On Oct 17, 2:51?am, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:14:05 EDT, wrote:
What was intimidating was the fact that the Examiner was The Man From
FCC, who had sole power to say "You passed" or "You failed".

It was the applicant who determined if the result was passing or
failing. The examiner merely reported the results.

Bwaahaaahaaa! I walked right into that one, Phil!

However, didn't the examiner have to use at least some judgement as to
whether an applicant's Morse Code copy was 'legible', and whether his/
her sending was OK?

Going back before my time, when the exams involved writing essays,
drawing diagrams and showing how an answer was derived, didn't the
examiner have some judgement as to whether the applicant had properly
answered a question?

--

The way I recall it, the examiner I met wasn't so much trying to
intimidate as to simply let you know that this licensing stuff was
serious business.

--

One more story:

In those days (1967-1970) the written exam questions came in a booklet
and there was a separate answer sheet for your answers. They made a
big deal about having two #2 pencils, filling in the little box
completely, erasing completely, not making stray marks on the paper,
do not bend, fold, spindle or mutilate, etc.

I'd had similar standardized tests several times in school, and there
was always an air of mystery about how the tests were graded. It was
implied that they were fed into a computer that had a no tolerance for
those who didn't follow instructions.

Being a curious sort, I asked how the machine worked, but got no
information. Top secret?

It seemed to me there were two possibilities: either there was some
form of photoelectric system that shone a light through the paper, or
there was a grid of contacts (gold plated?) that detected the answers
by the conductivity of the graphite pencil marks.

The photoelectric system seemed more workable, but the grid-of-
contacts system explained the insistence on #2 pencils.

When I went to take the test at the FCC office, I thought I might get
a glimpse of the grading machine. But there was nothing that looked
like such a device in the exam room.

When I handed in my completed written test, the examiner's assistant
pulled out what looked to me like a manila file folder. She opened it
up and slid the answer sheet inside - behind a piece of paper with
holes punched in it. She counted up the holes with marked boxes behind
them, then pulled out the answer sheet and looked for any questions
with more than one box filled in. Whole operation took very little
time. She said "You passed" and that was it.

What a letdown! No fancy machine, no photocells or gold-plated
contacts, no computer, just some pieces of paper with holes in the
right spots.

I got the distinct impression that I'd seen something I wasn't
supposed to reveal to others.

The phrase "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" took on a
whole new meaning that day.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:28:32 EDT, wrote:

However, didn't the examiner have to use at least some judgement as to
whether an applicant's Morse Code copy was 'legible', and whether his/
her sending was OK?

Going back before my time, when the exams involved writing essays,
drawing diagrams and showing how an answer was derived, didn't the
examiner have some judgement as to whether the applicant had properly
answered a question?

Welllll....yes.

We're even! ggg
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

wrote in news:1192669855.352467.256260
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 17, 2:51?am, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:14:05 EDT, wrote:
What was intimidating was the fact that the Examiner was The Man From
FCC, who had sole power to say "You passed" or "You failed".

It was the applicant who determined if the result was passing or
failing. The examiner merely reported the results.

Bwaahaaahaaa! I walked right into that one, Phil!

However, didn't the examiner have to use at least some judgement as to
whether an applicant's Morse Code copy was 'legible', and whether his/
her sending was OK?

Going back before my time, when the exams involved writing essays,
drawing diagrams and showing how an answer was derived, didn't the
examiner have some judgement as to whether the applicant had properly
answered a question?

--

The way I recall it, the examiner I met wasn't so much trying to
intimidate as to simply let you know that this licensing stuff was
serious business.

This kind of got me to thinking. Perhaps the judgement part is one of the
reasons that essays went away. In a related situation, the first time I
took my driving test, I went before a steely eyed Examiner, a state
policeman by the name of Nix. I aced the written part of the test, and
aced the driving test too. Then on the way back to the building where
they were headquartered, he suddenly yelled out STOP NOW! I did so
immediately, thinking there might be an emergency situation; after which
he looked at me, grinned, and said "Congratulations, YOU flunked!" When I
asked what I did wrong, He said "You didn't use your turn signal." My
test was already over, and I did everything asked, and yet I couldn't do
a thing about it.

I am a big supporter of the tests the way they are now.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Oct 19, 10:56?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1192669855.352467.256260
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

Going back before my time, when the exams involved
writing essays,
drawing diagrams and showing how an answer was
derived, didn't the
examiner have some judgement as to whether
the applicant had properly
answered a question?

This kind of got me to thinking. Perhaps the judgement part
is one of the reasons that essays went away.

I agree. Your story about the driving test shows how arbitrary that
judgement could be. Things like handwriting legibility and how good
someone is at English composition could make the difference.

Another issue is the need for examiners who knew the material
well enough to grade the tests. Anybody with the right answer key
can grade a multiple-choice test but essays require a grader that
knows the stuff - and has the time.

Historically:

- Novice was always all multiple-choice.

- the pre-1953 Advanced had essays, diagrams, show-your-work problems
and multiple choice. When it was revived in 1967, it was all multiple
choice. (No Advanceds were issued from 1953 to 1967).

- Technician/General/Conditional and Extra had essays, diagrams, show-
your-work problems and multiple choice until about 1961, when the old
blue-book tests were replaced with all-multiple-choice tests.

There was not a single changeover date from blue-book to multiple
choice exams, because the examiners
were instructed to use up their existing stock of old exams before
starting to use the new ones. So depending on where you went for
the exam, you could get one or the other. I suspect that busy exam
points like NYC used up their stock of old exams very quickly, while
a less-busy place might have used them for quite a while after the
new ones came out.

- For the first two years of their existence (1951-1953), Novice and
Technician were tested at FCC offices unless the examinee could meet
the "Conditional criteria" of distance or physical disability.
After that time, those exams were issued by mail using a single
volunteer examiner, regardless of distance.

From what older amateurs have told me, the reason FCC made the
switch was that the exam points were being inundated with people,
particularly teenagers, coming to take the exams without adequate
preparation. The tests were free in those days, and a kid on summer
vacation could show up at the FCC office three times in a summer
with the 30 day wait. IMHO the FCC wanted to both reduce their
workload of failed exams and reduce the number who passed simply
because they'd gone back so many times that they'd seen all the exam
versions.

The by-mail exam process slowed things down a lot because there
was a 6-8 week processing delay at every step, plus all the work was
at FCC Hq.

All the amateur radio written exams I took were multiple choice.
None of them were difficult at all, IMHO. They did require knowing
some radio theory and regulations governing the ARS, though.

I am a big supporter of the tests the way they are now.

Two things I would change in the exam *process* (not *content*,
but *process*):

1) I would go back to the way things were in the late 1970s,
when FCC conducted the exams, both in their offices and by
request at hamfests, club meetings and almost anywhere that a
certain minimum number of examinees could be guaranteed.

2) I would make the exams themselves 'secret', that is, no more
open question pools.

Of course 2) would depend on 1). The chances of either actually
happening are probably 'slim to none'.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:49:24 EDT, wrote:

Another issue is the need for examiners who knew the material
well enough to grade the tests. Anybody with the right answer key
can grade a multiple-choice test but essays require a grader that
knows the stuff - and has the time.

That was the main reason. The Commercial Radiotelegraph Operator
exams has diagrams to the end, and we always had to call an engineer
to grade those questions.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:49:24 EDT, wrote:

The by-mail exam process slowed things down a lot because there
was a 6-8 week processing delay at every step, plus all the work was
at FCC Hq.

Actually they were processed at the License Center in Gettysburg, PA
which still processes all licenses, inputting the data into the ULS
and printing/mailing the actual document.

1) I would go back to the way things were in the late 1970s,
when FCC conducted the exams, both in their offices and by
request at hamfests, club meetings and almost anywhere that a
certain minimum number of examinees could be guaranteed.

2) I would make the exams themselves 'secret', that is, no more
open question pools.

Of course 2) would depend on 1). The chances of either actually
happening are probably 'slim to none'.

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".
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

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

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 -

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

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