Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
John Smith wrote:
So it's really immaterial what the old exams were
like, other than to
point out the differences. Newer hams have no choice
in the matter -
they can't take the old tests even if they wanted to.
Indeed, what would be the reason? Those old tests
aren't really relevant today.
The subject matter, maybe. Replace questions about
mercury-vapor
rectifiers with ones about silicon diodes, for example.
No argument there.
That sort of replacement has been going on continuously.
One poster asked questions about push-pull amps and
obscure modulation schemes. (except to a few AM'ers)
While all this is
very interesting - it isn't relevant to most of hamming today.
The point is that, in the opinion of a number of people,
the old exams
- actually the old exam *methods* - required a
different sort of
understanding of the material covered than today's exams.
Yes.
That's really the crux of the whole issue.
One more difference about the old tests, though:
Judging by the
study guides, the old tests focused on a few subject
areas in depth,
while the new tests cover more subject areas but
in much less detail.
Take the subject of, say, Ohm's Law for DC circuits.
With the exam
methods used today, we know the exact form and content
of each question
that could appear on the test. No surprises. If someone
can get the
right answer to the Ohm's Law problems in the pool,
they're all set, regardless of their understanding.
But in the old test methods, we did not know the exact
form of the
Ohm's Law questions. We only knew there would be some. So most
prospective hams learned how to solve all sorts
of problems with Ohm's Law.
Okay. Now comes the question of how to reconcile the in-depth
questioning of the old tests with the large amount of new
material that
would be needed to accommodate what has transpired since
the good old days.
Part of the solution is the replacement mentioned above. Another
is to enlarge the question pools, not just in quantity but in
variety of questions.
About the only way I can think of to accomplish this
would be to add a LOT of questions to the test.
FCC policy disagrees.
Consider the written testing required to step from
General to Extra. In the really bad
old days (before 1967, when the Advanced was closed off)
a prospective Extra had to take a written test of ~100 questions.
After 1967, that test was split into two tests (Advanced and
Extra) totalling about the same number of questions.
Before the 2000 restructuring, the step took two tests totalling 90
questions.
Now it takes one 50 question test.
See the pattern?
Right. I think that most people that want to learn above
the Technician level *want* to know the material.
Depends entirely on the person. And the point is what
the *system* tends to reward.
And frankly, there were enough bad eggs let in under
the old system,
that I think that those who tout the superior Hams
produced by the old
system might want to consider the subject before
yapping about folks like me.
How many bad eggs? And what kind? I was there - nothing like
W6NUT, 3950 or 14.313 existed back then. Nothing like ex-KG6IRO
and the guy on the West Coast who sent false distress signals
on the marine VHF band.
Yes, some hams back
then did break the rules. But compare the violations of those
days to the violations of today, in both number and quantity.
*No* test, code or written, can be a perfect "bad egg filter".
Particularly not a one-shot test that confers privileges that
are renewable indefinitely.
But that doesn't mean there's no difference between tests and
test methods.
Back in 1997 I paid over $2k for a new Dell system. 200 MHz 32 MB
Pentium II, 17" Trinitron monitor, HP 820 printer, etc.
Today you
couldn't get $50 for it (if you
could even find someone to buy it!) - in part because
for $500 you
could buy a new Dell system that was an order of
magnitude more computer in almost every way.
Should I be mad at the person who spends $500 today
because s/he got a
new Dell for 1/4 what I paid 8 years ago?
Obviously some do!
But not me.
I just like to tweak some of the folk who *know* that the
hams of old were so superior.
Some were, some weren't.
I recall a time when it was extremely rare to
hear an intentional
violation on the ham bands. Things like the
"L1berty Net", W6NUT and
14.313 simply did not exist. There was nothing
on the ham bands that
wasn't "G rated". A very large part of the reason
was that hams had a
culture - a tradition - of keeping it that way.
PArt of that tradition
was that the license was valued as an achievement
and an investment of time and effort.
Things like that are for the most part just
examples of how time has changed.
Here's another way to look at it:
Suppose you trained (like I did) to run a 26.22 mile
marathon. And
suppose you completed a couple of them, earning the
right to describe yourself as a marathon runner.
Now suppose some people complained that the marathon
distance was too
long, and kept out too many. So they get the marathon
distance changed
to 5 miles, and call themselves marathon runners too.
How would that make you feel?
Well, of course there are many different distances that
can be run.
How would it make you *feel*, Mike?
But your point as I see it is that things have been made
so much easier
that people such as myself can just step in easily,
following in the
footsteps of people who had to really *earn* their licenses.
No, that's not the point.
The point is that such a change would breed resentment in those
who had met the old standard.
The problem is that the resentment should be against the *system*,
not the people, unless they had something to do with changing
the system.
Those who came before are therefore justified in resenting the
newcomers because we didn't have to prove ourselves (take the
harder test)
They may be justified in resenting the *system*, but not the
*people*. Big difference.
That there are people out there that feel that way is of
no doubt.
Personally, I think they are a much greater threat to the
health of the
ARS than us nickel types. I've watched them belittle the
new guys to their face.
That's just wrong.
Thats no way to encourage folks.
Agreed.
But at the same time it's important to understand how the
system has changed.
73 de Jim, N2EY