Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

From: KH6HZ on Sun, Jan 21 2007 12:00 pm

"an_old_friend" wrote:
one how does it serve the interest of the ARS
two how does it serve the interest of the public at large

The ARS is a technical service, alledgedly charged with maintaining a pool
of trained radio operators, to provide emergency communications, advance the
radio art, contribute to international goodwill, and advance their skills in
communications and technical phases of the art.

Tsk, Tsk, TSK! It also includes FAKING a required mailing
address to the FCC attempting to fool them into getting one
state's callsign prefix. It also includes FAKING a bunch
of "clubs" and gobbling up callsigns for those "clubs,"
none of which seem to have existed in reality. Roughly
a dozen of them.

So, I hope Mikey is enjoying the warm, comfortable
weather at his Hawaii "home," a perfect spot for
the "RF Commandos" to practice field manuevers!

Hup, too, tree, foah...march, march...beep, beep.

Aloha,

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Diaper's wet, eh, Lennie? You always get cranky.

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Up for a challenge? Memorize the Extra test, all 800 some
questions
in the pool. Then let's take a test. I'll give you the test question
number, and you give me the letter answer. Since memorization
presumably has nothing to do with the knowledge, this should be easy
as the new applicants have in taking the so called dumbed down tests

That isn't how memorization works.

I was waiting for someone to fall into that one.

Of course it isn't how it works.


While there may be some people who "memorize" the question and answer,
in reality what most people are referring to when they talk about
"memorization" is in fact something more akin to "word association" or
"familiarity".


Here is a intereting note.

I have an almost photographic memory. When I studied fot the tests,
I would take an on-line test. Any and all questions that I got wron, I
hit a book and figured out the correct answer. I read it - usually once,
and then I knew the answer. Was I memorizing?


All one has to do is read the question pool enough, or drill long
enough using a computer program, that they will "recognize" the
correct answer when they see it. They don't actually "memorize" the
question pool per se, such that they know the answer to question ###
is AAA. No, instead, they simply become familiar enough with it that
they can recognize the correct answer to the question, much the same
way you become familiar with many things in life without actually
"memorizing" them.

Yeah, Sounds like how mwmory works.

I offered that challenge because I hear so much about rote memory. Some
of the curmudgeons are correct in that a person who memorizes the pool
is a lot dumber than a person who learns it.


A lot of Technicians I know used the "Now You're Talking" books.
Lots of stuff in there that prepares you for radio operations.

When I got my tech license, I used the Gorden West book. That's not
how I passed the exams though.


Do you think that most new hams get their license, then hire
people
to put their stations together after they buy their "Yaecomwood"
boxes?

"putting a station" together these days involves little more than
calling HRO, unpacking the boxes UPS delivers, and plugging everything
in. Not much theory required there.


But it doesn't have to. We have the options of putting out a fair
amoount of power, and to experiment, and work with equipment of our oown
design and manufacture, and to modify that equipment as long as it stays
within whatever legal performance limits as apply.

That's what the testing is about. No one is required to make use of
all the priveliges.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Cecil Moore wrote in
:

KH6HZ wrote:
All one has to do is read the question pool enough, or drill long
enough using a computer program, that they will "recognize" the
correct answer when they see it.

The majority of a grammar school education probably
uses that method of learning.

Very true - a most old fashioned way of teaching.

Some hams won't be satisfied with the testing regimen unless the tests are
so hard that no one can pass them.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in
:
..hams won't be satisfied with the testing regimen unless the tests are
so hard that no one can pass them.

indeed that is the goal to end the ARS since they lost the war on code
testing

Those Old Study Guides
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

"Bob Brock" wrote in
:


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?

There has always been a lot of room for interpretation on essay
questions. And interpretation always leaves a lot of room for further
interpretations, ie arguments.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Those Old Study Guides
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:tlOsh.12126$ji1.1497
@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:

wrote:
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.

First "question" from the 1957 ARRL License Manual for
the General exam.

"1. Name the basic unit(s) of electrical resistance, ..."
(etc.)

"The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm."

How is "ohm" not the exact answer? Wouldn't giving an
inexact answer have been dishonest?

That's exactly my point, Cecil! How many ways are there to ask the
same questions? Even if we don't use those exact same words, as long as
it's intelligible, it's still the same question.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in
:



Every tried grading essay questions?

There has always been a lot of room for interpretation on essay
questions. And interpretation always leaves a lot of room for further
interpretations, ie arguments.

and room for the biasis of the tester who are not fed employees a
bigger factor

here in RRAp a VE has baosted that he refused a duely signed code
waiver . what makes you think that in some places a tesste will fail
solely becuase of the colour of their skin or...

Those Old Study Guides
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

AaronJ wrote:
Service? This is a hobby that on average probably has less technical people than
those in the RC model aircraft crowd.

From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
as of a government"

From the Noah Pro definition of hobby:
"avocation, by-line, sideline, spare-time activity, an auxiliary activity"

Which of our definitions better fits ham radio, service or hobby...

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

KH6HZ wrote nothing worth while:

Oh, my, Mikey D. is going to ignore the big who-haa in here about
his Dirty
Dozen "clubs?"

It looks like you were "collecting" OTHER callsigns in 1994. For
example, private ship call WCD6729 for the "trawler" named
"HORNBLOWER." [ship identification # 526927] Now I
suppose that is normally okay except for the required mailing
address you supplied:
Deignan, Michael P.
P. O. Box 465
Grapeview, WA 98546

Tsk. Grapeview is a tiny place on one of the innermost waterways
that make up the huge Puget Sound. It's about as far removed from
Rhode Island as is anyplace in CONUS. You'd have to steam for a
couple hours just to pass under the (old) Tacoma Narrows bridge and
then it would take lots more hours to get into International Waters.
WCD6729 states that this ship "makes international voyages!"
Ship radio license was cancelled in 2004.

A TRAWLER in Puget Sound, state of Washiington, for a
Rhode Island resident? What were you phishing phor?

Now, I can understand your other ship radio license, WCN4898,
for the motorboat "EFFLUVIA." [ship ID # MS5499FT] At least
your required mailing address was Chepachet, RI. Love that boat's
name...so fitting with what you post in here. :-)

Curiosity makes me wonder who gave you that P.O. Box in
Grapeview? It was kind of far away from Jeffie Herman's P.O.
Box in Hawaii.

Hey, no sweat, your Effluvia (the boat) radio license was also
cancelled in 2004 after ten years. You must have bailed Rhode
Island before then, right? But, your effluvia continues.

All these FACTS courtesy of the FCC's own search engine.

Aloha,

LA

Those Old Study Guides
 

they were avable meaning the honest we want did not have access and
the rouges we would like to exclude did have access

hmm that state of affair MIGHT have something with the bad apples that
got through code testing


That's not much different than a younger brother looking at his older
brother's algebra test when studying for his upcoming algebra test. Or
fraternity members in college looking at a file of previous years tests
(many profs don't bother to make more than minor changes in their tests
from year to year). Calculus students can see that there's no point in
learning mathematical proofs, as it never shows up on tests. But you
better know how to integrate 3csc^4x/((2tan^5x)-1)dx

Those Old Study Guides
 

"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.

Dee, N8UZE

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

wrote:

lolol.

Poor senile old boy.

I think its funny you obsess over me so much, even after 10 years.

For the record, my Ship License was WCN4898, not WCD6729. Anyone with half a
brain can check the ULS and see the FRN on my (expired) ship license.

Jot that down on a yellow sticky and put it next to your acoustic modem, ok,
Lennie?

Might wanna get the visiting nurse to come and change your diaper a little
more often too, you get so grumpy when you're soiled.

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

I have an almost photographic memory. When I studied fot the
tests, I would take an on-line test. Any and all questions
that I got wron, I hit a book and figured out the correct
answer. I read it - usually once, and then I knew the answer.
Was I memorizing?

At some level, yes.

You either memorized the process/algorithm/information required to properly
process a question of the nature you missed (for example, a resistance
computation), or you simply word-associated/familiarized yourself with the
question pool enough that you recognized the correct answer when you saw it.

In the first case, you engaged in the process which virtually all people go
thru to learn a new skill, etc. (certain base memories have to be memorized,
i.e. formulas, definitions, etc.) This isn't a bad thing. It forms a basis
from which you can then build upon the knowledge.

In the second case, all you did is word-associate the answers, without any
real understanding of the theory behind the answer. This IMO is a bad thing,
and isn't what we should be promoting with our licensing examinations.


I offered that challenge because I hear so much about rote
memory. Some of the curmudgeons are correct in that a person
who memorizes the pool is a lot dumber than a person who
learns it.

I can't say whether a person who word-associates the pools and manages to
get a license is more or less intelligent than someone who learns the
material (i.e. someone with a photographic memory could also be rated as a
genius from an IQ perspective.) All I can say is that, IMO, the type of
person the ARS should be striving for is the person who learns the
underlying technical material to pass the examination.


But it doesn't have to. We have the options of putting out a
fair amoount of power, and to experiment, and work with
equipment of our oown design and manufacture, and to modify
that equipment as long as it stays within whatever legal
performance limits as apply.

I know very, very few people who build their own gear these days. Probably
the only thing I've seen someone build in the past 3 years is a QRP
transmitter and a dipole.


That's what the testing is about. No one is required to make
use of all the priveliges.

No, but testing should ensure that the applicant actually *knows* the
material they are being tested on. The current structure of the theory
examination testing does not accomplish that.

My complaint with theory testing has never been about the material being
tested, simply the presentation, as the current tests do not actually ensure
the applicant knows the material.

Despites claims in another thread, I do not wish to "make the tests harder",
although I'm sure that my ideas would probably result in a higher failure
rate, since applicants would actually need to know the material, rather than
word-associating the correct answers.

To some, mainly, those looking for a free-ride anyway, this is likely to be
viewed as "making the tests harder", just as I'm sure they would claim the
existing tests are too hard for a myriad of reasons, all of which really
boil down to the fact they simply cannot sign their name to a form and
instantaneously receive an amateur radio license.

73
KH6HZ

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

I'm finding myself agreeing with you about this. It seems that a lot
of folks are "memorizing" the test questions and not mastering the
material. There are a lot of places where one can go take "practice"
testing that uses the exact question pool for any test you want to
take. Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not impossible to
memorize just the questions and not know the concepts.

I'd argue that this is very short sighted so one wonders what the
solution here is... I suppose we could increase the question pool by 10
fold or so and make it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?

-= bob =-


space.The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.

How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.

If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
remaining knowledge for most people.

Feb 23 is the No-code date according to the ARRL
 

Just so there is no mistake here...

I morn the dropping of the code from the testing requirements, more
from a nostalgia perspective than a practical one. I understand the
reasons and arguments on both sides of the debate, and I understand and
agree with the reasons it was done.

-= bob =-

On Jan 19, 5:35 pm, "an old friend" wrote:
KC4UAI wrote:
Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.only for some is it sad

Those Old Study Guides
 

AaronJ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
as of a government"

From the Noah Pro definition of hobby:
"avocation, by-line, sideline, spare-time activity, an auxiliary activity"

Which of our definitions better fits ham radio, service or hobby...

It is by law, Part 97, the "Amateur Radio Service".
That part cannot be argued. The "service" that is
performed is by the federal government for the
benefit of US citizens.

It also meets the definition of "hobby". It is not
a choice of either/or. It is both.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

"KC4UAI" wrote:

It seems that a lot of folks are "memorizing" the test
questions and not mastering the material.

I've been stating this very thing for close to 10 years now.


Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not
impossible to memorize just the questions and not know the
concepts.

It is important to put "memorize" in quotes, because (as others have
mentioned) it is highly unlikely someone memorizes verbatim the question and
exact answer. More likely what actually happens is people become familiar
enough with the question pool after drilling long enough that they simply
recognize the correct answer -- no real "memorization" per se of the actual
question or answer. Much like the same way you become familiar with, say,
streets along your daily commute, even though you probably do not have a map
memorized in your head.


I'd argue that this is very short sighted

It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in 97.1


so one wonders what the solution here is... I suppose we
could increase the question pool by 10 fold or so and make
it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?

My proposed solution is to eliminate question pools entirely, and instead
have a computerized question pool which is entirely randomly generated based
on various parameters. For example, take this question from the Tech
license:

T7B10 (B)
What is the satellite sub-band on 70-CM?
A. 420 to 450 MHz
B. 435 to 438 MHz
C. 440 to 450 MHz
D. 432 to 433 MHz


Now, rather than having 4 set answers, why couldn't we simply have a
computer program generate the correct answer and 3 distractors
automatically?


Some people have argued that my idea makes the test too "hard", or makes it
appear as a "graduation exam".

From the perspective that the exam is harder, that is probably true. You
would actually need to know the material, rather than simply become familiar
enough with the question pools to pass the examination.

However, in no way do I support (or suggest) that we make the examination
"harder" from a material perspective. If an applicant is supposed to "know"
ohms law on an examination, is it too much to ask that they really
demonstrate they "know" it, rather than simply "know" what the answer to the
question is, with no real understanding of the theory behind the question?

Like Cecil once said... The examinations are not supposed to be graduation
exams, nor do I support any type of proposal to make them more difficult,
from a content perspective. My suggestion, however, which I've posted for at
least 6-7 years, is to simply make the question pools computerized to
eliminate the ability of applicants to "memorize" the Q&A's, and ensure that
applicants actually know the material they are tested on.

73
KH6HZ

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

KH6HZ wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote:



I'd argue that this is very short sighted

It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in 97.1

it is short sighted I agree

but how was your 12 club calls anything but a violation of the intent
of that same part? it wasn't

people are allowed to be shortsighted

OTOH I doubt anyone can USE ham radio without learning something about
it

that has been a joy in watching my wife (inspried to get her tech by
the NPRM explore ham radio her degree is in fine arts not a techical
sort by any means and yet she is being to follow to discussion of our
recent reapeater mataince and even the techincal programs at our club
meeting (they are not comon alas recent programs have been foucused on
things like the NPRM and the recent FCC actions)

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

It seems that a lot of folks are "memorizing" the test
questions and not mastering the material.

I've been stating this very thing for close to 10 years now.


Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not
impossible to memorize just the questions and not know the
concepts.

It is important to put "memorize" in quotes, because (as others have
mentioned) it is highly unlikely someone memorizes verbatim the question
and exact answer. More likely what actually happens is people become
familiar enough with the question pool after drilling long enough that
they simply recognize the correct answer -- no real "memorization" per se
of the actual question or answer. Much like the same way you become
familiar with, say, streets along your daily commute, even though you
probably do not have a map memorized in your head.


I'd argue that this is very short sighted

It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in
97.1


so one wonders what the solution here is... I suppose we
could increase the question pool by 10 fold or so and make
it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?

My proposed solution is to eliminate question pools entirely, and instead
have a computerized question pool which is entirely randomly generated
based on various parameters. For example, take this question from the Tech
license:

T7B10 (B)
What is the satellite sub-band on 70-CM?
A. 420 to 450 MHz
B. 435 to 438 MHz
C. 440 to 450 MHz
D. 432 to 433 MHz


Now, rather than having 4 set answers, why couldn't we simply have a
computer program generate the correct answer and 3 distractors
automatically?


Some people have argued that my idea makes the test too "hard", or makes
it appear as a "graduation exam".

From the perspective that the exam is harder, that is probably true. You
would actually need to know the material, rather than simply become
familiar enough with the question pools to pass the examination.

However, in no way do I support (or suggest) that we make the examination
"harder" from a material perspective. If an applicant is supposed to
"know" ohms law on an examination, is it too much to ask that they really
demonstrate they "know" it, rather than simply "know" what the answer to
the question is, with no real understanding of the theory behind the
question?

Like Cecil once said... The examinations are not supposed to be graduation
exams, nor do I support any type of proposal to make them more difficult,
from a content perspective. My suggestion, however, which I've posted for
at least 6-7 years, is to simply make the question pools computerized to
eliminate the ability of applicants to "memorize" the Q&A's, and ensure
that applicants actually know the material they are tested on.

73
KH6HZ


From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license. Afterall, that is
what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

You know, if we came up with enough ideas, we could probably open up most
ham bands to business interests and they don't have to take a test at all.

On the other hand, we could identify what the critical tasks a ham operator
needs to operate, tell the prospective ham what those tasks are, give the
prospective ham the answers to those tasks (such as a question and answer
pool) and then test on those identified objectives. After the new ham gets
his license to get on the air, we could provide him with a learning
environment to enhance those basic skills and become a more experienced and
adept operator.

Me, I go for plan "B."

Those Old Study Guides
 

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.

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.

Now, a better question would be, if the current test procedure produce
operators capable of functioning at the minimum entry level for that
particular classification of ham, why would we feel compelled to change it?
Bear in mind, I'm not opposed to proposing a change to the testing method
provided there is a tangable benefit to it beyond simply making it harder to
get a ticket.

Those Old Study Guides
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
"Bob Brock" wrote in
:


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?

There has always been a lot of room for interpretation on essay
questions. And interpretation always leaves a lot of room for further
interpretations, ie arguments.

That is exactly my point. It leave the person grading the test a lot of
lattitude. It also gives them real big headaches.

Those Old Study Guides
 

From: Bob Brock on Sun, Jan 21 2007 6:10 am

wrote in message
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in


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?

My wife has worked at that (Illinois, with a Masters in
Education) for several years, mostly in regards to US History.
It's a difficult task given the wide span of students'
ability to write and express themselves. Ask any teacher or
college instructor and get - more or less - the same answer.
:-)

Since 1934 and the Communications Act, the FCC has never been
chartered to be an academic institution or organization and,
as far as I've been able to find out, FCC field office
officials have never been required to hold any degrees or
certification in education as part of their jobs. Essay
ANSWERS generally require a goodly part of time in just
trying to understand what the test-taker wrote for any
answer. Much, much more time than pulling out an answer
template to lay over a multiple-choice answer sheet. [such
answer templates are in wide use in most all government
agency testing, not just in schools and colleges]

The one bit of good advice I got in 1956 for my First 'Phone
test in Chicago was: "Be clear in your writing, concise and
legible." Even for the few schematics that had to be drawn.
No sweat, even with the government-issue #3 lead pencils we
had to use. I printed my answers to be sure they had a
minimum of handwriting-interpretation tasks. :-) I passed.

The law's requirements for VEs doesn't require ANY of them
to possess academic certificates or college degrees nor
experience in test-giving and test-grading. Privatization of
ALL radio operator license testing (commercial as well as
amateur) pretty much dictates the easier-to-grade multiple-
choice question-answer format. Certainly so for the all-
volunteer amateur radio test coordinators.

Those Old Study Guides
 

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

Now, a better question would be, if the current test procedure produce
operators capable of functioning at the minimum entry level for that
particular classification of ham, why would we feel compelled to change it?
Bear in mind, I'm not opposed to proposing a change to the testing method
provided there is a tangable benefit to it beyond simply making it harder to
get a ticket.

I agree a much better question don't expect an answer from jim though

and yes if I am shown a better method that will work at least as well
etc and serve th interest of the public and the ars i will be all for
it but on the scale of how hard the test should I want the number to be
1.0 enough units if that can not be assured Id rather have the test be
0,9 enough units than 2 or more enough units

Those Old Study Guides
 

From: Cecil Moore on Mon, Jan 22 2007 9:07 am

AaronJ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
as of a government"

From the Noah Pro definition of hobby:
"avocation, by-line, sideline, spare-time activity, an auxiliary activity"

Which of our definitions better fits ham radio, service or hobby...

It is by law, Part 97, the "Amateur Radio Service".
That part cannot be argued. The "service" that is
performed is by the federal government for the
benefit of US citizens.

Welp, putting dictionaries aside, I rather prefer
the FCC's own definition of the word "service" in
regard to ALL of Title 47 C.F.R. (of which Part 97
is one of the smaller Parts):

"The word 'service' is a regulatory term, denoting
a type and kind of radio activity being regulated."

All throughout Title 47 is found the word "service"
such as Private Land Mobile Radio SERVICE, Aviation
Radio SERVICE, and (gasp!) Citizens Band Radio
SERVICE! :-)

It also meets the definition of "hobby". It is not
a choice of either/or. It is both.

Ahem, that's an interpretation. I prefer what the
FCC itself uses in regards to definitions...and also
note that the FCC is chartered by Congress to only
US civil radio. Military SERVICE is governed by the
Department of Defense and military radio use is done
in cooperation with the NTIA. By law, the FCC
cannot regulate military radio service.

One problem with so many amateur licensees is their
imaginations leading them to believe (wrongly) that
their (defacto) hobby is a form of "national service"
just by being federally licensed. That imagination
makes them think they are more than just hobbyists.
They reinforce that by boastfully pointing to their
volunteer efforts in helping their communities. In
truth, ANY citizen can volunteer to help their
community (in or out of emergency situations)
without any "license" of any kind. That's called
"civic duty," sometimes "civic responsibility."

I've nothing against anyone pipe-dreaming or doing
the wish-fulfillment dreaming. However, such
fantasy role-playing should NOT be codified in law
NOR be some kind of "definition" which is really
a grossly-distorted interpretation. Politicians
are constantly reinforcing such pipe-dreaming and
fantasy role-playing by proclaiming the "goodness"
and "nobleness" of ALL KINDS of activities. But,
those proclamations are just the usual political
bull**** done to favor certain groups and get the
politicians' names into public media.

US amateur radio is basically a HOBBY, a radio
activity of NON-pecuniary compensation, forbidden
by law to be a broadcasting service. It is
regulated by charter of the Congress due to the
nature of laws of physics and the propagation of
electromagnetic waves...something that applies to
ALL radio, not just amateur radio.

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

From: "KH6HZ" on Mon, Jan 22 2007 6:53 am

wrote:

lolol.

Poor senile old boy.

I think its funny you obsess over me so much, even after 10 years.

"Judge" Miccolis has "ruled" that there is no statute of
limitartions in newsgroups. Take it to his court...

For the record, my Ship License was WCN4898, not WCD6729. Anyone with half a
brain can check the ULS and see the FRN on my (expired) ship license.

Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
"legally" defrauding the US government?

Ship radio license WCD6729 was granted 1 Feb 94, no FRN given,
FCC required mailing address given as Grapeview, WA, 98546.

Ship radio license WCN4898 was granted 13 Oct 94, FRN given
as 0003639002, mailing address given as Chepachet, RI.

Both ship radio licenses expired in 2004.

Both ship radio licenses were granted to "Deignan, Michael P."

Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
"Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
licenses at one time...PLUS having given his "residence"
address to the FCC as a Post Office Box in Hawaii, not
only for those alleged "club" calls but also his own Vanity
license application. Was "Deignan, Michael P." EVER a
RESIDENT in the state of Hawaii? Residency is not defined
as temporarily staying there as on a vacation.

"Deignan, Michael P." isn't a common name. Are we to assume
that there is more than one Deignan with the same given first
name and middle initial in the USA? I think not. The names
and dates all point to a single individual.

FCC ULS data show that "Deignan, Michael P." prefers Post
Office Box "addresses," regardless of state. That's
called a "tell" to investigators. A common characteristic
of those seeking to hide something. Anyone with a full
brain can see these alleged "coincidences" aren't quite
so coincidental.

Now, I could go into the collusion you had with Jeffrey
Herman on your KH6 vanity callsign...but that has already
been done and you've been forced to give up your "club"
calls by the FCC. Tsk, tsk. The mighty "RF Commandos"
were mustered out and the VA offers them NO benefits.

It's rather obvious also that you refused to give an
explanation for taking out so many "club" calls or the
misleading "residence address" of Hawaii for you vanity
callsign. [a KH6 must be oh, so tres chic in New England
area, much better than a plebian KD1 like your previous
license of KD1HZ, another vanity call]


Jot that down on a yellow sticky and put it next to your acoustic modem, ok,
Lennie?

I have neither "yellow stickys" nor acoustic modem.

Might wanna get the visiting nurse to come and change your diaper a little
more often too, you get so grumpy when you're soiled.

Tsk, tsk, an amateur extra betraying Miccolis' boast that
all pro-coders are "polite, civil" people who never
utter personal insults? Yes, they DO exist as proven by
the quotes above.

I have no "visiting nurse" and do not use or wear "diapers."
But, to drop to the vernacular of the ugly, feel free to
eat my shorts. :-)

Aloha,

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

KH6HZ wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote:

It seems that a lot of folks are "memorizing" the test
questions and not mastering the material.

I've been stating this very thing for close to 10 years now.

Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not
impossible to memorize just the questions and not know the
concepts.

It is important to put "memorize" in quotes, because (as others have
mentioned) it is highly unlikely someone memorizes verbatim the question and
exact answer. More likely what actually happens is people become familiar
enough with the question pool after drilling long enough that they simply
recognize the correct answer -- no real "memorization" per se of the actual
question or answer. Much like the same way you become familiar with, say,
streets along your daily commute, even though you probably do not have a map
memorized in your head.

Exactly - you may not even consciously know the street names, but you
know
the route.

Here's another "memorization" example:

Way back when "Trivial Pursuit" first came out, somebody gave me the
game as a present. I kept the card sets out and carried a small bundle
around with me. I'd glance
at them at odd moments - waiting for/riding the elevator, during TV
commercials, while waiting for the washer or dryer to complete a load,
etc. In a relatively short time I had gone through the first box of
cards twice.

I didn't try to consciously memorize the questions and answers on the
cards, I just read the questions, tried to guess the answers, and then
looked to see if I was right.

The end result was that I was near-unbeatable in a game *if* they
started with the first box of cards. I hadn't really "memorized" all
the Q&A, or even most of them, but having seen them before put me way
ahead of most other players.

I'd argue that this is very short sighted

It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in 97.1

Perhaps, but that's not the big issue.

What I see as the big issue is that such testing may actually do a
disservice to the amateurs themselves, because they wind up with a
license but not the basic knowledge
on how to set up a station and operate it.

so one wonders what the solution here is... I suppose we
could increase the question pool by 10 fold or so and make
it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?

My proposed solution is to eliminate question pools entirely, and instead
have a computerized question pool which is entirely randomly generated based
on various parameters. For example, take this question from the Tech
license:

T7B10 (B)
What is the satellite sub-band on 70-CM?
A. 420 to 450 MHz
B. 435 to 438 MHz
C. 440 to 450 MHz
D. 432 to 433 MHz

Now, rather than having 4 set answers, why couldn't we simply have a
computer program generate the correct answer and 3 distractors
automatically?

Because that wouldn't help the situation at all - at least not in the
above example.

First off, a regulations question is essentially a memorization
question. A Ph.D. in EE,
a pile of patents and the Nobel Prize in physics won't help a person
answer that question if they don't know the relevant rules in Part 97.

Second, if the exact questions are publicly available, figuring out the
correct answer is pretty easy. Then all the person has to do is
"memorize" the correct answer enough to recognize it. Changing the
distractors doesn't make any difference. In fact, if one intends to
"memorize" the pool, the first step is to blank out all the distractors
and only look at the right answers!

Where such an approach would have an effect would be in questions like
Ohm's Law, where the values could be randomly generated.

Some people have argued that my idea makes the test too "hard", or makes it
appear as a "graduation exam".

From the perspective that the exam is harder, that is probably true. You
would actually need to know the material, rather than simply become familiar
enough with the question pools to pass the examination.

Maybe not. I think that, in the long run, it is actually easier to
learn the material.
It's the short run that is the problem.

However, in no way do I support (or suggest) that we make the examination
"harder" from a material perspective. If an applicant is supposed to "know"
ohms law on an examination, is it too much to ask that they really
demonstrate they "know" it, rather than simply "know" what the answer to the
question is, with no real understanding of the theory behind the question?

Agreed! The issue is *not* how "hard" the tests are, but how good they
are.

Like Cecil once said... The examinations are not supposed to be graduation
exams, nor do I support any type of proposal to make them more difficult,
from a content perspective. My suggestion, however, which I've posted for at
least 6-7 years, is to simply make the question pools computerized to
eliminate the ability of applicants to "memorize" the Q&A's, and ensure that
applicants actually know the material they are tested on.

Agree again!

In practice, however, not much can be done other than to enlarge the
question pools
and possibly have computer randomization of values. The FCC is clearly
not going to
take over the testing jobs that have been done by unpaid volunteers for
more than 20
years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
snip
...



Len:

Sorry for snipping it all.

Do that again and I'll have Governor Arnie "pay you a visit..."

Remember that Stockton ain't far from Sacramento...:-)

Great work of text, logic and facts!

So, you claim hams are nothing more than
"Glorified-CB'ers-with-visions-of-grandeur?"

Nah...only SOME of them. Peyote-munchers or stash
puffers or the sweet nothings desperately searching for
ANY kind of title-rank-status that they never had.

Well, the CB'ers have claimed that for decades! grin

Yanno (to use your own expression), I've NEVER heard
that claim. Really. But, I don't hang out with CB-ers,
just give a listen once in a while. All I hear (besides
heterodynes) are ordinary folks gabbing, communicating,
and so forth, hardly anyone using the Gog-diven, OFFICIAL
Language of Radio hamspeak. Roger that, old-timer? :-)

Warmest regards,

Thank you but I will appreciate just some warmth. I hope
the San Walk-In is suffering less from this alleged
"global warming" Arnie wants to put off. Brrrrrr.

Overranout, beep, beep,

LA

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

wrote in message
...
I think you have the worng Mork
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

CLEAN THE YARD UP!

http://i10.tinypic.com/4fzaadx.jpg


http://www.badongo.com/vid/277528



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Those Old Study Guides
 

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.


Is there really a problem here? Or is it that we have fun arguing this
issue here? Ham are. for the most part, quite well behaved, unlike the
CBers. So I don't see what is broken in ham radio testing.

Those Old Study Guides
 

wrote:
One problem with so many amateur licensees is their
imaginations leading them to believe (wrongly) that
their (defacto) hobby is a form of "national service"
just by being federally licensed.

Like I said, the Amateur Radio Service is a one-way
national service being offered *BY* the federal government
*TO* qualified members of the ARS. It is the federal
government that is serving amateur radio, not the other
way around.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Those Old Study Guides
 

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:

Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:

(a) battery with internal resistance,
(b) resistive load,
(c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter

.
Study Question #32:

From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power
consumed by the load be determined?


Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?


Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
following components:

(a) triode vacuum tube,
(b) pi-network output tank
(c) high voltage source
(d) plate-current meter
(e) plate-voltage meter,
(f) rf chokes,
(g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.


Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?

These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that
were on the old exams.

The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the
amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe
license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e".

The question would be something like,
"which is the coupling capacitor?"
"which is an rf choke?"
"what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit
above?"

So you would have to learn the circuit, the components in it, and their
names
and functions. Then the actual exam would use a completely different
format
from the study guide.

The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small part
of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was covered!

How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
detail.

This is the first time I have ever seen the old format but I must admit I
prefer the old format to the new, without the answers published in advance.
Actually the new extra class format asks the same sort of questions but
being able to answer the old format seems to more accurately measure one's
basic understanding of an amplifier circuit. I vote for the old. Why did
they change it to multiple guess?

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

wrote:

Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
"legally" defrauding the US government?

Assuming for a moment that I did, indeed, hold two ship licenses (one of
which was for an ocean-going trawler - lmao) is there a law which states I
cannot hold multiple ship licenses?


Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
"Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
licenses at one time...

So? Is there a law that places a limit on the # of callsigns one individual
can be trustee of?


PLUS having given his "residence"
address to the FCC as a Post Office Box in Hawaii, not
only for those alleged "club" calls but also his own Vanity
license application.

So? Is there a law (or Part 97 regulation) which states individuals cannot
use PO Boxes for their mailing addresses?

Doesn't Morkie use a PO Box for his license?


"Deignan, Michael P." isn't a common name. Are we to assume
that there is more than one Deignan with the same given first
name and middle initial in the USA? I think not. The names
and dates all point to a single individual.

lmao.. damn Lennie, you've done way too many drugs in your day.

I'm touched that you're so obsessed with my life. It really is quite
hilarious.

I can pick up the Rhodyland phone book and find reference to 3 other Michael
Deignan's in my state alone.

My name is neither uncommon nor unusual, it is, actually, a relatively
common Irish last name, as are my first (and middle) names.

Now, I'll grant you, in the Deep South you're not likely to find many folks
with my last name.. but in Boston? Quite a few.


FCC ULS data show that "Deignan, Michael P." prefers Post
Office Box "addresses," regardless of state. That's
called a "tell" to investigators.

What's it "tell" that Morkie uses a PO Box for his mailing address?


A common characteristic
of those seeking to hide something.

What's Morkie hiding?

I use a PO Box when I have to. No law or regulation states I cannot.


Anyone with a full
brain can see these alleged "coincidences" aren't quite
so coincidental.

But then again, Lennie, we've known for at least a decade you're not playing
with a full deck.


The mighty "RF Commandos"
were mustered out and the VA offers them NO benefits.

Oddly enough, the RF Commandos is still in full operation -- we even have
our own club callsign, used principally for the automated operation of our
hidden transmitters. And *gasp* I'm STILL the trustee! Drop by sometime,
perhaps we'll even let you be the 'fox' in our foxhunts -- though I imagine
there wouldn't be much challenge DFing a drooling old fool in a wheelchair,
would there be?


I have no "visiting nurse" and do not use or wear "diapers."

There is no other logical explanation for your attitude other than a cold,
wet diaper. Common with folks your age, Lennie. Probably explains why you
can't get a ham license too.

Those Old Study Guides
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

The law's requirements for VEs doesn't require ANY of them
to possess academic certificates or college degrees nor
experience in test-giving and test-grading. Privatization of
ALL radio operator license testing (commercial as well as
amateur) pretty much dictates the easier-to-grade multiple-
choice question-answer format. Certainly so for the all-
volunteer amateur radio test coordinators.

I hadn't thought about it that way but of course it is true that VE's can be
assumed to have no academic qualifications and must grade the tests using a
template with holes. You are absolutely correct on this Len.

Those Old Study Guides
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
Why did they change it to multiple guess?

Are the exam questions covered under the
freedom of information act?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com