RadioBanter - View Single Post

August 31st 05, 09:29 PM

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

Indeed I ask why there are so many question about
electronics on the
tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner.

Same old tired analogy.

It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only
one asking it.

no it isn't
but no you are not the only one using this red herring

Except it's not a red herring.

PLEASE...if you want electronics taken
off the written test, then say so.

I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth
electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new
exams myself if needed.

WHY?

Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test
that I can't pass myself.
No why should we all be tested a=on more electronics

why does anyone need to memorized what Inductor do? or how caps ad in paralell?

Failing that, your wasting your
time and effort dragging up this tired argument.

It's not me who is bringing it up.

Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level
exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious.

Elcetronics is the only thing techinal?

Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century"
paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says
the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get
entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory
in the current Tech (!).

and there is not enough Pratical stuff

Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from
the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just
require a signed statement that the licensee had read and
understood the rules.

not a bad idea given the way even the extras don't seem to
agree on
what the rules say.

But an entry license without the ability to anything but shelf gear
limited power etc

That's what NCVEC wanted...

Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me,
with or without code test!

Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it.

no it isn't

we will always see the tug between getting folks in the door
and the keep em out with hard tests

Thank you, Mark - you've just proved my point!

For some folks (like Mark) it's not about the code test
in isolation. It's about "hard" tests in general - written,
code, practical, whatever.

Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I wrote a detailed
rebuttal.

I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and
even pieces
of the band plan in general pool I am reading now

I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far
better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and
permitted uses and then ask questions which have the
test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions.
Band edges are dynamic and change over time.

Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that
shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current
recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure
already.

but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen
cut

Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-)

Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at
NCVEC...

That's what they called themselves in the "21st Century" thing...

There was a time, not so long ago, when if someone had suggested
a nocodetest amateur license, they would have been told it was a
"red herring" and "something FCC would never consider".

Now look where we are.

The trend isn't just towards less code testing, but to less
testing overall.

73 de Jim, N2EY