wrote on Wed, 2 May 2007 23:36:41 EDT

On May 2, 9:52?pm, wrote:
On Apr 26, 5:49?am, wrote:


There's not been ten cents worth of promotion of the new
licenure requirements in the non-Amateur press, ie: Pop Science, Pop
Mechanics, etc etc etc...

Do those mags even exist anymore? What's their circulation?

Popular Science and Popular Mechanics are both newsstand
periodicals and my barber and my dentist include those in their
waiting area. :-) By scan of their contents, both seem to cover
whatever high-tech is "in" regarding all of science and technology.

At one time in the 1940s and 1950s, Popular Science did have
a few hobby projects concerning radio and home music systems
(of their day), none of them more complicated than using one to
three vacuum tubes. The largest such article that I recall was a
multi-part construction article of a (then) wideband (10 MHz or so)
oscilloscope authored by John Wood Campbell, then Editor in
Chief of Astounding Science Fiction magazine (later "Analog").



Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will.
I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need
"big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees..

Why can't we have both?

What defines "quality?" That is a popular descriptor yet is not
defined
fully by any of its users.

All who are licensed in a particular radio service should obey the
applicable laws concerning that radio service. As to what they
do within that radio service should be up to the individual. The FCC
gives all licensed U.S. radio amateurs quite a bit of freedom to do
what the individual wants to do. As such, the "quality" aspect would
seem largely subjective on the part of whoever uses that word.



And even if FCC could somehow be convinced to take over the whole test
preparation and administration process, somebody could just repeat
Dick Bash's tricks of 30+ years ago, and the tests wouldn't stay
secret.

That's a presumption that Mr. Bash was the only one to do "tricks."
It belies the hard-cover "Q and A" books that were available as far
back as the 1950s. Those "Q and A" books were available on all
current classes of FCC tests and a number of state licensing tests
for various state licenses.

Point of personal history: I tried to get one for the FCC Commercial
license test in 1956, but local bookstores did not have them
available. I borrowed the (then format) FCC Regulations loose-leaf
binder and memorized as much as possible of the entire set as
applied to all. There were fewer radio services then than 51 years
later.


The one thing that *can* be done is to make the pools so big that it's
easier to learn the material than to learn the test.

A popular presumption is that all "just memorize the questions and
answers" prior to a test. That is difficult to prove since each
applicant's efforts are unique to the individual. Certainly certain
regulations must be memorized. However the questions regarding
theory and operation depend on the experience and previous
knowledge of each individual.

As to the actual number of questions-answers in the pools, the
following are hand counts of all three current question pools from
a print-out of them made prior to my 25 February 2007 exam:

Technician: 35 questions, Minimum required in pool 350, Actual
number in pool 392. Ratio of pool to test questions = 11.20:1

General: 35 questions, Minimum required in pool 350, Actual
number in pool 485. Ratio of pool to test questions = 13.86:1

Extra: 50 questions, Minimum required in pool 500, Actual
number in pool 802. Ratio of pool to test questions = 16.04:1

All three classes: 120 questions total, Minimum required (total)
1200, Actual number in pool 1679. Ratio of pools to test
questions 13.99:1 average.

Note: The above is not a scientific study and the actual count may
be
off by a few questions. As it is now (General will change in
mid-2007),
the actual pool question quantity is over the minimum regulatory
number of ten pool choices per required test question, all classes.

I have been suggesting elsewhere (for several years) that a "cure"
for
the presumption that all "just memorize the pool to pass" is to
increase the QP size. Very few commented on that elsewhere.
I don't personally believe in that presumption yet it is frequently
stated by others elsewhere.

To some degree the increase in QP size that has already been done
by the NCVEC Question Pool Committee. Having had a recent
exposure to all three class pools in a test environment, I would
judge
that the NCVEC QPC has done a good job overall for the current QPs.
In review, post-test, I would say that the NCVEC QPC has introduced
enough 'distractor' questions to make an applicant pay closer
attention to both questions and choice of answers.

Considering the present-day scope of possible activity by licensed
radio amateurs in the U.S., the type and kind of questions in a
NCVEC QP can have a large variety. Part 97 Title 47 CFR gives
licensees that variety. The choice of which questions to include can
be difficult under such a situation...especially so when there is
random choice of which questions to include within a specific type
and kind on any exam.

Anyone can submit questions to the QPC.

Their website is at www.ncvec.org

73, Len AF6AY