"jawod" wrote in message ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
lid wrote:
It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.
It is true that the 1950's License Manuals were not multiple
choice but the exams were. The License Manuals went like this:
Q: What is the unit of electrical resistance?
A: The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm.
The exam then had multiple choices, one of them being "ohm".
It is hard to understand how anyone could develop that correct
answer from first principles or formulas. I memorized the
correct answer and it still exists in my memory as something
I once memorized long before I ever knew there was a man named
Ohm after whom the unit of electrical resistance was named.
The difference between memorizing the question pool answers
from the 1950's License Manuals and memorizing the question
pool answers of today is just splitting hairs. I used exactly
the same memorizing techniques to ace the Extra exam in
2000 as I did to pass the Conditional exam in 1953.
Here here (!)
Cecil, I'm happy to agree with you.
Modern testing techniques are intended to be transparent. This is true for
FCC exams, Postal exams, any and all government qualification exams.
(And because of this, all qualifying exams in the private sector, as
well.)
It took a lot of litigation to get there. Government agencies had to
prove that their qualifying exams were directly linked to the specific
tasks required of the given position for which the individual was
applying.
A Postal Carrier needn't know Pythagorus' theorum to deliver the mail.
I took the Postal Carrier exam 35 years ago and did not do well. I wasn't
good at sorting on a timed basis.
This notion of a "cheapening" of FCC requirements because the question
pool is open to the public is a red herring: transparency is the rule. If
you look at the question pool and study it, you will gain the necessary
expertise to pass the exam. This is not cheating, nor is it
short-circuiting the "REAL" ham radio "requirements" that some view as
sacrosanct.
I used ARRL manuals to pass the Extra Exam and I do not defer to anyone in
this regard. Does this make me a ham radio genius? Not AT ALL. Man, I
have SO MUCH to learn. This newsgroup is "potentially" very helpful!
For that, I give thanks.
You know, I love ham radio. I'm happy so many join the ranks each year.
If there still is a concern out there, be an Elmer and address it.
John
AB8O (yeah, I changed my call)
I don't know if there is actually any truth to this BUT - the dumbing down
"allegedly" started back in Reagan's day or was it George Srs? - when
someone here in the U.S. apparently couldn't pass the exam - and being he
was in good relations with the then King of Jordan, the King of Jordan asked
Reagan or Bush Sr to do something to help out. I've heard that story a few
times. True or not - the tests have changed drastically.
The tests really (in my opinion) aren't meant to "teach" anything or shall
we say - show any "in depth proficiency". The study guides give you "just"
enough to pass the exam - without going into a lot of information. You
certainly can't pass a novice OR extra exam and instantly qualify yourself
as an Electronics Technician. The material just isn't that in depth. For
that matter, the GROL tests and accompanying manuals don't do a hell of a
lot either for "teaching" - or showing "proficiency". They're merely meant
to get you in the door - period. The latter is scary - considering that the
GROL though diminished in need in most cases as of this point in time - IS
still required in "some" cases - as a sign of "knowledge" of the subject.
That is why many places that I know of, produce their own exams - designed
to actually test your knowledge. One guy I know - been in 2 way radio for
years, good at it, smart as a whip - took an entry exam to get a new job.
Said that was the most in depth - "drilling" - organized test he ever took,
considering he had his Commercial license "pre- GROL" and his amateur
license.
I have read articles from a leading publication in the industry that there
is a move afoot to get the FCC Commercial License - some teeth put back in.
Why? - Due to an increasing issue with interference and so on. Seems to me,
though in some cases - the horses are already out of the barn and "maybe"
too late to try to close the doors, changes "could" be made. What gets me,
is that article spoke of another agency doing the testing and licensing.
So - in other words - the FCC - our "RADIO" governing agency has lost its
grip on this? IF the FCC can't control it, how the hell is some "private"
agency? Not that it would happen, but I have to wonder just "how" they may
want to try to differentiate between those with GROLs and any subsequent
endorsements - of those who just read a "study guide" enough to pass - from
those who have "actual" electronics schooling?
As an examiner for FCC Commercial AND Amateur exams, I've seen many folks
come through. You can usually pick out those who know their stuff and those
who do not. You can also usually pick out those who DO know the stuff but
freeze on exams. For what it is worth - at least in my experience here, most
who have "schooling" do NOT usually bring any type of "study guide". I've
tested whole groups of School students and not one study guide was to be
seen. Same goes for those who are "comfortable" with their knowledge of Ham
radio. They simply feel - if they don't know it by test time - then no sense
testing. For the GROL, it is an expensive proposition if you don't know your
stuff or haven't been able to grasp the study guide material. Back in the
day - it was usually the cost of a LONG trip (maybe lodging too) to an FCC
office, now they're more local but cost is still there - pass or fail. Come
to think of it, if the current rate increases stay the same - soon - the
Amateur Exams will cost almost if not as much as the GROL! They're almost
half way there now - depending on which VEC/TCM you go through.
Yes, it is going to be very interesting indeed to see how things progress
not only in the Amateur Licensing area, but also the "Commercial" side as
well - for the next few years at least.
L.