"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I have known several people who
already had the technical background
(or most of it) and passed the exam
and knew very little about the rules.
Take the (snip)


While that might be an exception, would a person with a technical
background be the type to ignore rules? Instead, I suspect a person who
would make the effort to gain a technical background would also likely
make
the effort to learn the rules of any activity he or she might be involved
in.


Yes they can be. I've known several. They too often fall in the "know it
all" category.


(snip) Plus the questions don't begin to
cover all the rules that directly apply to
the operations of a Technician class
licensee.


Well, if you're looking for a test to cover all the rules, it seems to
me
you're looking for a test with several hundred questions. College students
don't even have to take a test with several hundred questions to pass a
class to prepare for a career. Likewise, an extensive exam like this
doesn't
fit into the current exam concept (basic exams for entry into each license
class). With that in mind, how are you going to sell the FCC on that idea?


I think 50 to 100 questions ought to do it. Only the pool would need to be
several hundred questions, just as today's pools are far larger than the
number of questions actually occurring on any one exam.


None of the tests currently comes close
to covering the full scope of rules
applying to the license class on that
particular license exam and that is
what needs to be changed. (snip)


Why? Do you have some evidence (personal, rhetorical, or otherwise) that
would suggest the current tests are linked to a specific problem with rule
violations? From what I've seen, most violations are the result of
intentional rule infractions, not ignorance of the rules themselves.



I find band edge violations almost every time I dial up and down the HF
bands.

If the applicant has studied sufficiently to
get 75% right on a rules only test of say
100 or so questions, he/she shouldn't
have too much problem remembering
the rules.


My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international law
class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam). You're
asking for much more from people preparing for what is fundamentally a
recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous, Dee.


How many questions has she had to pass to get her law degree and to pass her
bar exam?

Fifty to 100 multiple choice questions on the FCC rules is simple as the
rules are very simple.


The rules covered in the exam barely
scratch the surface. And one can miss
most or all the rules questions and still
pass the current exam element. (snip)


You keep saying that, but do you have anything to suggest it has ever
happened (much less commonly so)? Again, it is theoretically possible, but
not really very likely. As I said before, a person that poorly prepared
would likely miss several other questions on the exam, meaning he or she
would almost have to get the majority correct on each part of the exam to
pass the overall exam.


On the Tech exam there are only 5 rules questions. That means missing all 5
gives you a score of 30, which is passing. This gives you room to miss
several other questions on the exam. However several of those 5 are so
common sense (i.e. no interference) that even someone who has not studied
will not miss them all. Afterall the passing grade for the exam is only
74%. That means you can miss a total of 9 and still get it.

Neither the examiners nor the applicants know which specific questions were
used on any one exam. The answer sheets and question sheets are separated.
So determining whether someone had difficulty with the technical, operating,
or rules sections is not allowed at the test session. The data could be
computerized and correlated at the VEC but isn't. However in teaching
classes and using practice exams, it is common for a student to struggle
with a particular section while acing the others. The section will vary
from student to student however.


I regularly have people tell me they'd
like to practice their code on the air but
"can't because they are only a Tech."
They are totally unaware that they can
work code in the VHF (snip)


Did they tell you that (they were unaware they can work code on VHF), or
is that your interpretation of their comment. I've made a similar comment
once or twice over the years - not because I was unaware I could work code
on VHF, but because there are so few others doing so on those frequencies.


They actually told me so and were astonished that it was legal for them to
work CW on VHF even though they had not passed a code test. The sad thing
is the only people I ever find on VHF CW are Generals, Advanced and Extras.


Again, take the Tech test. There is
very little on digital operations or
satellite operations yet these are open
to Technicians. (snip)


There was such material in the pool I studied (7/97 - 6/01 pool). For
satellite, questions T1C01 through T1C11, T1E05 through T1E08, T3C01
through
T3C05, T3C10 through T3C12, and a few others here and there throughout the
pool. There are a similar number of questions for digital operations.


The current question pool however no longer includes the data rates for
digital. This is quite important for legal operation that does not exceed
the bandwidths for these modes. These groups in the pool are repetitious
repeating the same question in several forms and thus a lot of important
material is omitted.


Or another area that could be included
in the test, although I'd admit it's not a
necessity, is something on the history
of amateur radio. (snip)

Or how about including a little bit on
space weather and it's effects not only
on propagation but how major flares
can potentially effect electronics
in general. (snip)


Come on, Dee. If you throw in a little more math and language skills,
you
could almost offer a college degree to those who pass the exams you want.


Note that I said these areas aren't really necessary but simply interesting.
One or two questions in the pool might spark a person's interest to pursue
self study in these areas.


Here is another example. The tests do
not have questions addressing the issue
of how far from the band edge one
should stay to insure that none of their
signal is outside the allowable band.
I've heard (snip)


Not in so many words, but the concepts are there (bandwidths of various
modes and frequency limits). The old Novice used to have a couple of
questions about this, but I'm not sure that made it's way over to the new
tests.


No it hasn't made its way into the new tests. And I hear this violation
happening regularly when I am on HF and it seems to be increasing.


Dwight that argument can be turned
against the proposal to eliminate code
testing as follows so don't go there.
"Finally, I have to wonder if there
is any reason to change the exams
at all. The current exams have
evolved over many years, and I
just don't see how the suggested
changes I've seen (yours and
others to eliminate code testing)
offer a real improvement."


Not really. My objection isn't based on the fact that the current exams
have evolved over the years, but on the fact that I don't see how the
suggested changes offer an improvement. The part about the current exams
evolving over the years was intended to point out how well they fit the
current needs, leaving little room for improvement by the suggestions
offered. The same cannot be said about the code test because it hasn't
really evolved to fit the current needs (from a regulatory perspective,
there is no current need for the code test). Now, before this turns into a
code test debate, lets drop this at that.


Difference of opinion is fine but don't assume that the FCC knows what they
are doing. Just because they've said it doesn't make it true. They have a
long history of mistakes.


The top three things that any ham should know,
in my opinion, are rules/regulations, safety, and
good operating practices. These need a great
deal more coverage than they currently get.


Obviously every Ham should know those things. But, as noted in section
97.3 of the rules (below), this is an activity oriented towards self-study
or self-training, not massive tests with extensive knowledge before
entrance.
[snip]
The rules are there for any Ham to study on their own - with plenty of
warnings in the exams about what might happen if they don't follow those
rules.


Adding one 50 question test on rules hardly constitutes massive tests with
extensive knowledge. Changing the handful of rules questions in the current
tests to other material if a separate rules test were instituted hardly
constitutes asking for extensive knowledge. My comments on what could be
used for this were to point out that there was a wealth of material to pick
from not to say that ALL technical and operating issues should be covered.
Or one could simply reduce the number of questions in the Tech, General, &
Extra since the rules would already be covered in the rules exam..

There are NOT plenty of warnings in the exams about what can happen to
violators if they do not follow the rules. Reread the question pool. There
NO questions in the Technician pool about the possible penalties for
violating the rules. Questions about the rules, yes. Questions about the
penalties, no.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE