Here are some test tips from
Political Warrior,
The Two Teachers, and Teaching Comparative.
Remember if you are taking both tests on Tuesday, they do have minor fomat differences. The US Government test is in the morning with a 15-minute break then the Comparative Exam.
The Format of the Exam: Let’s begin by looking at a breakdown of how the AP US Government Exam is structured:
Questions, Time allowed, Percentage of grade: 60 multiple choice 45 minutes 50%; 4 free response 100 minutes 50%
Strategies for Multiple-Choice Questions - Read carefully.
The multiple-choice section will test your reading, vocabulary and patience. Take as many practice exams as you have available. There are only so many ways to write a question about judicial review or cloture. Practice reading AP multiple-choice questions.
Strategies for Free-Response Questions:
Do’s
1. Write as neatly as possible (without wasting time). You’ll get a better score if the reader can understand what you’re writing. If you make a mistake, simply draw a line through it and write the correct information above it. And, don’t use arrows or asterisk because they can be confusing to the readers.
2. Read the question. And then read it again. Think about what you’re going to write. Outline your answer. Make sure you’re only answering what has been asked.
3. Reread your work and make sure you’ve answered each question fully and correctly. Have you appropriately LINKED your answer to the question?
4. Leave yourself a few minutes at the end to revise or proofread your answers.
5. There is NO PENALTY for wrong information, therefore, write as much as you can (
use the Spare Tire) if a question asks for two examples, brainstorm and write as many as you can think
-- a least three, your spare tire.
6. At the very least, use the EXACT VOCABULARY from the question in each component of your answer. Most rubrics ask for linkage back to the question. This is the sure fire way to move in that direction.
Don'ts
1. Don’t give personal opinions (like your political affiliation or whether you like the president’s policies). The Exam is testing your knowledge and understanding of the political process. Don’t waste time stating an opinion, unless you’re asked to do so.
2. Don’t give long, unnecessary introductions. Get to the point.
3. Don’t give information you weren’t asked for. You won’t get any extra points if you do. So don’t waste your time writing it.
4. Don’t spend more than 25 minutes on any one free-response question.
5. Don’t fall asleep. Fight the fatigue. Time generally is not a factor. Wasted time is. Spend the time that is provided. This is a high stakes exam, do not look back and think about how you wasted it because you were tired, bored, or indifferent.
The Founders did not include in the U.S. Constitution an explicit statement of state powers but added it later in the :
A) Second Amendment.
B) Seventh Amendment.
C) Tenth Amendment.
D) Fourteenth Amendment.
E) None of the above.
On-line discussions and 10 lessons led by
The Two Teachers available at
Politico Prep
The AP exam for Comparative Government and Politics
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
The exam begins with a 45-minute session for reading and answering 55 multiple-choice questions. (Remember, choose the best answer from among the 5 choices offered.) This is same format (just 5 less Qs) as the US Test .
The second session is 100 minutes long. During that time, you will write answers to 8 "Free Response Questions." (As oppossed to 4 FRQs in US)
Five definitions and descriptions in the
"Short-Answer Concepts" section.
Make sure you define, describe and use one or two (spare tire) descriptions of the concept,
One
"Conceptual Analysis" question (which will ask about one of the course's "big ideas")
ie: executive-legislative relationships -- parilmentary vs. presidential systems
Two
"Country Context" questions, which are most likely to require comparisons
ie: civil liberties, cleavages, federalism, legitimacy in one or two specific countires of study.
_____________________
Go to Ken Wedding's
studying comparative blog spot to get several shots at practice-type comparative FRQ questions.
What has preserved the liberties of British citizens in a system that lacks separation of powers?
Mr. Wolak said:
With a system of government based on Common Law, British gradualism has grown to expand civil liberties of its citizens through laws like the UK's National Human Rights Act and its membership in the EU's Convention on Human Rights. All British law must be read against these instruments which preserve the liberties of citizens.
British PM Gordon Brown spoke (while he was still the Head of Government) about the British history of protecting citizen rights.
"From the starting point at the time of the Magna Carta, to the Civil Wars and the revolutions of the 17th Century, through the liberalism of Victorian Britain and the widening and deepening of democracy and fundamental rights throughout the last century, there has been a British tradition if liberty -- what one writer has called Britain's 'Gift to the World'."
Common Law tradition, national acts, modern EU membership and a history as the world's longest-lasting democracy have preserved civil liberties in the UK, despite the lack of a written constitution with a separation of powers."
Take your shots here on these, post answers in the comment section here or at the
studying comparative site.
2012 - Question #15 – country context question
(A) Identify two factors that make the UK regime a parliamentary system.
(B) Identify two factors that make the Nigerian regime a presidential system.
(C) Explain how the factors you identified make one of those regimes better able to make effective social welfare policies.
2012 - Question #10 – short answer/concept question
(A) What is a "catch-all" political party?
(B) What's an example of a party in the UK that is not a "catch-all" party?
(C) Why is it not a "catch-all" party?
Ken Wedding said...
This response to #10 arrived from the great expanse of the Internet:
"A 'catch-all' political party is a term devised in the 1960s to describe a new type of political party that plays down ideology in favor of slogans, telegenic candidates, and the like. In short, a “catch-all” party tries to gain as many different people as possible, in order to gain the most amount of votes.
"In the UK, the Labor Party is typically not viewed as a catch-all party, since it did not try to gain different votes by appealing to a great range of people. However, the current party in power, the Conservatives formed a coalition with the Lib Dems and tried to appeal to a great variety of people in order to gain people and win the election. The Labor Party is currently the shadow government and does not try to appeal to the majority."
========================
The definition offered here in response to part A is a good one. It matches the definitions in most textbooks quite well. It earns the one point possible.
In Part B, the identification of a British Party that is not a "catch-all" party is clearly the Labour Party. Earning the point for the identification is dependent upon the explanation offered in part C.
The explanation in part C accurately describes the actions of a party that is not a "catch-all" party as not appealing to a great range of people. However, the assertion that the Labour Party does not appeal to "a great range of people" is outdated. In the past it was true, but since Tony Blair's leadership of "New Labour," the party has tried to appeal to all people based on its competence, ideas, and the charisma of its leaders. (Oh, poor, charisma-less Gordon Brown.)
If this response had identified the pre-1997 Labour Party explaining that it was an ideological party appealing for votes only from workers and socialists, it might earn credit.
However, the question "What's an example…" is in the present tense and the rubric identifies the UK Independence Party, the British National Party, and (with explanations) Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru as parties that are not "catch-all" parties.
This response earns 1 point (for the definition) out of 3 possible.
Ken Wedding said...
Another response flew in on the wires of the Internet:
"Catch-all parties refer to the political party that plays down ideology in favor of slogans in hopes of getting the votes and support from the widest spectrum of citizens as possible.
"The most common non-catch-all party is the Liberal democrat party. It is not a catch-all party because it is the product of the Liberals and the Social Democrats merging together. Although the size is huge, they have never won more than fourteen seas between 1945 and 1979.
"They have earned many votes, not because the voters supported the Liberals but because the voters were originally Conservative or Labour supporters but felt that they no longer supported their party, so they voted for their rivals, as in this instance is the Liberal Democratic party.
"They don't try to appeal to a wide spectrum of voters, but because they are a merger between two parties, it is somewhat more restricted in ideas and unessential views than a single party with clear objectives."
==================
The definition here is barely adequate, but it is adequate. It earns a point.
The example chosen of a non-catch-all party is the Liberal Democratic Party. Earning a point for the identification is dependent upon the explanation of how it falls outside the definition of a catch-all party.
The argument is that it's a party created by a merger of dissidents from other parties and that it hasn't been very successful. (If that was true, David Cameron would not have a Lib Dem deputy PM.)
Indeed the merger that created the Liberal Democrats sought to carve out the great middle ground of British politics because the Conservatives had become so backward and Labour had become so radical. The politicians who created the Lib Dems sought to win elections by marginalizing their main opposition. In doing so, they sought votes from the broad, moderate middle of the spectrum of British politics.
If you look at the rubric mentioned above, there were 4 parties mentioned as examples of non-catch-all parties. The Lib Dems were not on the list.
This response earns 1 point out of 3 possible.
Ken Wedding's No.1 piece of advice on the FRQ section: READ THE VERBS
2012 - Question #4 – short answer/concept question
(A) What is an example of political corporatism in Mexico?
(B) Has that corporatism been strengthened or weakened by events of the past 12 years?
(C) Why?
From Colorado comes this response:
(A) Political corporatism involves collaboration between elite business, labor, and state interest groups to shape policy. An example of this in Mexico is the Confederation of Mexican Workers, which is the largest labor union in Mexico. It used to be an essential pillar of the PRI and was thus politically powerful.
(B) The PRI's system of political corporatism has been declining steadily for some time now, but it has been dramatically weakened in the past 12 years. This is mainly due to the fact that the PRI was voted out of the Presidency, despite the plurality the party holds in Congress.
=============================
The example of corporatism in Mexico is a good one and meets the rubric's requirement. The addition of the definition is good and helpful.
The explanation for the weakening of the PRI's corporatism is also good. Even though it would have benefited by more detail.
This response would earn 3 of a possible 3 points.
Another response from Colorado:
Political corporatism involved Giving political positions to the organizers of the 1968 student reports. Current: cooperations of labor union's leaders with the government.
Corporatism has been weakened because there is no more a solidifying PRI that would guarantee the "spoils". The old ties are no longer ensured, and there are other ways of political participation. For example, now, there is no unified, all-national women's rights movement, but there is a plethora of grass-root feminist organizations. Drug-related violence, too, has increased during the last decade because the cartel leaders are no longer co-opted by the PRI as effectively.
==============================
This example of corporatism in Mexico is not adequate. The reference to the "organizers of the 1968 student reports" is confusing. Corporatism involves a lot more and more comprehensive involvement than "cooperations."
The assertion is that corporatism has been weakened, and that seems reasonable, but in this rubric, you cannot earn a point for that assertion without an accurate explanation ("Why?"). The PRI, as shown by the current presidential campaign is still a political force and its ability to deny the last two PAN presidents from accomplishing much in the national legislature testifies to its unity.
The development of alternatives to PRI "corporations" does suggest that other groups can be effective, but doesn't therefore demonstrate that the PRI is weaker than it once was.
I don't think this response earns any of the three points possible.
