On Mar 10, 2:02 pm, "
wrote:
I was pleased with my local VE team's performance (all four,
not just three) and congratulated them after the testing was
over. [I observed them while they were observing me and the
applicant group]
They were ARRL VEs, weren't they?
However, that is not extendable to "all" VEs
nor all those involved in this newsgroup.
Why not?
Most of the statements
in this thread about VEs are just using it as a springboard to
talk trash to other old "enemies." :-(
Considering the number of statements you make to
rrap, Len, it seems you are projecting your motivations on others.
In an extreme example, amateur radio station N2EY has to
bring up the 1998 ARRLweb story of two FOUR-YEAR-OLDS
who "passed" a Technician and Novice class written exam
(respectively) as well as the required low-rate morse code
test. An accompanying picture in the web story shows one
of the VEs, of kindly grandfatherly mien, with arms around
both of them. Obvious one-hankie kind of "feel-good" story
that is no stranger to journalistic media everywhere.
You left out the most important parts of that
story, Len.
First off, the 4-1/2-year-olds in question were from families composed
almost entirely of radio amateurs, and were part of a an educational
environment that included amateur radio as an integral part of the
curriculum. Both could read and write well above age level.
Second, the written tests they passed were the old Novice and Tech
elements.
Third, there has never been any objective evidence presented that the
VE session in question was compromised in any way.
Fourth, your response to that story was to propose, in Reply Comments
to FCC, that there be a new mandatory age requirement of *14* years
for any class of amateur radio license.
Fifth, you have not been able to produce a single example of problems
to the US Amateur Radio Service caused by a lack of an age
requirement. Amateurs have been licensed by the US Government since
1912, yet in all those 85 years you cannot name even one actual
problem caused by the licensing of people under the age of 14. Not
one.
Four year olds capable of responsible cognition of the
written-English test material?
Irrelevant, Len. "Responsible cognition" is not a requirement of the
license test.
Ask any working teacher
of K to 3 classes if any of their students have either
cognition or sense of responsibility about such test
material. The end result will be an almost unamous
NO, the won't. I've asked three that I know, plus one
who was then a grade 4 teacher but later moved up to
middle-school level when I had met him.
Doesn't matter.
The FCC has been using multiple-choice written
exams for all amateur written elements for more
than 40 years. The question pools have been
publicly available for more than 20 years.
FCC does not require that a prospective amateur demonstrate
understanding of the material, nor "cognition", nor a sense of
responsibility. Nor is it necessary to get 100% correct on the test,
or even 80%.
All FCC requires is that the prospective amateur get at least the
required number of questions correct on the written test, without
cheating. Nothing more. Doesn't matter to FCC if the prospective ham
has a Ph.D in EE and a stack of patents, or is in the first grade.
Doesn't matter to FCC if the prospective ham can explain each question
and answer in exquisite detail, with exact formulas and calculations,
or if the correct answer came from random guessing, or rote
memorization.
All that matters to FCC is that the prospective amateur got at least
the minimum required number of correct answers, without cheating.
When you allegedly asked those teachers, did you
happen to mention that:
1) The test materials were available for study, so the children would
have seen them before the test?
2) The questions were multiple choice, one out of four?
3) That as long as there was no cheating, any method of getting the
right answer was OK?
4) That a passing grade was 74%, regardless of how much was actually
understood?
I don't think so.
What is
rather obvious is that there was some "mentoring"
during the actual test, not allowed nowadays (nor in
1998 according to all the law-abiding whosis in here).
No, that's not obvious at all. You are claiming that the VE session
was compromised. That's a serious charge.
You were not there, Len, and you don't know any of the people
involved.
I have seen bright three-year-olds reading well above their age level.
Whether they understood what they read is besides the point.
Ah, but the least little hint of "fraud" involved evoked a
storm of PROTEST from the Believers of the League,
angry denunciations of anyone who would DARE say
nasty of their beloved ARRL.
Claims of fraud without any objective evidence deserve to be denounced
as false.
I wonder if the VEs who handled your testing knew that you accused
other VEs of fraud back in 2002?
Or that you accused the ARRL VEC of hypocrisy at the same time?
All without any evidence at all.
On an almost constant irregular basis, amateur station
N2EY has to bring this tidbit out in the open...and has
for 8 years. It gets inserted into threads which don't
involve VEs or testing as the general subject. Some in
here burn and burn inside for the longest time...perhaps
of unrequited spite that must have retribution.
The only spite is *yours*, Len.
Let's take a realistic look at Volunteer Examiners. Are all
VEs "saints?" No. They are human beings. Are they
"exceptional" human beings? Perhaps, but exceptional in
that they volunteer their time to proctor testing. Volunteerism
happens in MANY different human endeavors, not just
amateur radio. Do VEs need exceptional training to perform
their tasks? No. All it requires is attention to paperwork,
using the correct template to score test sheets, filling out
the correct blanks on forms, keeping the test papers for an
individual in order, double-checking each (in a team) other's
work, making sure a test session's paper packet gets sent
quickly to a VEC center for final processing (for big VECs)
or direct to the FCC (for small VECs). Part of a VE team's
task is to simply observe applicants, make sure they do not
cheat, make sure they behave during a session, check their
identity by other documents.
They must also hold the required class of amateur radio license.
Is the example of one VE team applicable to the entire VEC?
No.
Yet you accuse some VEs of fraud and hypocrisy.
Here are links to the actual postings:
Len's reply comments - 16 pages page 13 of 16
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6006041 560
or:
http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3
ARRL Letter:
http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/98/980320/
Hans pointer:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en
http://tinyurl.com/y2er8x
Len's rejoinder:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en
http://tinyurl.com/yxq3rr
Len accusing fraud:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en
Jim, N2EY