On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:41:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:58:06 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On 05 Sep 2003 02:58:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world.

And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge

Then what do you think that they test for?

Whether someone can remember correct answers to known questions.

Provided that the questions cover the things that you want the person
to know, this isn't an issue.


I think it is because retention of the material is minimal when rote
memorizing for a test. I couldn't tell you anything that was on the tests I
took--because the material was not learned, it was memorized. No examples
of application, no scenarios for cause and affect, etc.

Kim W5TIT

So, instead of the continual code/no-code debate, why aren't these
issues discussed here? If the test pool questions are such that the
requred areas of knowledge aren't addressed, changing those questions
(or perhaps the testing itself) would be an outstanding subject to be
discussed here. However, it's not usually discussed because all
threads lead to the code thing.

I have my own view on the code issue and it's not going to change
anymore than anyone else is going to change theirs. Our minds are
made up. However, I think that people on both sides of that
particular issue see areas where they would agree that the actual
testing needs change.