On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:34:11 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be
to see if the testee knew where to look them up.

Another approach would be to have a sample chart with the segments
labeled by their emission designators, such as A1A or J3E, and ask for
the segment allowed to Phone or Morse, or Data, etc.

This would be independent of "real life" band plans or regulations,
which are subject to frequent changes, and would test another phase
of the knowledge of The Compleat Ham.

The California Bar Exam does just that - they give you a set of laws
and a fact pattern and you have to write something - an argument, a
petition, etc based on those, not on "real life" which can be
something different depending on the latest court cases.
--

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 posted on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:08:04 EDT

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:34:11 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:
At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be
to see if the testee knew where to look them up.

Another approach would be to have a sample chart with the segments
labeled by their emission designators, such as A1A or J3E, and ask for
the segment allowed to Phone or Morse, or Data, etc.

This would be independent of "real life" band plans or regulations,
which are subject to frequent changes, and would test another phase
of the knowledge of The Compleat Ham.

"Compleat Ham?" :-) 'Armour plated?' Or Farmer John? :-)

The California Bar Exam does just that - they give you a set of laws
and a fact pattern and you have to write something - an argument, a
petition, etc based on those, not on "real life" which can be
something different depending on the latest court cases.

With all due respect, Phil, a Bar Examination is for a professional
license, not an amateur radio license. No one is expecting the
theory part to be taken from a state Professional Engineer license,
yet that would be as applicable in the same sense, yes?.

While there is so much hoo-hah about 'privatization' of amateur
radio examinations, the NCVEC are all composed of licensed
amateurs. They seem to have done good in the last two
decades and one can communicate with them about what
should be the questions. Could anyone but the FCC discuss
things about the FCC amateur radio test questions before
privatization? I ask because I was unaware that there was any
possibility of suggesting anything about that before privatization.

73, Len AF6AY

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:13:50 EDT, AF6AY wrote:

With all due respect, Phil, a Bar Examination is for a professional
license, not an amateur radio license. No one is expecting the
theory part to be taken from a state Professional Engineer license,
yet that would be as applicable in the same sense, yes?.

I wasn't referring to the content level, but to the process of using
and applying "given" information rather than "memory guesses".
--

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, 27 Oct 2007 01:13:50 EDT, AF6AY wrote:

Could anyone but the FCC discuss
things about the FCC amateur radio test questions before
privatization? I ask because I was unaware that there was any
possibility of suggesting anything about that before privatization.

In real life the FCC exams were mode up by engineers who were
knowledgeable in the fields being tested. I myself wrote several
questions on television standards and measurements for the
Radiotelephone First Class License revision in 1972. The questions
on the amateur exams were composed by staff engineers who were active
amateurs.

Yes, there was a provision for input from the "outside" by writing a
letter to the Examinations and Licensing Branch of the Field
Operations Bureau with the suggestions. This was not a "secret"
process, either, because lots of such letters were received and
reviewed by the committee that was responsible for examination
revisions. Some suggestions were accepted, others were rejected.

My gripe with privatization is that these are functions that should be
done by the FCC, not by others. Dumping them on someone else is not
the proper way to solve the problems that existed.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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