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