"JB" wrote:

You can't keep all the nuts out but you could make a big dent
in the problem [with a cose test].

This is an old argument. It is the 'weeder' argument. A code test will
weed out all the bad apples. It hasn't worked in the 50+ years I've
been a ham. There have always been ham whackos.

In the 60's I listened to a daily net called WCARS (West Coast Amateur
Radio Service- called Westcars) on 40M SSB in CA. They suffered daily
harassment, carriers, unidentified obscenities ect. 75 meters SSB was
bad then also. The IDed offenders were all code tested hams, likely
the unidentified nuts also.

A VE team around here got busted selling licenses.

There has always been some cheating on tests.

In the 50's you could get a Tech license by mail. Your buddy ham could
give you the code test and any adult could proctor your exam. I don't
have to tell you there were some no-code open-book Techs licensed.

And I think Bash came out in the 70's. That's where they were stealing
the FCC exam questions and answers and publishing them in a book.
(Questions-answers are SOP now but not then.

Maybe you can think of some test or hoop besides CW to discourage the people
that act out like morons because they lack self-control.

Sure. A psychology test...

On Sep 22, 8:24�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
"JB" wrote:
You can't keep all the nuts out but you could make a big dent
in the problem [with a cose test].

This is an old argument. It is the 'weeder' argument.

And it has some validity.

A code test will weed out all the bad apples.

No test will weed out all the bad apples. Particularly not a test that
is given one time only and then is good for life.

Consider all the testing that doctors and lawyers go through to get
their licenses. Yet there are still some doctors and lawyers who are
"bad apples". That doesn't mean the testing should be eliminated since
it doesn't do a perfect job!

It hasn't worked in the 50+ years I've
been a ham. There have always been ham whackos.

Of course. No test or screening method is perfect.

But it is human nature that people will value something more if they
have a personal investment in it.

In the 60's I listened to a daily net called WCARS (West Coast
Amateur
Radio Service- called Westcars) on 40M SSB in CA. They
suffered daily
harassment, carriers, unidentified obscenities ect. 75 meters
SSB was bad then also.

But was it as bad as in, say, the 1990s? As bad as the W6NUT repeater,
say?

The IDed offenders were all code tested hams, likely
the unidentified nuts also.

But you don't know for sure about the unidentified ones. Plus in those
days all US hams were allegedly code tested.

Most of all, note that the bad behavior you cite was all on voice, not
CW/Morse Code. The bad apples may have passed a code test at one time
or another, but they weren't *using* the mode!

A VE team around here got busted selling licenses.

There has always been some cheating on tests.

In the 50's you could get a Tech license by mail. Your buddy ham could give you the code test and any adult could proctor your
exam.

The exam procedure varied over time, and by the mid-1950s the person
giving both code and written tests had to be an FCC licensed amateur
or commercial operator. But it was all on the honor system.

I don't
have to tell you there were some no-code open-book Techs
licensed.

More importantly, there was the Conditional license until the
mid-1970s. The Conditional was a by-mail version of the General, if
you lived far enough away from an FCC exam point. From ~1954 to ~1964
the distance was only 75 miles, and there were a *lot* of Conditionals
licensed.

One "trick" I heard of, but was never able to verify, was that a would-
be ham would give the address of a vacation home, friend or relative
in the "Conditional zone" in order to get a Conditional license. Then,
after some time passed, the ham would "move" to his/her actual
address.

One of the big reasons for all the screaming about "incentive
licensing" was that in order to upgrade, Conditionals would have to
take tests at FCC offices in front of FCC examiners.

And I think Bash came out in the 70's. That's where they were
stealing
the FCC exam questions and answers and publishing them in a
book.
(Questions-answers are SOP now but not then.

Yes, the infamous Bash books appeared in the 1970s.

What Bash did was to ask people leaving the exam sessions to recall
whatever they could about the questions. He may have even sent folks
to exam sessions simply to memorize what they could of the exams. He
allegedly paid $1 per question reported. Over time he collected enough
bits and pieces to reconstruct the entire exam set.

In doing so, Bash revealed the big secret of the FCC exams: There were
only a few different versions of the various tests! That was why there
was a 30-day wait to retest.

Some in the FCC wanted to prosecute Bash, but the FCC leadership
overruled them. Then budget cuts in the early 1980s forced FCC to
create the VE system, and the Q&A became public. Which put Bash out of
business.

Maybe you can think of some test or hoop besides
CW to discourage the people
that act out like morons because they lack self-control.

Sure. A psychology test...

It should be remembered that one of the factors which drove "incentive
licensing" and other testing initiatives was the cb experience. FCC
never imagined that huge numbers of people would simply ignore the
rules, but within a few years of its creation, 11 meter CB was simply
out of FCC's control. Breaking the rules became much more common than
keeping them, and to this day FCC has not gotten the upper hand.

Now, why were hams so well-behaved compared to cbers, even when FCC
spent far less resources to enforce the rules on the ham bands?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Consider all the testing that doctors and lawyers go through to get
their licenses. Yet there are still some doctors and lawyers who are
"bad apples".

Exactly. Passing a license test does not prevent bad behavior.

Most of all, note that the bad behavior you cite was all on voice, not
CW/Morse Code. The bad apples may have passed a code test at one time
or another, but they weren't *using* the mode!

Exactly. Passing a code test does not prevent bad behavior.

The exam procedure varied over time, and by the mid-1950s the person
giving both code and written tests had to be an FCC licensed amateur
or commercial operator. But it was all on the honor system.

Not quite correct. I suppose even historians get it wrong sometimes.
Course I knew the mail order license procedure pretty well since I did
it twice, once for Novice and again for Tech.

The following could give the mail order code test:
An Extra, Advanced, or General Class licensee, or
a Commercial Radiotelegraph Operators licensee, or
a Government employee of a manually operated radio telegraph station.

And as I said before *any* adult (at least 21 then) licensed or not
could give the written exam.

What Bash did was to ask people leaving the exam sessions to recall
whatever they could about the questions.

Another piece of history I lived. I used Bash for my Advanced.

Then budget cuts in the early 1980s forced FCC to
create the VE system, and the Q&A became public.
Which put Bash out of business.

Interesting how what was called cheating then is now a legit exam...

Now, why were hams so well-behaved compared to cbers,

Because the hams had to ID? If people know who you are many act
better. And if they didn't ID no one would talk to them. Some did
bootleg though with false calls. I'll admit to bootlegging on CW
before my Novice ticket came. My buddies name was Kent, so I used
K7ENT. It wasn't issued yet so no harm no foul...

On Sep 23, 1:53�am, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
Consider all the testing that doctors and lawyers go through to get
their licenses. Yet there are still some doctors and lawyers who are
"bad apples".

Exactly. Passing a license test does not prevent bad behavior.

Not exactly. Passing a license test does not prevent *ALL* bad
behavior. Just because a test isn't perfect doesn't mean it has no
effect.

Most of all, note that the bad behavior you cite was all on voice, not
CW/Morse Code. The bad apples may have passed a code test at one time
or another, but they weren't *using* the mode!

Exactly. Passing a code test does not prevent bad behavior.

Not exactly. Passing a code test does not prevent *ALL* bad behavior.
Just because a test isn't perfect doesn't mean it has no effect.

The exam procedure varied over time, and by the mid-1950s the person
giving both code and written tests had to be an FCC licensed amateur
or commercial operator. But it was all on the honor system.

Mid 1960s, not mid 1950s.

The following could give the mail order code test:
An Extra, Advanced, or General Class licensee, or
a Commercial Radiotelegraph Operators licensee, or
a Government employee of a manually operated radio telegraph station.

Yep.

And as I said before *any* adult (at least 21 then) licensed or not
could give the written exam.

And the person had only to sign the form saying the test had been on
the up-and-up.

What Bash did was to ask people leaving the exam sessions to recall
whatever they could about the questions.

Another piece of history I lived. I used Bash for my Advanced.

Why? The Advanced wasn't very hard.

Then budget cuts in the early 1980s forced FCC to
create the VE system, and the Q&A became public.
Which put Bash out of business.

Interesting how what was called cheating then is now a legit exam...

Been that way for more than 25 years. Complain to FCC; *they* changed
it.

Now, why were hams so well-behaved compared to cbers,

Because the hams had to ID?

CBers had to ID too. They had licenses, callsigns and everything.
Didn't stop them from misbehaving. Shall we eliminate callsigns and
licenses because they don't prevent all bad behavior?

If people know who you are many act
better. And if they didn't ID no one would talk to them.

Why didn't cbers do the same thing?

�Some did
bootleg though with false calls. I'll admit to bootlegging on CW
before my Novice ticket came.

Why? Couldn't you wait?

My buddies name was Kent, so I used
K7ENT. It wasn't issued yet so no harm no foul...

It was wrong nonetheless.

The way something goes bad is often not by massive changes but a
little here and a little there. That's how cb went downhill - a little
extra power here, a non-ID there, a cussword here, a skip contact
there, and pretty soon playing by the rules was extinct.

73 de Jim, N2EY

There has always been some cheating on tests.


Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did. All my study was out
of Engineering classes and ARRL Handbook and License manual for the regs. I
was taught the code from a CW op who officiated my Novice exam. We didn't
proceed until I could do on the air QSOs in front of him on the club
station. And by the way, everyone that I studied and did code practice
with, got ham tickets. Even a Mexican kid who barely spoke English. Those
that bitched and moaned and threw tantrums over it, didn't want to after
all. Glad not to have them.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. But if you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all? If nothing is
100% effective then game is up? No more testing then? They went that route
with CB and they couldn't even give people a litteracy test. I.E. getting
them to sign a paper stating they would abide by the rules. FCC gave up on
it and let it go fallow. The result was dealing dope and scoring hookers in
between hetrodynes, pornographic tirades and general orgies of funny noises,
wailing and knashing of teeth of the damned. The rest were chased from the
band.

Maybe you can think of some test or hoop besides CW to discourage the
people
that act out like morons because they lack self-control.

Sure. A psychology test...

So, essentially a pseudoscientific approach? Ridiculous. Lets keep it all
above board. Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects
that can lead one astray. If my previous post was a psychology test, I
might have failed you.

The whole Psychology idea reminds me of the Russian fake spyware scanner
that pops up and tells you that you're infected and you will have to send
$50 and download the cleaner to fix you up. You the pay the money, install
the program and you're hooked up with endless spyware and adware until you
can't boot up anymore and wipe your hard drive and reinstall Windows. No
Thanks. You should know that answer cuts both ways senior. Even if you're
buying the Psych.

All you have to do is make it difficult for those with short attention spans
and little patience. Then follow up with peer pressure. But you have to
ignore the tantrums and crying jags and reinforce good behavior. Until
parents and governments realize that fact, society will continue to go
fallow. Peer pressure is what happens when people begin imitating one
another. That is how whole groups go nuts. It is how great teams succeed.
It doesn't happen overnight. It is the result of people pushing the
envelope and others tolerating or encouraging it to the point where the
behavior becomes commonplace and acceptable and encouraged. I never spent
any time on Westcars. Glad I never spent time in Nazi Germany either.

We don't have a code test anymore so it is a moot point. It is left to peer
pressure and the skills tests. I will still use Morse Code because it is
useful. It won't be useful if no one knows how to do it. It is even more
useful because other people who use it aren't anything like your 75m phone
Westcars people. This is all the proof I need that it works. But I guess
you don't have that proof, do you?

"JB" wrote:

There has always been some cheating on tests.
Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did.

I hang out in the real world. Some people do cheat.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. But if you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all?

Weeder tests keep failures out for *no reason*.
Relevant tests keep failures out for a *good reason*.

Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects...

I was being funny with the psychology testing thing. I didn't think
you'd really take me seriously.

We don't have a code test anymore so it is a moot point.

I still have a code test: If you don't know CW we don't QSO.

It won't be useful if no one knows how to do it.

Making people learn code just so you will have someone to talk to is a
bad reason.

On Sep 23, 12:22�am, AJ Lake wrote:
"JB" wrote:
There has always been some cheating on tests.
Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did. �

I hang out in the real world. Some people do cheat.

Yes, they do. However it's one thing to know that cheating exists as a
general rule, and a very different thing to cite specific instances of
cheating. How much actual cheating on the ham license tests went on
back in the pre-VE days? How much actually goes on today? I don't
think anybody really knows.

I do know this, however:

(in this discussion, the "Conditional distance" is how far from an FCC
quarterly exam point you had to live in order to get a license by
mail. Distances cited are "air-line" distances, not driving distances)

Before about 1954, the "Conditional distance" was 125 miles, and FCC
gave Novice and Tech exams at their offices. Plus if you had a by-mail
license and moved to within the "Conditional distance", you had to
retest in front of an FCC examiner within 90 days or lose the
license.

Then for about ten years the "Conditional distance" was only 75 miles
and the retest-if-you-move requirement went away. FCC also made all
routine Novice and Tech licenses by-mail, regardless of distance. A
considerable amount of CONUS was thus Conditional country.

About 1964 the FCC increased the Conditional distance to 175 miles and
increased the number of exam points. Almost none of CONUS was
Conditional country after that change.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. �But if you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all?

Weeder tests keep failures out for *no reason*.
Relevant tests keep failures out for a *good reason*.

A weeder test can be relevant. And given the number of amateurs
actually using Morse Code on the air, it's a relevant test for an
amateur radio license.

Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects...

I was being funny with the psychology testing thing. I didn't think
you'd really take me seriously.

In a way, a big part of the testing is psychological. If we could
trust everyone to learn the technology, operating practices, rules and
regs as needed, there'd be no need for a test. By testing, we make
people prove they actually learned a few things, even though the
testing is far from comprehensive and doesn't test if the person
understands the material. But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example), testing seems
to be a good idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY

There has always been some cheating on tests.
Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did. �

I hang out in the real world. Some people do cheat.

Yes, they do. However it's one thing to know that cheating exists as a
general rule, and a very different thing to cite specific instances of
cheating. How much actual cheating on the ham license tests went on
back in the pre-VE days? How much actually goes on today? I don't
think anybody really knows.

I do know this, however:

(in this discussion, the "Conditional distance" is how far from an FCC
quarterly exam point you had to live in order to get a license by
mail. Distances cited are "air-line" distances, not driving distances)

Before about 1954, the "Conditional distance" was 125 miles, and FCC
gave Novice and Tech exams at their offices. Plus if you had a by-mail
license and moved to within the "Conditional distance", you had to
retest in front of an FCC examiner within 90 days or lose the
license.

Then for about ten years the "Conditional distance" was only 75 miles
and the retest-if-you-move requirement went away. FCC also made all
routine Novice and Tech licenses by-mail, regardless of distance. A
considerable amount of CONUS was thus Conditional country.

About 1964 the FCC increased the Conditional distance to 175 miles and
increased the number of exam points. Almost none of CONUS was
Conditional country after that change.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. �But if
you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all?

Weeder tests keep failures out for *no reason*.
Relevant tests keep failures out for a *good reason*.

A weeder test can be relevant. And given the number of amateurs
actually using Morse Code on the air, it's a relevant test for an
amateur radio license.

Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects...

I was being funny with the psychology testing thing. I didn't think
you'd really take me seriously.

In a way, a big part of the testing is psychological. If we could
trust everyone to learn the technology, operating practices, rules and
regs as needed, there'd be no need for a test. By testing, we make
people prove they actually learned a few things, even though the
testing is far from comprehensive and doesn't test if the person
understands the material. But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example), testing seems
to be a good idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Psychology has to do with everything pertaining to human behavior.

Back in my creative writing days, I wrote a research paper on peasant
rebellions at the height of the Rodney King beating riots.

In a study of numerous uprisings, rebellions, disturbances and other civil
unrest in old times, the conclusion was that the masses indeed require
authority and pressure in order to avoid self-destruction. It was found
time and again, that these disturbances were most often due to issues of
poor morale reinforced within the affected group rather than a righteous
rising up against persecution, exploitation or to redress some wrong. Most
often the victims were random targets of widespread violent outbursts during
these disturbances rather than any defined enemy. Essentially, the Devil
has his day. This mentality also carries over to individuals, where
perceived pressure or persecution results in school shootings and things
like that, where the self-destructive urge is externalized to random
targets, or targets of opportunity, rather than a defined enemy. So I
suspect this is known to others who can incite such behavior simply by
fomenting dissension or planting seeds of discontent, then backing off to
watch the outcome in complete safety, thus using crowd and individual
Psychology to promote terrorism and destruction as a means to some end.

The whole problem with instituting and maintaining authority though, it how
to keep it on the righteous path. In the final analysis, God is the only
hope, but only if we spread the word.

wrote:

A weeder test can be relevant.

The trouble seems to be that we have different ideas of what a "weeder
test" means. I could find no specific definition in any reference
material, so I'll just no longer use the phrase.

Simply put, there is no reason for a code test in the modern world. If
someone wants to use CW he simply learns it or fires up his computer.
There once were valid reasons to learn the code, but they haven't
existed for decades. That the code test survived so long was simply
ham politics.

By testing, we make people prove they actually learned a few things...

When an 8 year old child can pass the Extra exam, I think you can
safely say that it can be passed without *knowing* the electronics
theory that it pretends to test for.

But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example),

Darn, if only they had started out with a CB code test
all would be well now...

On Sep 24, 9:00*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
A weeder test can be relevant.

The trouble seems to be that we have different ideas of what a "weeder
test" means. I could find no specific definition in any reference
material, so I'll just no longer use the phrase.

Simply put, there is no reason for a code test in the modern world.

Yes, there is. In ham radio, anyway.

The reason is this:

A license test for an amateur radio operator license should test
things hams actually do on the air.
Hams use Morse Code on the air in 2008.

If
someone wants to use CW he simply learns it or fires up his computer.

That same logic can be applied to anything in the written test too, so
why have a written test?

There once were valid reasons to learn the code, but they haven't
existed for decades.

Some reasons have gone away. Not all. And it hasn't been "decades",
either.

That the code test survived so long was simply ham politics.

Not really. The treaty wasn't written by hams.

By testing, we make people prove they actually learned a few things...

When an 8 year old child can pass the Extra exam, I think you can
safely say that it can be passed without *knowing* the electronics
theory that it pretends to test for.

How do you know for sure that the 8-year-old didn't know the material
on the test?

Bit of history:

Way back in 1948, the old Class B exam was passed on the first try by
Jane Bieberman, W3OVV (sk), at the Philadelphia FCC office. She was 9
years old at the time.

In those days, the Class B exams we

13 wpm Morse Code receiving, minimum 1 minute solid legible copy out
of 5 minutes
13 wpm Morse Code sending with a straight key
50 question written exam that included:
- essay questions
- draw-a-diagram (schematic and block) questions
- show-your-work calculation questions
- multiple-choice questions

No published question-and-answer pools. No partial credit. No CSCEs.
No Bash books.

Now maybe W3OVV didn't understand every subtlety of every question,
but she did well enough to satisfy the FCC examiner.

But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example),

Darn, if only they had started out with a CB code test
*all would be well now...

Yes, it probably would be.

Do you think amateur radio should be more like CB? One license class,
no tests, everybody the same, people trusted to learn what they are
interested in and not have to learn stuff...

Yeah, that's been shown to work really well in radio.

73 de Jim, N2EY