|
Forty Years Licensed
|
Forty Years Licensed
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:38:48 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:
But I do wonder why headphones were provided for some exam locations, but not for others. It all depended on what resources the local office could scrounge up, because the nickel-nursers at HQ were not of a mind to buy such things in an era when we had to scrounge surplus equipment from Federal disposal sites. Other agencies were "retiring" or discarding stuff that was newer and better than what we had in service. For many years our non-technical vehicles were the Fords and Chevys seized by the DEA from low-level drug dealers. The BMWs and Mercedes of the high-level dealers they kept for themselves. The FCC was, and to some extent still is, a "pauper agency". They don't get to keep any of the license fees or spectrum auction proceeds collected, over and above the actual cost of processing the license or running the auction. -- "Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please" Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR PNW Milepost 755 - Tillamook District |
Forty Years Licensed
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:39:10 EDT, Bruce in Alaska
wrote: I spent 5 years working for them, untill the ALGORE BloodLetting, that destroyed Field Operations as we knew it. That was the first time that I heard Internet Al blamed for it. I had always thought that it was Der Hundt, when The Congress laid the task of rewriting the Cable TV rules on the agency but refused to approve any more slots (money) for the reg-writers. and he looked around to see who was expendable. He had no understanding of what the field did, no matter how hard we tried, and so the blood-letting of the field started. The then-Bureau chief (Beverly Baker, one of my law school mentors) resigned rather than go through with it. She was replaced by a former Chief Recruiting Sergeant for the Marine Corps.... (no further comment) I took early-out 10 seconds after it was offered. That's how good morale was under that cloud 12 years ago. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:39:28 EDT, John Siegel
wrote: I took my exam in Philly in the same era. Fortunately the headphones did help with the jack hammers going outside. During most of the 1980s they were tearing up the streets outside the San Francisco office, and we actually had to find an inside conference room to give the code tests. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
Phil Kane wrote:
wrote: 2) I would make the exams themselves 'secret', that is, no more open question pools. The success of (2) depends on the willingness to prosecute any and all persons who reveal or possess the contents of any examination without authorization. Does the name "Dick Bash" ring any bells? It's still a sore point with me. The chances of either actually happening range from "none" to "what world are you on". You could get the same result, effectively, by increasing the size of the question pool. Just go from the present 8 or 10 to 1 ratio (pool size to test size) to something larger. It could be easily accomplished with the issuance of the next set of pools. -- Klystron |
Forty Years Licensed
Klystron wrote in
: You could get the same result, effectively, by increasing the size of the question pool. Just go from the present 8 or 10 to 1 ratio (pool size to test size) to something larger. It could be easily accomplished with the issuance of the next set of pools. And yet, it begs the question of *should* the tests be harder? And were they harder back in the day? This is an oft contentious issue that I think it is possible that memory might be playing a sort of trick on people. I have done a little research on the subject, imcluding "study guides" from the 1950's. I found the major difference was that the 1950s tests apparently contained more tube oriented material. I was also struck by the fact that some of the questions are verbatim what they are now! Some of the electronic basics have not changed, and there are apparently only so many ways to ask the same question. My references are for Novice and General, and I can say that the Novice written was very, very, easy. The General was of similar difficulty to today's General test. When I can get materials for the Advanced, and more importantly the Extra, I think I'll find a similar pattern. My conclusions: At least since the late 1950's, the testing was no more difficult than it is now. Many of the questions have changed, but in the context of the times it was quite similar. Study guides were a substitute for question pools. Judging by the verbatim content of some of the questions to what is in the question pools, there must have been some relationship. Perhaps one of the reasons that many people believe that the old time tests were so much more difficult is that at the time, they were for the test taker! Some yougster taking a General test back in 1957 would indeed find the test hard. After a few decades of college, practical learning, work, and experience, and a look at the new tests, one can be excused in thinking that they are "easy", because after all the knowledge accumulation, they are easy. But not for everyone, and certainly the testing regimen should not be tailored to the highest denominator, so to speak. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Forty Years Licensed
Mike Coslo wrote:
And yet, it begs the question of *should* the tests be harder? And were they harder back in the day? A frequently heard position is that the elimination of the code test should be counterbalanced by an increase in the difficulty and/or size of the written test. I suggested that back when there still was a code test, as a means of getting rid of the code test. At this point, I am ambivalent on the topic. Considering the shrinking population of hams, I'd like to keep the Technician test easy and advertise it as a foot in the door, especially to persons who are interested in ham radio mainly as a tool that is intended to serve other areas (emergency and disaster relief, for example). This is an oft contentious issue that I think it is possible that memory might be playing a sort of trick on people. I have done a little research on the subject, imcluding "study guides" from the 1950's. I found the major difference was that the 1950s tests apparently contained more tube oriented material. I was also struck by the fact that some of the questions are verbatim what they are now! Some of the electronic basics have not changed, and there are apparently only so many ways to ask the same question. My references are for Novice and General, and I can say that the Novice written was very, very, easy. The General was of similar difficulty to today's General test. When I can get materials for the Advanced, and more importantly the Extra, I think I'll find a similar pattern. I don't doubt that, but the elimination of essays and diagram drawing questions has made the tests easier for some. Persons who can memorize the material can get grades that are out of all proportion to their knowledge of radio and electronics. Larger pools would change that. My conclusions: At least since the late 1950's, the testing was no more difficult than it is now. Many of the questions have changed, but in the context of the times it was quite similar. Study guides were a substitute for question pools. Judging by the verbatim content of some of the questions to what is in the question pools, there must have been some relationship. Perhaps one of the reasons that many people believe that the old time tests were so much more difficult is that at the time, they were for the test taker! Some yougster taking a General test back in 1957 would indeed find the test hard. After a few decades of college, practical learning, work, and experience, and a look at the new tests, one can be excused in thinking that they are "easy", because after all the knowledge accumulation, they are easy. But not for everyone, and certainly the testing regimen should not be tailored to the highest denominator, so to speak. I found that to be true. In the late 1970's, I bought a copy of the Ameco study guide for the phone-one test (the thick book with an orange cover). I was unable to read it; I made absolutely no progress with it. Earlier this year, I used it to study for the GROL and found it quite easy. I wondered, at the time, whether that meant that I had become smarter. On the other hand, some of those old study guides were clearly inadequate for the task. I have a copy of the "General Class Amateur License Handbook" by Howard S. Pyle, W7OE, Sams Publications [1961,1964,1968], 136 pages. You could MEMORIZE the entire book and still not come close to passing the test. It just glossed over the material. -- Klystron |
Forty Years Licensed
On Oct 21, 10:54?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Klystron wrote : And yet, it begs the question of *should* the tests be harder? And were they harder back in the day? Depends on what you mean by "harder". This is an oft contentious issue that I think it is possible that memory might be playing a sort of trick on people. I have done a little research on the subject, imcluding "study guides" from the 1950's. I found the major difference was that the 1950s tests apparently contained more tube oriented material. I have License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971. There are more differences than just the tube emphasis. For example, the old study guides focused on a few subjects in-depth, and left other subjects completely alone. Lots of stuff on power supplies, including rectifiers and filters, but almost nothing on receivers, for example. Lots of calculations of how to know you're in the band with a frequency meter or crystal with a certain percentage error and a certain temperature characteristics, but nothing on RF exposure. Etc. I was also struck by the fact that some of the questions are verbatim what they are now! Some of the electronic basics have not changed, and there are apparently only so many ways to ask the same question. Sure - there's only so many ways to ask for the unit of resistance. The big thing is that the old study guides simply indicated the areas that would be covered on the exams, not the exact Q&A nor the exact method of the test. So some mental processing was essential. My references are for Novice and General, and I can say that the Novice written was very, very, easy. I would say it was *basic*. It covered the regulations, some theory, and that's about it. Novice (back then) was also a one-year, nonrenewable, one-time license with extremely limited privileges. So its test could be very basic and still cover the needed material. The General was of similar difficulty to today's General test. IMHO, it's not about difficulty but about covering the relevant material, and being sure the person being tested knows that material. At least since the late 1950's, the testing was no more difficult than it is now. Many of the questions have changed, but in the context of the times it was quite similar. Study guides were a substitute for question pools. Judging by the verbatim content of some of the questions to what is in the question pools, there must have been some relationship. Perhaps one of the reasons that many people believe that the old time tests were so much more difficult is that at the time, they were for the test taker! Some yougster taking a General test back in 1957 would indeed find the test hard. After a few decades of college, practical learning, work, and experience, and a look at the new tests, one can be excused in thinking that they are "easy", because after all the knowledge accumulation, they are easy. That's certainly true. In fact, the person to worry about is the experienced amateur who thinks the exams are "hard" even after gaining experience. However, note that we cannot look at the actual exams of those days, because they aren't available. We can only extrapolate from the study guides. Today's tests are wide open. Big difference there! The test-taker of those old days had no clear idea how the questions would be worded, nor how many would be on a given subject, so the usual response was to assume the worst and overprepare. Then the actual test seemed relatively simple. At least that was my experience. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:38:48 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote: But I do wonder why headphones were provided for some exam locations, but not for others. It all depended on what resources the local office could scrounge up, because the nickel-nursers at HQ were not of a mind to buy such things in an era when we had to scrounge surplus equipment from Federal disposal sites. Other agencies were "retiring" or discarding stuff that was newer and better than what we had in service. For many years our non-technical vehicles were the Fords and Chevys seized by the DEA from low-level drug dealers. The BMWs and Mercedes of the high-level dealers they kept for themselves. The FCC was, and to some extent still is, a "pauper agency". They don't get to keep any of the license fees or spectrum auction proceeds collected, over and above the actual cost of processing the license or running the auction. -- "Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please" Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR PNW Milepost 755 - Tillamook District Some 20 years ago I had a job interview with the Regional Engineer, she was crowing about the $100K budget plus-up he just got, I didn't have the heart to tell him that I had a $100K pin money budget (as a minor project lead for the DoD) -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv |
Forty Years Licensed
In article ,
Bruce in Alaska wrote: In article , Steve Bonine wrote: Dan Yemiola AI8O wrote: Unfortunately there was a Mary Kay Cosmetics meeting being held on the other side of the ballroom, and every five minutes or so Mary Kay ladies would start clapping and singing, just like camp meeting. No "quiet, sterile FCC exam room " that day. At least they tried, sort of. My General class exam was held in the Federal Building in Knoxville, TN. I've seen other articles here that described using headphones for code exams; we did not have them. The room was one of those sterile 1960s government classroom/conference rooms, and the echo was horrendous. It was kind of like copying cw through QRN on 80 meters, which is just what I had been doing for the past few months, so I did pass the test. But I do wonder why headphones were provided for some exam locations, but not for others. 73, Steve KB9X I took my General Test at the FCC Office in the OLD Federal Office Building in Seattle, Washington, from the Steelie Eyed, Old Crone named Gertrude Johnson, who was the Office Secratary. She did a REAL Good impression of "Librarian from Hell". NO talking, no noise of any kind, if your eyes even left your desk, you FAILED. She was Code Proficent, clear up to 35WPM, Wasn't she just scary? -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com