Difference between APUSH and AP Euro DBQ

Both APUSH and APE DBQs are designed to test the ability of the student to think like a historian, but there are a couple of key differences:

1. By far, the biggest difference is the requirement for outside information in the APUSH DBQ. This is not a requirement in APE, though students may certainly bring in outside information if they can; they will get some recognition for it IF they meet all of the core requirements.

2. The APE DBQ really emphasizes point of view; students need to be able to show that they understand not only what the documents are saying, but WHY the source of the information may be saying it.

·  In AP Euro the students are required to evaluate the documents' validity through an examination of point-of-view in the authors. In APUSH the documents are accepted as evidence.

·  In AP Euro the documents are shorter and there are usually more of them. The students are encouraged to comment on all documents by at least grouping them. There are no irrelevant or deliberately misleading documents in AP Euro.

·  The authorial point of view is the key in the AP Euro DBQ. Graders seem to appreciate attribution of sarcasm or personal interests served by the author's statements. Irony of statements made by famous or semi-famous people quoted in documents also scores well. It all comes down to how the documents are used as evidence.

·  The AP Euro DBQ is meant to examine whether the students' knowledge of history allows them to evaluate historical documents in a discerning way, and the APUSH DBQ assesses how one uses documentary evidence to support one's knowledge of a specific time period. The tasks are similar but substantially different.

What is POV?

“Tell me who is it, what does he know, and why does he know it?”

The DBQ is written so that there is at least one possible Point-of-View to be found for nearly every single document. You can usually tell what the POV is going to be just by reading the attribution given, before you even read the document. Is the writer a woman-- she'll have a different perspective than a man. Is the writer a Catholic writing about Protestants or Protestants about Catholics? Is he a noble describing peasants, a worker describing a bourgeois factory owner, a Communist, Socialist, anarchist, fascist, etc. etc. etc. All of these things and more will affect his POV. Sometimes POV is more subtle-- if you have three documents written by nobles that all describe peasants in a contemptuous tone and a fourth noble takes the peasants' side, you must ask yourself why. What is different about that one person?

POV is not an explanation of WHAT the author believes but it should explain WHY a document takes a particular viewpoint (Is there a characteristic about the author that predisposes him to a certain viewpoint? Is intent of the document to persuade people to a certain viewpoint? Does the type of document influence the message?). They must identify the characteristic and explain its influence on the message. Students don't have to "prove" a POV beyond the shadow of a doubt." The issue raised merely has to be plausible, based on a

rational knowledge of the historical facts.

Examples of POV (Note: Even when two documents are used, credit is given for only ONE POV)

Louis de Jaucourt and Denis Diderot were presumably scholars, not merchants, and as slavery did not offer them any personal advantages, they had no difficulty condemning slavery.

Guillaume Raynal and the speaker in doc. 13, a delegate of St. Domingue French administration, and a colonial landowner, respectively, indicate that French treatment put the slaves in far better conditions than their

original state. These were probably untrue statements, as Raynal and the landowner of doc. 13 in the colonies probably were not observed by any Frenchmen who would care to give an accurate, unbiased account of the

treatment of slaves.

Antoine Barnave and Charles de Lameth, whose positions are unknown, propose, in speeches to the National Assembly, attempts to reconcile practical and philosophical discrepancies. Barnave and Lameth were perhaps the most clear-thinking of all the speakers and writers, neither condemning slavery, nor applauding it. They obviously had not bought into humanist philosophies, and neither could they be considered greed-blinded merchants.

Thomas Macaulay, as a liberal MP (Member of Parliament), would probably have a vested interest in promoting the burgeoning prosperity of an industrial Great Britain and the subsequent rise in standard of living for the working classes. As such, Macaulay's social and political status are well-served by his one-sided description of Manchester.

Edwin Chadwick's experience in public health makes him an "expert" on public health, someone who has more "street cred" than the average schmoe on the street when the issues of disease or urban living conditions are being discussed.

Doc 9, the "brochure" by Wheelan and Company paints this glowing picture of Manchester and play up its productivity. That's to be expected--Wheelan and Co. was basically writing up a "chamber of commerce"-style PR piece.

In summary, the POV is an attempt to establish an author’s bias and/or motivation within a primary source. Clarifying an author’s logic is his/her opinion is a form of high level analysis. Establishing POV is a requirement for the DBQ in AP European History.

Some methods of identifying POV: Political Ideology, Class, Race, Religion Nationality, Profession, Gender

POV is not author’s opinion.

Incorrect: “Robespierre’s point of view was that terror could accomplish great things.”

POV is: An explanation of WHY an author had that opinion.

Acceptable POV: “Robespierre believed that terror could accomplish great things. He had that point of view because he was a member of the radical Jacobin club.”

Better POV: “Robespierre, with the opinion of the typical radical Jacobin, believed that terror could lead to great things.”

Best POV: “Robespierre’s membership of the radical Jacobin society led him to believe that terror could accomplish great things.”

Sophisticated POV: “The opinions of the Jacobins were profoundly radical: For example, Robespierre was clearly influenced by these views to believe that terror could be beneficial.”

How to write a FRE:

1.  You must have a clear, relevant thesis. The thesis must respond fully to the prompt.

2.  The essay must address all parts of the question or prompt.

a.  Describe and analyze the changes that led to Europe’s rapid population growth in the eighteenth century.

b.  Analyze the economic and social challenges faced by Western Europe in the period from 1945 to 1989

3.  The thesis must be supported with specific evidence.

4.  The essay must be well organized.

5.  Unlike the DBQ, the FRE is more holistically graded. There are no hoops to jump through; you just need to write a well organized essay.

6.  The sheet you received yesterday on essay organization will help with your writing process.