On Jan 27, 8:11�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote roups.com:

* * * * a most interesting history lesson snipped for brevity

Generals. This was in the era when FCC not only had many scheduled
exams, but would also send out traveling examiners upon request if a
minimum number of examinees could be guaranteed. Ham exam sessions
were being conducted by FCC at hamfests, conventions, and club
meetings, and the perceived need for the Conditional disappeared.

---

Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to the
Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you got the
license, as did the retest rules.* * * *

Although I can see a few quirks here and there, I would have to say
* * that overall the testing, requirements, and methods have improved
* * over the years, rather than regressed.

On what do you base that conclusion, Mike?

I see the accessibility of the tests as improved. But that's about it.

I had to chuckle at some of
* * the early stuff, which was awkward, and most arbitrary.

Like what?

Some of
* * those tests amounted to "open book" tests, which are surely easier
* * than Open pool tests.

How?

The old tests were definitely not open book in any sense of the word.
You weren't even allowed to bring your own pencils in some cases.

How about a question like this:

"A manufacturer guarantees his crystals to be within .01% of the
marked frequency, when used in the recommended circuit at 20 degrees
C. The crystals have a negative temperature coefficient of 50 parts
per million per degree C.

What is the lowest whole-kilocycle frequency that should be ordered
for a 40 meter crystal, if the crystal is to be used in the
recommended circuit over the temperature range of 5 to 35 degrees C?
Allow 1 additional kilocycle to allow for crystal and component
aging.

Show all work."

No open book, no cheat sheets, no formulas given - and that's just one
question on the General exam.

* * * * Certainly if there were only a few exams existing for the different
* * levels, it would be very important to be hush-hush about the
* * contents of those exams. It certainly would argue against those few
* * tests being so much superior.

How would the existence of a few tests argue against that?

73 de Jim, N2EY