On Nov 1, 1:09?pm, AF6AY wrote:
On Nov 1, 6:34?am, Steve Bonine wrote:

Remember that the exam is built by choosing
a given number of questions
from each subelement. For example, there are
four questions on the Tech
exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station
license
responsibilities.

Yet it is possible to get all four of those questions wrong and still
pass the test. The result is a licensed amateur with big 'holes' in
his/her knowledge of certain areas.

I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool.
No matter what
they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it.
A fine example of
a thankless job.

The big question is whether the criticism is constructive, or just a
form of complaining. IOW, does the critic offer a way to make the
process better?

The predecessors of the FCC and the FCC itself continued to
use licensing (and tests for same) as a regulatory tool for their
lawful charter of all US civil radio. It was never, ever intended
to be any academic test good enough for award of a degree in
a subject...yet so many others blur the distinct difference of an
amateur radio license TEST verses expertise a la academia.

Who are these people, making such claims, Len?

It seems to me that one main purpose of license testing is to
insure that the licensee knows enough about the thing being
licensed for so that s/he can reasonably do what the license
allows. For an amateur license, that means knowing the basics
of amateur radio, in the form of technology, rules & regs, and
operating practices.

Most important is that the tests focus on what *amateurs* are
allowed to do on the air, and how they typically do it. Experience
and knowledge of other radio services may or may not be relevant.
A Ph.D. in EE with multiple patents is not necessarily qualified
to be a radio amateur if s/he doesn't know the amateur radio
regulations.

Back when the FCC 'personally' tested radio operators, it was
proclaimed a 'Real Test.' From expeience of many of my
contemporaries, that 'reality' didn't exist.

From my personal experience, and from that of many of *my*
contemporaries, that reality certainly did exist. Not that the tests
for an amateur or commercial radio license were equivalent to
what I later encountered in EE school, but they were real tests
of what the licensee knew with regards to amateur radio.

There was no way
one could 'test' for radio equipment of 1956 to make anyone
'expert.'

Agreed - but that wasn't the purpose. The tests were to see if
the licensee had met a certain minimum level of knowledge and
skill, not that the person was an expert.

Anyone knowledgeable about Morse Code will tell you that even
the old 1 minute solid copy 20 wpm Morse Code test wasn't
"expert" level.....;-)

When the FCC revamped a lot of their work to include
privatization - which included Frequency Coordinaton of many
PLMRS users as well as amateur repeaters - it became a
'bad thing.' The TEST was no longer 'real' since all the
questions and right-wrong answers were public...which came
about through other political work, not the fact of privatization.

The question-and-answer pools became public knowledge in two steps.

The first was the publication of the "Bash books" in the 1970s, whose
information was gathered by means that, IMHO, clearly violated the
law. But the top folks at FCC decided not to prosecute Dick Bash nor
those who helped him, so the books made it possible for those willing
to spend the money to see a pretty close replica of the actual exams.

The second step was the creation of the Question Pool Committee
and the VEC system in the early 1980s. This replaced the work of
paid Federal government employees with that of unpaid amateur
volunteers.

I cannot see where the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator
system is so 'bad.'

I think the main criticism is not of the VEC system itself, but
rather the fact that prospective licensees can see the exact
questions and answers that will be on the test.

In the pre-Bash-book days, a prospective licensee did not have
access to the exact Q&A. There were study guides which
indicated the general areas of information that would be on the test,
and in some cases the test followed the study guide closely, but
that was not the same thing as seeing the exact questions and
answers.

For example, the study guide showed some Ohm's Law problems in essay
format. The actual test would show some Ohm's Law problems in multiple-
choice format, but the prospective amateur did not know much else
about the Ohm's Law problems on the test. The logical response in most
cases was to learn enough Ohm's Law theory to be able to solve all
sorts of problems in that subject.

With the actual test questions available, it becomes possible to
"study the test" rather than actually learning the material. In
another thread in this NG, there have been discussions about
using a class to teach the test rather than an understanding of the
material.

Which is better - learning and understanding the material, even at a
basic level, or simply learning the test questions by rote memory, to
be forgotten?

It is composed of active fellow amateur
radio licensees and I doubt that any of them could be
considered dummies. That's better than having questions
and answers thunk up by a faceless few at the FCC, ones
whose primary task is radio regulation, not boosting amateur
radio nor trying to get more licensees.

Again, the perceived problem is not the VEC system itself, but
the fact of public Q&A.

Note too that the Question Pool Committee is, in practice, almost as
much of a "faceless few" as the FCC was.

VECs do not make up the questions and answers directly. Nor do they
make any decisions on the process other than selecting specific
questions for each exam, to insure randomness. They only proctor the
exams.

All in all, I think the
VEC QPC is doing a FINE job given their virtual free rein on
what to ask in every test element.

I agree that within their limitations they are doing a good job. The
problem is the limitations they have to work under. Those limitations
are not of their doing.

There have also been a few *documented* instances of irregularities in
the administration of exams by specific VEC groups. (See FCC
Enforcement Letters).

It is even better when one considers the first word in their
description: Voluntary. Those on the Committee have
guts as well as experience in volunteering for a sometimes
thankless task. I salute their work and dedication (with all
five fingers, properly) for keeping up that task for two
decades (give or take).

It's good to see you saluting and thanking them, Len. Particularly
considering your criticism of certain VECs in the past. What changed
your mind?

Volunteer examiners go back a lot longer than the 1980s.
They date back at least to the 1930s, when the Class C license
was created for those who lived too far from an FCC exam point, or who
were disabled. Later (1954), all routine exams for Novice and
Technician licenses, as well as the Conditional, were done by
volunteer examiners.

My first amateur radio license exams were given by a volunteer
examiner, K3NYT, when I was a little past my 13th birthday. I realize
now that it took him some time and effort to make the exam
sessions possible for me. That Novice license of 1967 opened up the
world of amateur radio to me, and led to a career in electrical
engineering.

And yes, I thanked him.

73 de Jim, N2EY