In terms of price per page, this study guide is a bargain. But that's one of its problems - length - and the authors know it. Like they say, "It is best to use this book over a long period of time, rather than trying to cram at the last minute."

I confess that I have always been partial to Barron's AP study guides, in part because they included a comprehensive review. But in the case of world history, we're talking about a terse 500 page 'world history in brief' that is still half as long as the average textbook. Yes, they have practice tests, but then so do textbook publishers. The question arises whether this study guide is better than just using the textbook - at least this year.

It's anyone's guess whether 2002 students will find this study guide useful. It's going to require at least 50% more time to read and study than the typical AP guide - probably much closer to twice the time. If you're going to give it a try, I would suggest a careful reading of the test taking strategies, the unit overviews, and the key terms and concepts - and then skim through the review chapters to the questions at the end of the unit. Above all, I would suggest buying this study guide early and following the advice of the author; do not wait until the last minute. Teachers who plan to recommend it to their students should probably do so at the beginning of the year.

In many ways, this study guide is an impressive piece of work, but basically I think an AP study guide should be limited to 350 pages and suitable for a last minute "cram". This one's too long for that.

This book is one of the few review books that actually provided a relavant summary of all the dates and events that have occured that you should know for the test. If you are running low on time, there are a section reviews to at least show you possible questions and topic areas that will be covered on the test. This is the only book I used to study for the world history, and it was the only book i needed to score high on the AP test. The model essays and practice questions tended to be a little more challenging, but it only prepared me more in the end.

Usually, I tend to buy Barron's books becuase they have a full review that can explain aspects of the class in great detail ( details that often get left off by the teachers). Becuase I bought this book moderately early I read through the intensive and long review. Sometimes i was overwhelmed by all the material. For the practice tests, and model questions and just an over all accurate look at the AP test, you're money spent will be spent wisely.
If you are looking for a last minute cram, I think the only thing that the book will be useful for is the questions and unit reviews.If you are looking for a guide to truly study out of, this is the book to get. Also, if you are looking for practice questions that closely model the questions on the AP test ( I remember one in particular actually testing over the same material) then this book has several that will be beneficial for your time.

This book was an excellent resource. I didn't really crack this book open until about 2-3 months before the AP exam. The book is broken down into sections based on the AP Test and time periods. The first unit was very helpful, in a few chapters one encountered the different types of multiple choice questions, as well as the criteria and answering strategies for the three essays that were expected to be on the AP test. World history was conveniently divided by time periods, the chapter and unit quizes were great for reviewing. I used these quizes to find my weak and strong points. My history book was very long, and the Barron's summaries were very short and to-the-point. The two sample AP tests in the back of the book were excellent preperations! Some say that this book is not good for cramming, that is true if you're try to cram a year's worth of history in a couple of days, but I spent the entire morning before my exam cramming and reviewing chapters that were hazy, and it made a significant difference when I began the test. I can honestly say that I encountered questions dealing with topics that I had read about within an hour before. I recommend the Barron's book for use as a review, practice, a supplement to confusing history books, and even for cramming.

BTW-- I was a sophomore in high school (15 yrs old) when I took this course.

Few polar historians or academics are aware of the late Robert J. Morrison's 1987 exposure of Stalin's North Pole scam of the 1930's, in "Russia's Shortcut to Fame: 50-Year Hoax Exposed." Morrison researched from previously classified US Army documents and photographic evidence that the so-called record setting flights originated from remote islands of the Alaskan panhandle to Vancouver, WA and San Jacinto, CA, not from Moscow as Stalin wanted the world to believe. Also Levanevsky was not lost in the Arctic, but was a victim of Stalin's great paranoid 1937 purge

Since I'm the author of this book, please disregard the five-star review, which I've assigned pro forma. This is meant to be a note about Ted Heckathorn's customer review of _Red Arctic_.

Mr. Heckathorn criticizes my book mainly on the grounds that I fail to take into account Robert Harrison's "proof" that the USSR's three transpolar flights of 1937 (along with other Soviet air expeditions) were faked. I would argue in return that to ignore Harrison's "findings" is not a fault, but rather responsible scholarship.

Readers should be aware that Harrison's book (a vanity publication that was, for some time, unable to find a press at all, then was taken up by a publisher that specializes mostly in thriller fiction) is a classic example of conspiracy-theory fringe literature. At least on the Internet, its principal endorsement comes from a British neo-fascist group (www.heretical.co.uk), most of whose web space is taken up with paranoid ravings about "Hebrew millionaires" and "Jewish communists." This is not to say that Harrison (or Heckathorn) shares any of these views; it is simply to show that Harrison's writings hardly occupy a place in the scholarly mainstream.

Harrison's arguments are based on speculative readings of grainy, poor-quality Soviet photos, equally grainy, poor-quality photos taken by the U.S. Army, and theories and assessments contained in U.S. intelligence reports. Harrison fails to take into account that the Soviet media (much like Western news services, then and today) routinely printed stock photos of pilots and aircraft, so images in newspapers and books did not always match the times and places mentioned in captions or headlines. This creates inconsistences, out of which Harrison spins theories more elaborate than they need to be. Moreover, the U.S. Army was hardly the most objective observer of Soviet aviation, and, for that matter, it was not always the most accurate. Also, writing in the 1980s, Harrison had no access to government and Communist Party documents in Russian archives, a plethora of which shows that these flights did in fact take place (and since these documents were never intended for public consumption, Soviet or foreign, it is safe to assume that they were not faked).

Finally, Harrison's conclusions, especially when applied to the third polar flight of 1937--Levanevsky's fatal disappearance--flies in the face of all logic. If the Stalinist regime went to such great lengths to deceive the world about its polar triumphs, in order to impress the international community with its technological prowess and human bravery, why on earth would it follow two stunning successes with a hideously embarrassing failure? If Stalin had wanted to purge Levanevsky (as Harrison and Heckathorn assert), he could have done so easily without a needlessly intricate plan that necessitated tarnishing the USSR's earlier exploits in the Arctic (faked _or_ genuine).

Admittedly, no archival record ever reflects the past with absolute precision or completeness. And Stalin was certainly ethically and practically capable of any deception imaginable. But Stalin did not deceive without rational purpose. And the archival record is more trustworthy than dubious guesswork based on possible inconsistencies spotted in photographs of less than stellar quality. At most, Harrison has raised the rather truistic point that not everything about Soviet propaganda exploits was as it seemed. But, with respect to matters of substance, he has neither proven nor disproven anything, circumstantially or conclusively.