Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 1, 6:34?am, Steve Bonine wrote:
Dee Flint wrote: Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to insure that one does show up on the actual test taken. Remember that the exam is built by choosing a given number of questions from each subelement. For example, there are four questions on the Tech exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station license responsibilities. When the pool was constructed one of the aspects was a weighting of the various topics. There are, for example, only two questions from subelement 7 (Operating in the field. Contests. Special events. Satellite operation). I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool. No matter what they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it. A fine example of a thankless job. Steve, I've got to agree with you 100% on that. :-) I did pause a moment to reflect on a few years of lots of folks' comments, on-line, off-line, in-print, in-person. There's some relationship to "instant gratification" that is a catch-phrase in all the complaints. As I sense it, all the "experienced experts" on everything want the TEST to prove all successful applicants become Instant Experts almost as good as the complainers. :-) The predecessors of the FCC and the FCC itself continued to use licensing (and tests for same) as a regulatory tool for their lawful charter of all US civil radio. It was never, ever intended to be any academic test good enough for award of a degree in a subject...yet so many others blur the distinct difference of an amateur radio license TEST verses expertise a la academia. Back when the FCC 'personally' tested radio operators, it was proclaimed a 'Real Test.' From expeience of many of my contemporaries, that 'reality' didn't exist. There was no way one could 'test' for radio equipment of 1956 to make anyone 'expert.' When the FCC revamped a lot of their work to include privatization - which included Frequency Coordinaton of many PLMRS users as well as amateur repeaters - it became a 'bad thing.' The TEST was no longer 'real' since all the questions and right-wrong answers were public...which came about through other political work, not the fact of privatization. I cannot see where the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator system is so 'bad.' It is composed of active fellow amateur radio licensees and I doubt that any of them could be considered dummies. That's better than having questions and answers thunk up by a faceless few at the FCC, ones whose primary task is radio regulation, not boosting amateur radio nor trying to get more licensees. All in all, I think the VEC QPC is doing a FINE job given their virtual free rein on what to ask in every test element. It is even better when one considers the first word in their description: Voluntary. Those on the Committee have guts as well as experience in volunteering for a sometimes thankless task. I salute their work and dedication (with all five fingers, properly) for keeping up that task for two decades (give or take). 73, Len AF6AY |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 1, 1:09?pm, AF6AY wrote:
On Nov 1, 6:34?am, Steve Bonine wrote: Remember that the exam is built by choosing a given number of questions from each subelement. For example, there are four questions on the Tech exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station license responsibilities. Yet it is possible to get all four of those questions wrong and still pass the test. The result is a licensed amateur with big 'holes' in his/her knowledge of certain areas. I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool. No matter what they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it. A fine example of a thankless job. The big question is whether the criticism is constructive, or just a form of complaining. IOW, does the critic offer a way to make the process better? The predecessors of the FCC and the FCC itself continued to use licensing (and tests for same) as a regulatory tool for their lawful charter of all US civil radio. It was never, ever intended to be any academic test good enough for award of a degree in a subject...yet so many others blur the distinct difference of an amateur radio license TEST verses expertise a la academia. Who are these people, making such claims, Len? It seems to me that one main purpose of license testing is to insure that the licensee knows enough about the thing being licensed for so that s/he can reasonably do what the license allows. For an amateur license, that means knowing the basics of amateur radio, in the form of technology, rules & regs, and operating practices. Most important is that the tests focus on what *amateurs* are allowed to do on the air, and how they typically do it. Experience and knowledge of other radio services may or may not be relevant. A Ph.D. in EE with multiple patents is not necessarily qualified to be a radio amateur if s/he doesn't know the amateur radio regulations. Back when the FCC 'personally' tested radio operators, it was proclaimed a 'Real Test.' From expeience of many of my contemporaries, that 'reality' didn't exist. From my personal experience, and from that of many of *my* contemporaries, that reality certainly did exist. Not that the tests for an amateur or commercial radio license were equivalent to what I later encountered in EE school, but they were real tests of what the licensee knew with regards to amateur radio. There was no way one could 'test' for radio equipment of 1956 to make anyone 'expert.' Agreed - but that wasn't the purpose. The tests were to see if the licensee had met a certain minimum level of knowledge and skill, not that the person was an expert. Anyone knowledgeable about Morse Code will tell you that even the old 1 minute solid copy 20 wpm Morse Code test wasn't "expert" level.....;-) When the FCC revamped a lot of their work to include privatization - which included Frequency Coordinaton of many PLMRS users as well as amateur repeaters - it became a 'bad thing.' The TEST was no longer 'real' since all the questions and right-wrong answers were public...which came about through other political work, not the fact of privatization. The question-and-answer pools became public knowledge in two steps. The first was the publication of the "Bash books" in the 1970s, whose information was gathered by means that, IMHO, clearly violated the law. But the top folks at FCC decided not to prosecute Dick Bash nor those who helped him, so the books made it possible for those willing to spend the money to see a pretty close replica of the actual exams. The second step was the creation of the Question Pool Committee and the VEC system in the early 1980s. This replaced the work of paid Federal government employees with that of unpaid amateur volunteers. I cannot see where the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator system is so 'bad.' I think the main criticism is not of the VEC system itself, but rather the fact that prospective licensees can see the exact questions and answers that will be on the test. In the pre-Bash-book days, a prospective licensee did not have access to the exact Q&A. There were study guides which indicated the general areas of information that would be on the test, and in some cases the test followed the study guide closely, but that was not the same thing as seeing the exact questions and answers. For example, the study guide showed some Ohm's Law problems in essay format. The actual test would show some Ohm's Law problems in multiple- choice format, but the prospective amateur did not know much else about the Ohm's Law problems on the test. The logical response in most cases was to learn enough Ohm's Law theory to be able to solve all sorts of problems in that subject. With the actual test questions available, it becomes possible to "study the test" rather than actually learning the material. In another thread in this NG, there have been discussions about using a class to teach the test rather than an understanding of the material. Which is better - learning and understanding the material, even at a basic level, or simply learning the test questions by rote memory, to be forgotten? It is composed of active fellow amateur radio licensees and I doubt that any of them could be considered dummies. That's better than having questions and answers thunk up by a faceless few at the FCC, ones whose primary task is radio regulation, not boosting amateur radio nor trying to get more licensees. Again, the perceived problem is not the VEC system itself, but the fact of public Q&A. Note too that the Question Pool Committee is, in practice, almost as much of a "faceless few" as the FCC was. VECs do not make up the questions and answers directly. Nor do they make any decisions on the process other than selecting specific questions for each exam, to insure randomness. They only proctor the exams. All in all, I think the VEC QPC is doing a FINE job given their virtual free rein on what to ask in every test element. I agree that within their limitations they are doing a good job. The problem is the limitations they have to work under. Those limitations are not of their doing. There have also been a few *documented* instances of irregularities in the administration of exams by specific VEC groups. (See FCC Enforcement Letters). It is even better when one considers the first word in their description: Voluntary. Those on the Committee have guts as well as experience in volunteering for a sometimes thankless task. I salute their work and dedication (with all five fingers, properly) for keeping up that task for two decades (give or take). It's good to see you saluting and thanking them, Len. Particularly considering your criticism of certain VECs in the past. What changed your mind? Volunteer examiners go back a lot longer than the 1980s. They date back at least to the 1930s, when the Class C license was created for those who lived too far from an FCC exam point, or who were disabled. Later (1954), all routine exams for Novice and Technician licenses, as well as the Conditional, were done by volunteer examiners. My first amateur radio license exams were given by a volunteer examiner, K3NYT, when I was a little past my 13th birthday. I realize now that it took him some time and effort to make the exam sessions possible for me. That Novice license of 1967 opened up the world of amateur radio to me, and led to a career in electrical engineering. And yes, I thanked him. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Forty Years Licensed
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Forty Years Licensed
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 14:20:30 EDT, Klystron wrote:
If the size of the pool were increased, would that satisfy your objection? Given a finite body of information, there are only so many questions that can be formulated from it to test an applicant's knowledge. The national Multistate Bar Exam, one element of each state's bar exam, is composed of 200 multiple choice questions. Half of those come from the published "Green Book", a compilation of 500 Q&As, the equivalent of the Question Pool Study Guide. The other half are composed on the fly by a "faceless committee" for each semi-annual exam (all given on the same day nationwide). Thus, 20% of the Q&As on each test is from a published pool, while the remaining 80% of the Q&As require absolute knowledge of the published areas being tested. The answer choices of each question usually consist of two that are obviously incorrect and two more that appear to be very close, and the process is really to identify the better of the two. A score of 130 = 65% or better is the minimum required in most states. In California, acknowledged to have the toughest test, a score of 152 = 76% is an absolute pass where performance on the other elements of the exam are not even taken into account. Granted that the level of knowledge required for passing the Bar exam is greater than the level of knowledge required for passing an amateur exam, the key factor in both is not the size of the published pool, but should be the knowledge of the examinee. As we were told in Bar Exam review courses, the correct answer is right there in front of you, and all you really have to know is "a", "b", "c" , or "d". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Forty Years Licensed
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 16:00:50 EDT, Phil Kane
wrote: Thus, 20% of the Q&As on each test is from a published pool, while the remaining 80% of the Q&As require absolute knowledge of the published areas being tested. Correction - the exam questions from the published pool are 20% of those published. The ratio of published to non-published questions is, of course, 50%/50%. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Forty Years Licensed
Phil Kane wrote:
[...] Correction - the exam questions from the published pool are 20% of those published. [...] Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive. I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100 questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over 10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an acceptable solution? -- Klystron |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Forty Years Licensed
"Klystron" wrote
Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive. I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100 questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over 10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an acceptable solution? Objection overruled. Now sit down at your rig and "work" someone in the cw portion of the band... at 25 wpm. You already have your license; enjoy it. ;-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
shorty forty (G5RV) little brother | Antenna | |||
FA: FORTY(40) NOS HITACHI J56 POWER MOSFET TRANSISTORS T-03 | Equipment | |||
FA: FORTY(40) NOS HITACHI J56 POWER MOSFET TRANSISTORS>T-03 | Equipment | |||
60S TOP FORTY RADIO RETURNS | Broadcasting | |||
Does this Shorty Forty Antenna work? | Antenna |