majority of our time in chemistry at A-Level (particularly inorganic) was spent doing titrations. It got to the point where every practical
session we did for a month or more was a titration, and each had to be written up as if it was the first we'd done. The hardest of these, in practical
terms, was determining the hypochlorite content of bleach. The staff had purposefully chosen thick toilet bleach, because it was really difficult to
get it accurately into and out of the pipettes. It also tended to foam, making things harder still.
Unfortunately, this was well into the time when the whole year becomes not about learning science, but about learning how to pass the papers. Quite a
lot of our 'lessons' were simply to fill out past papers and then go over the answers the next lesson.
One of my friends went on to become a doctor, and is now a surgeon. When I couldn't understand some point about pKa's and mentioned it to him, his
reply was "Don't bother trying to understand it, just remember it for the exam and then forget it".
I can understand his point. Those bits of logic have little to do with his job now. And he was one of the only people I've met who knew for sure
that's what he wanted to do in his early teens, and went on to do precisely that. But I have a really hard time applying that kind of thinking myself.
I grew up taking apart most of the appliances in the house (electrocuting myself at the same time) because I couldn't accept the idea that they simply
worked and needed to know what was actually making that happen.
I took all three sciences at A-Level, and my experience of it was quite dull. There was very little exciting about them in the school it's self.
But, both my parents were teachers, my sister is a teacher and I've grown up constantly speaking to the staff at schools, both inside and outside
(going round to their houses and so on). I've known my neighbours for my entire life, and they are both technicians in the local school. There isn't a
whole lot of room for them to make things exciting any more.
Even if they decide to line their classroom with exciting bits of glass or equipment (just for the kids to be exposed to, not use), they are
potentially invalidating the school's insurance policy. Kids are extremely expensive to repair, and some parents know all too well how easy it is to
get access to that money.
If I was teaching A-Levels, it'd be difficult to not put fancy condensers and things in the classrooms to interest the students. At the same time, I
also know that the "well it didn't hurt me" example isn't really good enough, as some people are excellent at theory, but also terrible with their
practical ability (like not stabbing themselves with a condenser).
There is also another problem, in that the classrooms are also used by the younger kids, who are far more prone to accidents and a lot of them aren't
interested in science at all.
In our early teen year groups, there'd be hundreds of people sitting mandatory science lessons. By GCSE, that was already falling. By A-level, there
were about 20 people doing each of the sciences.
There were virtually none doing all three. I can't remember anyone doing all three actually.
I see the point to examinations, but I can tell you that head teachers are now insisting their staff use software to write the reports; the software
doesn't use any terms that could be considered offensive or de-motivational (like, not doing well enough with...). It also produces a standardised
output for the head to review; simultaneously reducing all the students to a generic grey. One popular version in the UK is Report Assist. In fact, I
have used this piece of software myself to check over reports and correct errors for family members; the original versions used to frequently make sex
and name errors.
The statement from the teacher, which I would consider an equally valuable piece of the report, is computer generated. If you happen to get a set of
questions on your paper that aren't your strong point, the entire report will come out poor.
I think examinations should be set so the paper covers the entire section being examined in some form or another, so the students can find the things
they're best at and focus on those rather than it being a random pick of something. As people advance through education, the topic becomes more
focused, not less. Someone who wants to become a surgeon is naturally going to be more interested in organic chemistry than inorganic. And is likely
going to be more interested in naturally occurring chemistry.
Even at university, there is little room to do much outside of the pre-planned work. I was 'told off' two or three times for trying to run my own
experiments in my own time. First time for having a 1kV power supply, second for a laser diode, third for some petri dishes (although, I got that one
sorted eventually).
Oh, and in my GCSE years for reading an A-Level text book in my spare time and bringing it up in school.
-----------------------------------------------
***
One of the few and reasonably bad chemicals burns I've had was actually using concentrated sulphuric at A-Level. Some of it had ended up on the desk.
My lab partner and I wiped the desk down and then we all sat back down (at the same desks) to discuss the results. The desk hadn't been cleaned well
enough, there was still acid on it. My bare elbows were resting on the desk for about an hour.
I didn't feel or notice anything until the next day when I discovered large blisters on my elbows.
Not a major problem, and it did teach me how persistent the acid is. But, considering the cleaners used to run the floor mops over the benches (the
same ones used to clean out the toilets and mop up sick, making the desks stink), it's an indicator of how easily problems can spread in schools.
[Edited on 17-6-2011 by peach]
|
|
|
Mr. Wizard
International Hazard
Posts: 1042
Registered: 30-3-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"I think you've misread Redox's point there Wizard, he said they weren't cheap or easily available."
Peach, we are in agreement about this. I didn't misread it, I agree with him. I know they were not cheap or available.
|
|
|
DJF90
International Hazard
Posts: 2266
Registered: 15-12-2007
Location: At the bench
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I agree with alot of stuff that peach mentions. I did two of the sciences at A-level, and got an A grade in both. I was lucky in that the teachers at
my school were very enthusiastic about their subject, and did whatever they could to interest us. Practically, we did quite a lot of organic
chemistry; dichromate oxidations, synthesis of tert-butyl chloride/oil of wintergreen/aspirin/a variety of esters (yuck butyric acid) etc. They were
always down for demonstrating nice experiments, such as thermite, a chip pan fire, perchlorate/jellybaby, "cannonfire", elephants toothpaste etc etc.
I missed the occasion where there was some Mn2O7 demonstrated.
Of course we also had practical assessment days, one of which was identifying an unknown alcohol by bp/reactions, another was a titration
practical (working out the rate equation for acidic iodination of acetone) and the third was a practical on kinetics - the rate of reaction between an
acid and acid, and how certain factors affected it (e.g. Mg vs Zn, or HCl vs H2SO4 vs H3PO4, or even different concentrations of a single acid). These
provided marks towards our final grade.
In physics, it was often the case that we'd have a practical maybe every three lessons, to demonstrate/provide evidence for equations or phenomena
that we were to learn about. Stuff like seeing how Jelly attenuated light, observing standing waves and trying to get the first few harmonics, using
springs and masses for demonstrating simple harmonic oscillators, and stuff like that. Our coursework involved a practical report on anything we
wanted to do, given that it was reasonable and safe. We had access to dataloggers for this session, and there were a variety of projects thought up by
the class. Projects ranged from investigating "double pendulums" - a pendulum hanging off another pendulum (this guy went on to do mathematics at
university), to investigating the power efficency of a home-made wheatstone bridge, to investigating how different materials absorb shock and
application to earthquake-proof buildings etc etc. Often a project involved us reading further into the subject ourselves.
I too find it very difficult to accept something unless I can see how it works, or find a derivation. For this very reason it was only in my third
year of my degree that I actually learnt quantum mechanics, because I couldnt accept that the schrodinger equation "just works". I was also one of
them kids that had read far ahead of the class, and I'm sure I complicated things for my teachers on more than one occasion ("but Miss... I read
that.....").
I feel that it is worth mentioning that I attended a state school, and was not privately educated. There seems to be alot of jip in the press here
about state schools not doing as well as private schools. Whilst it may be the case in many instances, it is not without exception, and there are many
good schools out there with very good teachers. In my opinion it generally comes down to the students wanting to learn.
[Edited on 17-6-2011 by DJF90]
|
|
|
sternman318
Hazard to Others
Posts: 121
Registered: 21-4-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You're dead on Peach. Not to discredit my teacher, but for these AP classes, you are teaching the student to pass it, not necessarily the course. Now,
a motivated student will learn the material, and as such will do well. But, everyone wants a pretty little AP course on their transcript, and not all
of those kids like mixing chemicals, so the teachers do what they have to to get good scores and keep their job. It wasn't until this year , when I
took AP biology, that I had an AP teacher who taught both the course and the test, and even helped me out. After the examination ( it ends about a
month before school does), there is really no more work to be done, he let me make use of his equipment and minor chemical supplies and let me
experiment for an hour and a half each day while the rest of the kids were watching Transformers. He even let me have some of his equipment and
glassware, saying " If I can help atleast get one student truly interested in science or help foster their passion, then it is worth it". So there are
some really great teachers out there, and if I win the Nobel prize, Ill remember to toss him a 'Thank you'... and maybe a Corvette
[Edited on 17-6-2011 by sternman318]
|
|
|
#maverick#
Hazard to Others
Posts: 209
Registered: 7-4-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: hybridised
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by sternman318  | You're dead on Peach. Not to discredit my teacher, but for these AP classes, you are teaching the student to pass it, not necessarily the course. Now,
a motivated student will learn the material, and as such will do well. But, everyone wants a pretty little AP course on their transcript, and not all
of those kids like mixing chemicals, so the teachers do what they have to to get good scores and keep their job. It wasn't until this year , when I
took AP biology, that I had an AP teacher who taught both the course and the test, and even helped me out. After the examination ( it ends about a
month before school does), there is really no more work to be done, he let me make use of his equipment and minor chemical supplies and let me
experiment for an hour and a half each day while the rest of the kids were watching Transformers. He even let me have some of his equipment and
glassware, saying " If I can help atleast get one student truly interested in science or help foster their passion, then it is worth it". So there are
some really great teachers out there, and if I win the Nobel prize, Ill remember to toss him a 'Thank you'... and maybe a Corvette
[Edited on 17-6-2011 by sternman318] |
this is straight on, my teacher is the same way while everyone was watching movies and such she would let me work in the fume hood use the glassware
and she showed were everything was in the chemical stock room and let me go at it, i would just have to run my procedure by her before i did it, this
was in an honors class, this year i have AP and i hope to explore more into the wonderful world of chemistry, her love for the subject inspires me.
She got me to love this subject hands down. Its all about the professor and somewhat the student too
|
|
|
peach
Bon Vivant
Posts: 1428
Registered: 14-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by sternman318 | | So there are some really great teachers out there, and if I win the Nobel prize, Ill remember to toss him a 'Thank you'... and maybe a Corvette |
That's interesting.
If I won a Nobel prize I'd give a big fuck you to most of the science teachers who taught me. As a thank you for all their discouraging remarks; I'd
be tempted to name them in person.
I'd probably melt the award down and sell it as well. I found a piece of platinum today. It looks like a piece of rubbish. I had to write in red
marker pen, three inches tall, what it was in the bag, so it wouldn't go in the bin.
I like your supercooled water video. Simple, very pretty, important.
[Edited on 17-6-2011 by peach]
|
|
|
DJF90
International Hazard
Posts: 2266
Registered: 15-12-2007
Location: At the bench
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I figured I'd share this post that popped up over on Chemjobber's blog:
http://chemjobber.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/guest-post-whither-...
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
