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

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 21, 10:54?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Klystron wrote
:

Snipped

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.

Snipped
73 de Jim, N2EY


Novice's back then were also limited to 75 watts plate input power and rock
bound (No VFO) operations.
Ace - WH2T



..

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
Klystron wrote in
:


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.

Precisely my experience! In my day to day work I picked up a LOT of
electronics knowledge and experience.
NOT to BRAG but one day in 1983 I just happened to be in Detroit.
I just walked in and took the General test.
The secretary looked up my Novice license and then gave me the General test
and I upgraded to Tech Plus ( it ws just called TECH then).
The hardest part of the exam for me was the parts rules and regs that were
just arbitrary like Band limits and how many days you had to respond to a
violation notice.

Same with the EXTRA exam I took in 2000. Day to day working knowledge was
more than enough to pass the exam.

But not for everyone, and certainly the testing regimen should not be
tailored to the highest denominator, so to speak.

No I think the exam should have more questions to test not just hit the high
points but also test the depth of the testee's knowledge, that is I think
the exam should have more questions, not harder just more questions.

Posted by Mike Coslo on Sun, 21 Oct 2007
22:54:39 EDT

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.

As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool
questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007:

Technician pool had 392 (35 required). Ratio of pool to requred
11.20:1

General pool had 485 (35 required). Ratio of pool to required 13.86:1

Extra pool had 802 (50 required). Ratio of pool to required 16.04:1

The pools have gone beyond 10:1 by a fair margin...even if I've mis-
counted slightly. My printouts (single spaced, both sides) FILL a
1" loose-leaf notebook.

Some time back I showed the notebook to an acquaintance who is an
aspiring actor, not a radio hobbyist. He is used to memorizing lines
of
a script and being as letter-perfect as possible, his lines as well
as
others in the same scene. His main comment went something like,
"Holy ##$%&!!! You had to memorize all that?!?" :-)

"No," I said, "Only certain things about regulations...theory and
practice should be known enough to pass."

Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was
satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart
of
bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate
satellites. :-)

73, Len AF6AY

AF6AY wrote:

As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool
questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007:

Technician pool had 392 (35 required). Ratio of pool to requred
11.20:1

General pool had 485 (35 required). Ratio of pool to required 13.86:1

Extra pool had 802 (50 required). Ratio of pool to required 16.04:1

The pools have gone beyond 10:1 by a fair margin...even if I've mis-
counted slightly. My printouts (single spaced, both sides) FILL a
1" loose-leaf notebook.


Did you exclude from that count the questions that were later
disqualified? When I took the tests, most of the questions about band
edges had to be dropped because of the rule change. A few others were
dropped due to errors or poor wording. I think the current pool size has
been chosen to allow for a safety margin for the elimination of some
erroneous questions. (I am currently studying for the GMDSS operator
test and the worst questions on the amateur tests are worded better than
a large number of these.)
My figure of 8 or 10 pool questions to 1 test questions was very
rough and not intended for 4 significant digit precision. However, other
FCC test pools bring the average a bit closer to it, such as the GMDSS
test pool (600 in pool, 100 on test).


Some time back I showed the notebook to an acquaintance who is an
aspiring actor, not a radio hobbyist. He is used to memorizing lines
of
a script and being as letter-perfect as possible, his lines as well
as
others in the same scene. His main comment went something like,
"Holy ##$%&!!! You had to memorize all that?!?" :-)

"No," I said, "Only certain things about regulations...theory and
practice should be known enough to pass."

Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was
satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart
of
bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate
satellites. :-)


Beat you. I got 100 on all three tests (amateur elements 2, 3 and 4).
I will admit that there was some rote memorization involved, especially
on the parts that I didn't know anything about (calculations involving
imaginary numbers, for example).

--
Klystron

Klystron posted on Wed 24 Oct 2007 17:25

AF6AY wrote:

As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool
questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007:

Did you exclude from that count the questions that were later
disqualified?

I only counted the applicable pool questions. Yes, I also
printed out the NCVEC website listing of question changes,
but only as a very general reference, not to be used
specifically for my 25 Feb 07 test. www.ncvec.org

When I took the tests, most of the questions about band
edges had to be dropped because of the rule change. A few others were
dropped due to errors or poor wording.

I took my test before an ARRL VEC team. The ARRL-supplied
test question sheets had already excluded changed questions
(and answers). Good security was practiced by the ARRL VEC
team leader and the other three in the team, all materials for
testing kept in a small padlocked carrying box. Scoring
templates were translucent plastic sheets, blue and imprinted
with the ARRL logo, if memory serves me correctly.

My figure of 8 or 10 pool questions to 1 test questions was very
rough and not intended for 4 significant digit precision. However, other
FCC test pools bring the average a bit closer to it, such as the GMDSS
test pool (600 in pool, 100 on test).

After doing the total count of questions on my printout, I used
a pocket calculator to derive the percentages. It has flexible
significant digit settings and I used my standard setting of two
significant digits in the fraction of percentages. I apologize if
that offends anyone. [HP-32S II, cost $60 in 2001 off-the-shelf,
just got an HP-35S, $60 still, the latest in the 35-year history
of scientific pocket calculators, direct from HP on-line shop]

GMDSS testing would be done in front of a COLEM since it is a
Commercial radio license group. Different from the VEC.

My First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Operator license
test was taken at an FCC Field Office in Chicago, IL, 51 1/2
years ago. There were no COLEMs or VECs then and testing
was not privatized. All commercial radiotelephone licenses
were changed to the General Radiotelephone Operator License
(GROL) much later and my First 'Phone was changed
automatically to that. I kept that GROL renewed also until it
became a lifetime license, no renewals required. I am not
interested in obtaining any other commercial license now.

Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was
satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct.

Beat you. I got 100 on all three tests (amateur elements 2, 3 and 4).

I concentrated only on passing my three required test elements.
I wasn't in 'competition' with anyone else but myself. The FCC
sets the limits on the pass versus fail and the FCC grants the
license. I passed. I mentioned my observed scoring only as an
afterthought. The percentage of questions passed didn't seem
to be logged by any in the VEC team. Scores aren't in the data-
base from the FCC.

I will admit that there was some rote memorization involved, especially
on the parts that I didn't know anything about (calculations involving
imaginary numbers, for example).

Complex number quantities are not an absolute necessity in
amateur radio...unless one wants to be successful in designing
certain parts of radio and electronics or doing a more in-depth
realization of what actually comprises impedance or admittance.
I learned complex number quantities from a third- or fourth-hand
used reference on mathematics given to me in 1959. [I still
have it and use it as a refresher on other math from time to
time] They are not hard to learn, just a bit strange to those who
haven't yet gone beyond scalar quantities. Both the HP-32 and
HP-35S will do complex number arithmetic as a built-in
function on the keyboard and the HP-35S has a much larger
program storage.

I wish you well on your GMDSS test before a COLEM.

73, Len AF6AY