Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

KH6HZ wrote:


I have an extensive vocabulary, correct spelling, accurate grammar and
superb punctuation skills.


Yeah, you might ... I am willing to grant you that.

But what the heck is that good for, all you spew is HARDCORE BS?

JS

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

wrote:
Seems to me that the rational compromise would be to offer a variety
of skills tests.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, a skills test requires a greater effort on the
part of VEs to implement, test, and grade. It is highly unlikely we
would ever see *ANY* suggestion that makes testing "harder" ever
implemented by the FCC. Fact is, it is politically incorrect to "fail"
people. We will never see the return of a skills test to the ARS.
That's the sad reality of the situation.



Just a comment about this part of the thread.


Once you get away from distinct skills such as Morse code acumen,
you get into a grey area. I'm trying to envision a test where one VE
wants only plain english and another one thinks it is cool to say things
such as QSL, QTH, or HI-HI on voice. So much subjectivity.

Operating practices are OUR responsibility to teach the new guys.
The idea of having to know it at the time of testing is not entirely
realistic.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Once you get away from distinct skills such as Morse code acumen,
you get into a grey area. I'm trying to envision a test where one
VE wants only plain english and another one thinks it is cool to
say things such as QSL, QTH, or HI-HI on voice. So much
subjectivity.

You're right. This is why I do not (currently) support any type of "skills"
test. Although I am not opposed to the idea, I cannot think of a way to
implement one fairly. Instead, I feel the focus should be on "strengthening"
(not read: make more difficult) the theory examinations.

73
KH6HZ

Those Old Study Guides
 

"Dee Flint" wrote in news:-
:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
wrote in
ps.com:


[snip]


I didn't really study for my Tech license, only a bit for my
General, and did indeed spend some time on the Extra. Even so, the
tests were not "hard" when I took them.

But I believe that the tests are an entrance test, not some sort
of PhD thing. Its what people do after they get them that counts.
And I really do like the time in grade thing before getting an Extra
license.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


If a person actually knows the material and how to apply it, nothing
is really hard. It's getting to the point of knowing that takes the
real effort.

Agreed. I actually enjoyed taking the tests. And for some, they are
harder than it is for others.

I'm pretty well convinced that the amount of testing that would be
required to be an effective ham from the date of passing the test
successfully would require so much effort that no one would attempt to
become a ham any more.

I've become convinced since the last time that I posted here
regularly that there are some hams who wouldn't mind that a bit. 8^(

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

"Bob Brock" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...
Bob Brock wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:


Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

Always am.

Here's a sample - lots more to come.

From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:

Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being
used. It's
more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is taking
it.

Every tried grading essay questions?

Yes - but you missed the point, Bob.

In 1976 the tests were all multiple-choice, same as today, except
that most of them were 5 choices rather than 4.

But the FCC-provided *study guides* were in essay format, as given
above. The exact Q&A were not publicly available - at least not
officially.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Yeah, but then there were all those "unofficial" question pools. The
same thing is done with the "General Contractors" exam here. For a
fee, you can know what questions are on the various exams and hence
have a study guide. Whether it's sanctioned or not, it would still
happen. I'll bet that the truth be told, there were some underground
copies of test questions available even back then. You know, if
everyone in the club came back an just wrote down the questions that
they remember, it wouldn't take long to cover over 90 percent of the
pool of questions.


Perhaps the FCC study guides were in essay form, but certainly the
little Ameco 1956 study guide I picked up at a hamfest had Q and A. It
had the answers to the Q and A also. Judging from the questions asked
there are two and only two possibilities:

A. Ameco was participating in fraud, in that the Q and A they
offered was not applicable to the test at the time.

B. The questions that they offered were not the exact questions on
an official test, but as there are only so many ways to ask the same
questions, the point was moot.


Giving the study guides in essay format and then testing multiple
choice gives the test writer a lot of leeway in how the questions are
worded. Some people get off on writing questions so that the test is
not so much on your knowledge of the subject as it is about your
ability to read carefully. The reason that it worked back then was
because the tests were administered by the FCC and had a lot more
oversight than todays test administrators do. The only real soulution
would be to provide an accepted pool of test questions that would be
approved to be on the tests. However, then we come back to how those
test pools would be available for a price after a while.

Q and A are also less subjective.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Those Old Study Guides
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm a little confused here. My 1956 Guide has Multiple choice for the
General test and Technician test at that time. Were they wrong?

My 1957 License Manual is even worse than that -
it doesn't even have any wrong answers. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Those Old Study Guides
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
My 1957 License Manual is even worse than that -
it doesn't even have any wrong answers. :-)

Cecil:

My gawd man!!!

You have discovered a clear case of "dumbing up!"

Never-before-heard-of-case where the licensees of today are required to
be more intelligent and be expected to test well under more taxing
circumstances than their pasts counterparts!

Cecil, you can see now why you NEVER cease to amaze me ... mona-lisa-look

Warmest regards,
JS