The College Board's (CB) unilateral decision to abridge AP World history without input from the world history community seems odd as it excludes the community they are serving. Generally speaking, the CB’s argument for abridgment is that a year-long world history course (from the beginnings to the present) is a beast that needs taming and the expansiveness of AP World History has become too challenging for students and faculty alike.
Welcome to H-World, a network for practitioners of world history. The list gives emphasis to research, to teaching, and to the connections between research and teaching.
This doesn't directly answer any of Laura's questions on the topic.
For those interested in catching up on the latest media news regarding the AP World discussion, you can find all the links to news outlets here: https://worldhistoryeducatorsblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/ap-world-history-...
Letters from scholars and teachers of the course can be found here:
I'm going to interpret Eric's invitation to discuss the APWH controversy broadly. I wasn't at the reading, but I saw the video (LOL).
I'm very interested to hear from those who were at the Reading about any noteworthy conversations or observations that happened outside of the Open Forum, which seems to have generated more heat than light.
I also recognize that the conversation has moved on since then.
In an effort to stimulate a little discussion on this topic for the list, I am curious if there was much formal/informal discussion at the recent AP World History grade-a-poolza concerning the proposed changes?
The conference announced on the cfp below was originally designed for Europeanists, but was opened up to all world areas following multiple requests by non-Europeanists to participate. The cfp has therefore been revised and the deadline extended to August 15, 2018. Please note that all proposals previously submitted remain valid and, where applicable, accepted.