Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #32   Report Post  
Old October 21st 07, 11:07 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 300
Default 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

  #33   Report Post  
Old October 21st 07, 11:30 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 300
Default 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

  #34   Report Post  
Old October 21st 07, 11:32 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 300
Default 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

  #36   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 03:54 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 168
Default 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 -

  #37   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 05:10 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 50
Default 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

  #38   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 01:25 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default 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


  #39   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 03:29 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 13
Default 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

  #40   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 03:30 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 13
Default 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

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
shorty forty (G5RV) little brother george tibbetts Antenna 1 January 11th 06 05:41 AM
FA: FORTY(40) NOS HITACHI J56 POWER MOSFET TRANSISTORS T-03 cooltube Equipment 0 May 17th 05 04:55 PM
FA: FORTY(40) NOS HITACHI J56 POWER MOSFET TRANSISTORS>T-03 [email protected] Equipment 0 May 16th 05 03:08 AM
60S TOP FORTY RADIO RETURNS TODD STORZ Broadcasting 0 August 21st 04 05:23 AM
Does this Shorty Forty Antenna work? Alex Antenna 6 May 3rd 04 10:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017