wrote:

Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who
become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them
to
learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the
theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the
licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations
wrong -- that says something is seriously broken.
how does it say that?

You don't see an issue with a testing system where an applicant can get
every question wrong dealing with rules and regulations, yet still manage to
get licensed because they got the math right?

Or, let's put this another way...

Should someone who has a BSEE automatically be given a ham radio license, if
they ask for one?

After all, there is little doubt someone with a BSEE would have the
requisite knowledge to "pass" the Tech/General/Extra theory examinations
(exception noted next paragraph) with little to no effort.

About the only questions such an applicant would get wrong would be the
questions on amateur rules and regulations (which obviously they wouldn't
know from their BSEE studies).

However, since the current structure of the theory examinations allows an
applicant to fail each and every rules/regulations question, and still
"pass" the examination -- well, why wouldn't we just give such an applicant
a license anyway, right?


and what do you porpose

I still hold the opinion that a modification to the licensing system as I
proposed in my Y2K restructuring comments are appropriate.

In summary:

1. Require an applicant to pass each "subelement" with a score of 70% or
better.
2. Require an overall score of 85% or better

The actual %age in #2 could be a point of discussion. I wouldn't be opposed
to likewise lowering it to an overall 70% score as well, although I do think
an overall higher score would be better.


someone flamed me in the 90 for sugesting a license test system where
had several elements such (not coplete or etched in stone
[...]
etc each a seperate test with CSSE's to allow you break it down

In principal, you agree with my stance then.

I'm not sure I would agree with the CSCE for each sub-element aspect,
though. That could get even more complicated (i.e. requires VEs to maintain
separate tests for each sub-element, you can go test for individual
sub-elements, etc.) compared to simply one test, say, 100 multiple-choice
questions on 10 sub-elements w/ a 70% passing score required in each
sub-element and an overall 70% passing grade.