N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

some snippage

That's all we're asking. It's one thing when someone says "Explain X to me"

and

quite a different thing when someone says "I read books A, B and C on X,
but I still don't quite understand why you need to ....."..

That's all SOME of us are asking might be more accurate.


Agreed!


Others take umbrage at the asking.


Sad but true.

The ignorance problem is hardly a new problem. I can remember being
at a ham gathering circa 1965 where a guy didn't know the difference
between a short and an open. To have had the license he had at that
time he would have had to take the old essay style tests complete
with diagrams.

A closed test pool is no panacea.


There's mo

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971.
The
study guides in those books are full of draw-a-diagram questions, power
supply,
filter and transmitter questions, plus all sorts of other stuff like
magnetrons, neutralization, TV, RTTY, FM and SSB.. But there are very few
questions on receivers and antennas, particularly in the lower license
calsses and older versions.

I wonder if having to draw something makes for a harder test?


Depends entirely on the person. For some people, such nonverbal stuff is
easy, while for others it's really tough. Similar to the way some people

have

no problem reading maps or blueprints, while others are completely

befuddled by

such things.

Or me with Morse! 8^) It is amazing to me that in the past year, I have
learned DVD production authoring,learned a new 3-D rendering program,
taught myself visual basic programming, and am learning (of all things)
pottery making); and am now getting proficient in each. Yet I have spent
more time on learning Morse code than all the others combined, and still
am pretty rank at it. Not complaining, mind ya, (well maybe a little) it
just serves to make your point.


Exactly. But note that you're not doing Morse to pass a license test any more.

True. Just a strange thing.


But ya duz what you have to do!


Watta concept, huh?

At least one person here doesn't like that sort of thing. I just
consider the source.


The length of a dipole question appears exactly once - in the 1971 manual
only, for the Advanced class.

In fact, if you read the study guides carefully, it becomes clear that
they
are heavily focused on transmitter design and operation to avoid
interference, and regulations.

Yup, that was a probably a priority in those days.


It seems to me that a *lot* of the old exams was based on problems they
had experienced with hams. Hum modulation on ham signals? Ask a lot
of questions on rectifiers and filters. Some hams wander outside the band
edges? Lots of questions on band edges, frequency meters and computing the
tolerance of crystals an measuring systems.



What is your
opinion, Jim? given the study guide as a reference, were the tests
likely easier, harder, or not much difference?


It's impossible to say for sure without the actual tests.

However, having read all of the guides, and having taken the tests that

way,

I'd say that the old exams required a prospective ham to have a better
understanding of radio than the modern ones. While the modern tests cover

more

subjects, they do so at a much lower level.

But what's most important is that the old guides only gave a general idea

of

the
subject areas. For example, you knew there would be some fancy Ohm's Law
questions on the test (because the study guide had 'em) but you didn't know
exactly what they'd look like, or what the numbers would be. So you learned
Ohm's Law backwards, forwards and upside down just in case. And that was

just

*one* subject.

Also, the old exams used multiple choice exams with 5 choise, not 4.

But we're not going back to those days, so other methods must be used. One
solution is to make the question pool so large and varied that it's easier

for

99% of prospective hams to just learn the material rather than memorize or
word-associate their way to a passing grade.

The present pool has IIRC around 800some questions. That is getting to
the level you speak of.


Yes and no. Memorizing the whole pool is one thing, but if there are only a few
questions on one subject (say, Ohm's Law), it may be easier to just memorize or
word-associate those few than to learn the material.

I dunno. If I'm going to impress something on some brain cells, I'd just
as soon memorize Ohm's law as memorize specific test questions. Anyone
that would do elsewise is just getting what they deserve.



btw, the 1962 LM satudy guide for the Extra is 239 essay questions.


I'd prefer it if the test were essay. not because it would be harder,
but because for me at least, it would be easier. I liked them in school,
I still like them.


When I studied for mine, I went over all them,
although there is another incentive to learn the material, because
several of the questions are similar, and the answers are shifted
around. Question 32's answer might be "A" in the pool, but "C" on the
real test.


Sure, so you don't memorize them that way. You memorize/word associate "40
dipole/66feet" or some such.

For the circumstance you name, even that isn't too bad a thing. Of
course, knowing that 468/f is how you can find the length of a half wave
dipole is easier, and then you have something useful for *lots* of
frequencies.

I don't think they have any questions about quarter wave dipoles! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -