wrote:
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.

That's probably true. So do "we" want new hams to
have a broad-shallow knowledge or a narrow-deep
knowledge? Do "we" want Swiss Army Knife type hams
or quantum electrodynamic photon experts? I suggest
the former would be more valuable to the "service".

Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades-
and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the
"service" than one who is ignorant of most trades
and master of one.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

From: "an old friend" on Fri, Jan 19 2007 10:42 pm

wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:27 pm

I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.

I really can't understand WHY some "vetting" process
was needed. A hobby is an avocation, NOT an occupation.
Survival of amateur radio never did depend on "how well
anyone sent code" nor was the country in danger if some
sent it badly...neither was it more secure if some
could send it "perfectly."

realy Len as I understand It was ONCE vital to the ARS in 1908
certainly but somewhere betwen that date and 1950 that ended

Yes, it very definitely ended - insofar as REALITY of
the times is concerned.

I can't speak with life experience about 1908 but, in
1950 I was a Junior in High School and had already
fooled around with "radio" in various forms, some WW2
surplus conversions, some homebuilt. 1950 is 56
years ago. :-)

By 1950 many things in "radio" had happened. The
military networks had converted to teleprinter for
the vast bulk of long-distance communications on HF
during WW2 and, with US military now all over the
globe, a definite "Cold War" needed quicker comms.
The public had gotten a taste of "on the scene" radio
in 1940 with Edward R. Murrow's broadcasts from
London DURING the "Blitz." Television broadcasting
was exploding in scope and availability of TV receivers
all over the nation. The US Army had already proved
the viability of using the moon as a reflector of
radio waves ("Project Diana" in 1946). US Public
Safety radio services were busy converting to VHF FM
voice for police, fire departments, ambulances,
state patrols. AT&T was busy with the first trials
of long-distance microwave relay of television and
hundreds of voice circuits on a single microwave link.
Single-channel SSB had come into reality courtesy of
the new Strategic Air Command's need for reliable
long-distance voice communications for their
bombers...a different version of multi-voice-
channel "SSB" in worldwide use since the 1930s.
Metallurgists and physicists were busy trying to
produce a new gadget called a "transistor" in
quantity, having to invent all sorts of things
needed to make them economically feasible. The
experimenters in crystal growth were beginning to be
successful in making large, pure, man-made crystals
of quartz and those methods would also be used in
making germanium and silicon ultra-pure later. FM
audio broadcasting was expanding under new
regulations and a US realignment of allocations
above 30 MHz. Standardization of FM stereo broad-
casts was still being worked out and the NTSC was
being called together again to work out color TV
broadcasting standards; the "fight" between CBS and
RCA methods had come to an impasse (industry didn't
really like either one). Radar was, of course,
already proven and was expanding in civilian
applications. Raytheon, in some lab trials with
old S-Band magnetrons, discovered that one could
heat foods with controlled microwave energy and
the first of the "Radaranges" had been born (they
would - foolishly? - sell that concept and brand
name to Amana). Civil airways communications were
close to standardizing worldwide on the US military
pioneering of VHF communications and radionavigation
systems...already given a baptism of fire with the
Berlin Blockade of 1948 and the intense Allied air
cargo supply effort to keep that city alive. Air
to ground radiotelemetry was already being used
during tests of new aircraft and was being adapted
for missle testing and guidance (using mostly
captured German V2 rockets). The old IFF
(Identification Friend or Foe) L-band transponder
system for aircraft of later WW2 was being improved
and standardization for civilian applications being
done by a newly-re-formed ARINC. The USN was busy
pioneering TACAN at L-band and was having success
with that (especially for carrier-based aircraft);
TACAN would eventually be adopted for the military
and a civilian form, DME (Distance Measuring
Equipment) was being tested. Civilian radio-
navigation testing of VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional Range) was successful, an easy-
to-use directional navigation aid that would work
in small general aviation aircraft. The maritime
world wasn't happy with LORAN so some other systems
were being tried out such as DECCA. The USN would
eventually prove out the prototype that would
become GPSS for the whole world. Up-and-coming
UK science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke (an
engineer on RAF work with radar-assisted landing
in WW2) had already written up a three-satellite
worldwide radio communications relay system in
Wireless World magazine and lots of folks were
beginning to have deep thoughts about that...no
worries about "MUF" or other HF propagation quirks
since it wouldn't depend on ionospheric bounce.

In 1950 the ARRL was busy promoting the glory and
majesty of the "epitome" of radio communications,
on-off keying CW as "vital" to maintain a "pool of
trained radio operators" in the USA via ham radio.
Oh, and a very few smart amateur radio hobbyists
(who were also engineers and educators at their
day jobs) were trying to explain SSB theory in
the pages of QST. There was great resistance to
this new-fangled SSB in the rank and file of
amateur brass pounders then, and apparently there
still is... :-)

Okay, so it is 57 years later. What do we have in
the world of "radio?" Communication satellites
are busy working 24/7, their equatorial orbit spaces
already FILLED, supplying us with speed-of-light
comms over carriers of TV, voice, data, and the
part of the international backbone of the Internet.
Land-based microwave radio relay is being replaced
by fiber optic cable handling digitized anything
at GigaHertz rates...under the oceans too. One in
three Americans now has a cell phone, a little two-
way radio tied into the telephone system, something
never really envisioned in 1950 despite the early
"walkie-talkies." Cell phones can now contain
digital cameras and little calculators, play hours
of digitally-recorded sound. All of that enabled
by the enormous technology explosion of the solid-
state ear beginning about 1960. Digital TV is now
a reality, both broadcast as well as cable. We
have stereo FM broadcast, even multi-channel audio
with "storecast." "Shortwave" broadcasters are
transmitting digital audio on HF, something pooh-
poohed as "impossible" by certain "radio experts."
The old 500 KHz worldwide maritime emergency
frequency is all but dead, replaced by Inmarsat-
relayed GMDSS...a system conceived and approved by
the maritime community. No more dramatic morse
messages from stricken ships, now its a quick,
almost-anyone-can-use-it data message that will be
picked up worldwide. GPS is, of course, a proven
reality and many different models of receivers
can be purchased at consumer electronics stores.
The aviation community is considering replacing
the 1955-standardized-worldwide civil airways
radionavigation with GPS, possibly a hybrid using
microwaves for the approach guidance. RFID is now
a reality, able to track everything at store
portals and, with implants, animals and people.
Private boat owners can add HF SSB to their harbor
and inland VHF radio equipment, many models, even
some made entirely in the USA (SGC in Puget Sound),
no big "test" needed. Almost every long-distance
truck operator has at least one CB radio on board
and that has been so for decades. Police and fire
department personnel can carry VHF or UHF two-way
radios on their person for instant communications.
In some police departments their VHF and UHF
radios have two-way data transmission capability
via "computer" terminal equipment in patrol cars.
WLANs (Wireless Local Area Networks) have been a
reality for a decade, used in large offices and
businesses spread over a large area, even in
factories (with all their inherent RFI from
motors, etc.). Homes can be networked wirelessly.
Cordless telephones, once operating solely on
49 MHz, have expanded to the 5 GHz ISM band (once
a seeming impossibility a half century prior)
and with security through on-line digital
encryption. Anyone watching team sports on TV
can see the ubiquitous Motorola logo on headsets
of coaches, little wireless two-way radios that
are similar to the $50 per pair FRS and GMRS
handie-talkies sold in consumer electronics stores.
The US military has highly secure digital radios
(low VHF range up through mid-UHF, almost jam-
proof) for small-unit land comms (voice and/or
data) and in relay with air and sea support;
they've had that since 1989. The military has
long had the 225-400 MHz band for AM airborne
voice comms and has peripheral equipment to adapt
it for secure digital voice and data. Of course,
the military has had precision GPS since 1980
(they pioneered and paid for it). NASA has
radio equipment for tracking and receiving data
(including imagery) from very distant space
probes and, in the late 1960s, enabled us to see
the first humans set foot on the moon in real
time, audio and video. Radio even relayed real-
time biometric data from astronauts on their way
to and from the moon. US submarines still use
VLF radio to communicate while submerged, all
using encrypted data (not morse code)...very slow
speed data but also very secure and automatically
recorded at the ship.

In early 2007 the FCC will finally END the "need"
to test for morse code skill to get any amateur
radio license. They did this despite the
insistence of olde-tymers that one "HAD" to test
for morse in order to "qualify" to enter the
"service" of US amateur radio. I'm not sure
where and what these olde-tymers imagine US ham
radio is, but they just don't realize the entire
rest of the radio world has long since dropped
morse code as any requirement for communications.
Amateur radio has always been a HOBBY, nothing
more, nothing less.

Morsemanship "vital" to the nation? No way.
Morsemanship "necessary" for emergency work? No
way. Morsemanship "needed to provide a pool of
trained radio operator for national defence?"
No way. Morsemanship "necessary" for government
licensing purposes? No way, even back in 1990.
Morsemanship an absolute must for ham radio? No,
that was always a figment of the old morsemen's
imagination, implanted there by ancient tales of
emotional glory of the distant PAST.

It is excellent that the FCC is finally getting around
to modernizing the US amateur radio regulations.

From: Steve Bonine on Fri, Jan 19 2007 8:20 pm

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.

Good post, but I have to dispute a few things in your
paragraph. For example, on tests and testing.

In "today's environment" the "students" seem to be about
as willing and knowledge-hungry as when I was in high
school. [graduating class of 1951...:-)]

To further define that, SOME students cared and SOME
students didn't much give a snit, most of those in
between varied considerably. I can see the same
basic attitudes of invididuals now as back then...if one
strips off the veneer of what is/was social behavior
in their peer group. [that seems to cloud many
folks observation capability...of those who had a
different social environment/mores/ethos].

As a working design engineer for a long time, I've
NEVER questioned the "why" of Ohm's Law of Resistance.
It simply WAS. It's just one of the many laws of
radio-related physics.

Yes, I suppose I could write up a bunch of stuff on
Ohm and the "why" of his "law" since I once HAD to
learn that at some instructor's insistence (he never
did any design work himself, just "taught", but all
had to comply in order to pass his course). In 50+
years NOBODY has asked me about the "why" of Ohm's
Law of Resistance. That amounts to hundreds of
knowledgeable folks. Ohm's law just IS.

More radio-related is the equation for resonance.
[frequency=1/(2 pi (L*C)^0.5), in units of Hertz,
Henries, Farads] The "why" of that? I would have
to research it, spend two weeks or so at that, all
spinning my wheels on rote work that has NO
intrinsic worth. I KNOW it works because I've
proved it to myself over and over and over again
in actual calculation, construction and test. It
is one of those things that just IS. Memorize it,
engrave it on the synapses, and go to work USING it.
It is a reliable equation and works every time.

"Ohm's Law" is a very, very simple equation using
only three variables and not one single trans-
cendental function. It's almost elementary
algebra. To some licensed amateurs it might seem
to be "rocket science." :-)

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.

The material in the US amateur radio test is up to
the FCC to decide. The FCC grants the licenses,
not the "amateur community." The FCC was never
chartered to be an academic organization agency.

From my observation, most of the folks "perceiving
the goal of the exam" are usually working from a
base line of their OWN knowledge and experience;
i.e., expecting all to be "as good as they." :-)

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.

On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
radio.

Again, the function of the FCC is simply to regulate
all US civil radio. The FCC grants the licenses and
they have the task of deciding what is necessary for
Their test. To save taxpayer dollars, the FCC created
privatized testing via COLEMs and VECs. For US amateur
radio the VEC create the questions and answers which
are then approved/disproved by the FCC. By regulation
the VEC are required to be already-licensed radio
amateurs. Presumably those volunteer examiners know
something about radio and the general knowledge base
or background of those taking license tests. :-)

It would seem more logic to steer the discussion onto
the VEC Question Pool Committee rather than to blabber
about What Should Be (or What Should Not). The VEC QPC
determine the questions and answers and approval seems
to be pro-forma with the FCC. What seems to be the
case on that subject in here is merely Word War III
on licensing and an ignition point for yet one more
conflagration of the Angry Insistent (on Their way).


In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a
piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law?

Good question. :-)

One such inhabitant of this Din of Inequity (K4YZ) once
stated he "deserved an extra" because of his "ability to
tune in a signal!" :-)


In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero.

I disagree with that considerably. The expenditure of
anyone on their hobby is up to the individual hobbyist.
Being aware of several hobbies done by folks I am
acquainted with, such expenditure of personal time and
effort varies and none of it is compensated for by
anyone but the hobbyist.

It's an old, trite phrase in here that "all must dedicate
themselves and work hard" for an amateur radio license,
any class. Again, I'll ask "why?" Who is going to
compensate those ham radio hobbyists? Will they get
cheers and bouquets from their fellow hobbyists for such
"dedication?" I think not. At best they would get a
few words of approval if in person. In here they would
receive yet-another flame war trigger of antagonistic
comment, of allegedly "not doing as good" as the flamer.

This "dedication" thing seems to be an imaginary construct
existing in different forms in each individual. Amateur
radio is a hobby. It isn't a craft, a guild, a union, or
any occupation thing. The hobby is NOT necessary for the
survival of the nation nor one whose primary concern is
public safety. [like all citizen organizations, they CAN
be of aid in emergencies but that is NOT a prerequisite
in the amateur radio regulations] Does everyone have to
be "dedicated" to something? Or can't they just go and
enjoy the hobby without meeting someone else's idea of
"standards?"

There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

I differ on that. Requirements EVOLVE as I see them.
They evolve to fit many, many things but, foremost, I
think is that they should fit the present-day and the
immediate future.

There was nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 nor
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that mandated amateur
radio to preserve and protect the old ways of amateur
radio. Nothing about preservation of "tradition." The
agency granting all amateur radio licenses in the US
exists solely to regulate all US civil radio...it is NOT
a "club," NOT some agency beholden to anyone specific
or any organization.

The FCC should be responsive to ALL US citizens, on ANY
radio service it regulates. For the most part I think
they are just that. The FCC and its ham radio license
testing doesn't exist to provide emotional sustenance
to the olde-tyme ham radio lifestylers who wish to
preserve the environment as it was when they were
first licensed. That's not evolution, just stagnation
in favor of a small minority. That is FAR from
"serving the nation," just ordinary selfishness.

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few
sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not*
be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would
cover the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc.
So the typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards,
forwards and sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test.

Frankly, that is what I did for my Extra exam. That was much easier that
trying to memorize the pool.

OTOH some of the materail is only possible to learn by memorization the
band edges, rules. I find the RF safety easy but then I have studied
maxwells equation and reconzie element from them but the answer is an
arbitary limit set by the FCC


But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able
to solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the
correct answer out of the four supplied.

I am so weary of that chestnut. I suppose real engineers don't
consult design manuals for hints and ideas.

me too

In any field these days where it is necessary to prove that the
worker has been exposed to a particular bit of knowledge, there will be
a question pool. I've seen it for fields where a mistake can cost lives,
such as study guides with question pools for electrical code work. I can
get you the name of the book if you are skeptical. Its just how it is.
And I can remember what I studied for on my tests - I believe that the
pool does no harm, and a de facto pool has existed for many years.



I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not
know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a
limited space.

My own thoughts on how Amateur radio should be organized are that
the higher classes of license should be earned by time in grade, so to
speak. I don't think that an extra should not know how to erect a HF
antenna, or have no experience with operations in general - and the
present system allows that.

interesting diea Id coment more and negitively but I see your next para

Of course, it is possible for the person to wait out the period of
time before upgrading, but two things work against that - attrition due
to lack of interest, and the likelyhood that a person who does simply
wait it out without actually doing anything before upgrading is just
going to be some sort of statistic.



I would agree with your point. In this day of 100 percent appliance
stations, Amateurs should build as much as they can.

funny I have built a few thing I am found of vacutumed 6 m am unit I
built from direction in CQ VHF was supposed to be based of a radio
originaly published for use on an 5 m band with just the compents
altered a bit to fit 6m


And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background
needed?

I think that the old novice test could have been taught in a day
also. Much of what is on the Technician test is common sense.

As for needed background, I think that getting licensed, getting on
the air and being elmered is what produces good hams.

elmerd and not abused

Too much of what I have heard from a lot of old time hams is
disdain for newcomers - even now before the "great unwashed" come into
the hobby. Fortunately nickle Extras such as myself will be there to
help, not belittle or chase away.

I think I'm going to go heat up the Garage and get to work on that
mobile antenna I am building. Fun chat, Jim.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
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.

That's probably true. So do "we" want new hams to
have a broad-shallow knowledge or a narrow-deep
knowledge? Do "we" want Swiss Army Knife type hams
or quantum electrodynamic photon experts? I suggest
the former would be more valuable to the "service".

Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades-
and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the
"service" than one who is ignorant of most trades
and master of one.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Didit

wrote in news:1169319231.725804.81990
@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.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?

I'm assuming that if the applicant recieves question number 32 or
33 that they also recieved number 31?






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.

Yup, that was in the study guide that I looked at.



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

did they get both questions again?



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.

Is that supposed to be difficult? If you had a basic knowledge of
the circuit, you would be able to guess at the part names - if you
didn't already know..



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.

Which of course means that the applicant knew what to concentrate
on. sometimes I think that what a lot of Hams want is for the test
questions to be both very much in depth, and completely random, with the
questions produced on-site by the steely eyed proctor. ;^)

Agreed on your point about the increased number of potential
subjects to cover in the present day tests. I suspect the only way to
reconcile that with your (testing wishes?) would be to concurrently test
to the old time depth, with the increased subject matter? I doubt that
quadrupleing the number of test questions would sit very well with
anyone except those who don't have to take the tests any more.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

" wrote in
ps.com:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:27 pm

wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
KC4UAI wrote:

Time to end the debate I suppose...

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.

Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?

[does that mean Miccolis can't understand what the ARRL
wrote on its web page? :-)]


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

[quick, someone put up a sign saying "wet floor"...a
bunch of morsemen spilled their cask of sour grape mash!]

Hi Jim,

Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's
were
higher than thay are now?

Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco
study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?

In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first,
and answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the
book! All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question
pool...

After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?

Hello Mike.

Sigh...it's an old, old story with humans...whatever
someone did in their (relative) youth was ALWAYS "more
difficult" than what anyone else does in the present time! :-)

Don't know if you read the other post I wrote on the subject in a
different thread, but I'll repeat it here.

In trying to figure out just where this canard came from, sfter my
investigation into why the "old tests were so much harder", I came to
the conclusion that they weren't more difficult.

So where the discrepancy?


My theory is that when these old timers took the test, they weren't
all that knowlegable. So those tests were harder for them. During their
post-test lifetime, they learned more, and became more experienced.

But they forgot that they learned all that stuff, and in the
crankiness that middle aged men can fall prey to, suddnely expect that
all the new hams should know aht they do now.

I also suspect it doesn't matter. They don't dislike the new hams
because they are dumb or less qualified, they dislike new things.


I've heard that song played over and over again for as long
as I've been an adult. The lyrics might change a bit from
decade to decade but the tune is the same. :-)

All these olde-tymers walked (uphill both ways) barefoot
through the snow to take Their FCC exams. :-)

Funny you should mention 1956. It's a clear time in my
life experience. In the summer of 1956 I was at H&H
Electronics in Rockford, IL, talking to Gene Hubbel, then
a W9, later W7DI (now SK). H&H had just gotten in some
new study guides. Can't remember the publisher but I
categorized all such as "Q&A" books. Must have been at
least three different publishers around that time. I
looked through a couple of them (always a nice "feel" to
a brand new book out of the carton). An "in-your-face"
customer asked me if I was going to take a test? I
replied, "already did it in March" and pulled out my
small First 'Phone ID card. Sneering he then asked
"which [Q&A book] did I use?" I said "None" and,
disbelieving, he was about to get physical over that!
[really, some folks wander around always looking for a
fight] Gene distracted him before the small store got
torn up. [not a big problem for me to handle physical
stuff since I had been released from active Army duty in
February] I had never used any Q&A book earlier that
year because no store in town had them...had to settle
for memorizing a borrowed copy of the FCC regs then
published in loose-leaf format. Hard work, that, but
it got done, I passed my First 'Phone but never "aced"
it. Passing was good enough for me then. Didn't walk
uphill both ways to Chicago, just rode the train 90
miles (shoes always on feet) to get there. shrug

I looked in here nearly a decade ago and there were
the "in-your-face" yahoos tawkin 'bout how HARD it
was for them...in the 60s...in the 70s...etc. :-)
The really rabid ones were going on about "the GROL
ain't hard, not like the AMATEUR EXTRA!!!" :-)
They apparently were too young to remember that a
GROL didn't get created until around 1980 or so. It
eventually became a lifetime thing, no renewals
necessary. Wasn't so in 1956 when a First 'Phone
took at least two hours to complete four different
test parts, only one of which was multiple-choice.

I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially
from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams
regarding how much better a vetting process the old old system was is
going to be a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination
ever was.

I really can't understand WHY some "vetting" process
was needed. A hobby is an avocation, NOT an occupation.
Survival of amateur radio never did depend on "how well
anyone sent code" nor was the country in danger if some
sent it badly...neither was it more secure if some
could send it "perfectly."

I don't really have any problems with levels of "ability" and goals
such as DX awards or contesting. I do have problems with superior hams.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Steve Bonine wrote in
m:

wrote:

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too
much on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much
has to really be learned to pass those tests, rather than
understanding basic radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have
a license yet not know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF
antenna in a limited 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.


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




On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge
of radio.

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 was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.

But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods.
Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in
fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true
today.

Where did you get that?


I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's
pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years
ago.

In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on
a piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But
Ohm's law?

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

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician
in a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the
new hams who get their licenses that way really have the background
needed?

The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah,
maybe they do.

I'll bet those stupid Novices used to bother the good Hams too....
;^)

When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week
for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license.
Then I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus
learning enough theory to pass the General exam.

I spent 6 months learning Morse code to 5 wpm, failing my first test.
Aced the other tests.


In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

I respectfully disagree. Since we started a new program to recruit
and test new hams (and upgrade old ones) we've been doing at least one a
month. We're working well above attrition and the actuarial tables.
That's hardly vanishingly small interest.

That's just the start. We have a station for the new guys and gals
to use, with a control Op if need be (usually me) to sit with 'em as
they get their feet wet.

Wanna know the best way to turn off new hams? Be grumpy and
superior. Know for sure that you had a much harder time to earn your
stripes than they did. Don't talk to them at club meetings. Make sure
they know you're superior, so don't miss a chance to tell em that. With
that sort of attitude you'll have a self fulfilling prophecy. Ham radio
will die - all around you, wherever you go.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote in news:qoush.50660$wc5.9835
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

wrote:
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.

That's probably true. So do "we" want new hams to
have a broad-shallow knowledge or a narrow-deep
knowledge? Do "we" want Swiss Army Knife type hams
or quantum electrodynamic photon experts? I suggest
the former would be more valuable to the "service".

Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades-
and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the
"service" than one who is ignorant of most trades
and master of one.

There are so many more possibilities in Amateur radio these days.
Lots of possibilities for test questions. RF safety, spaec station
operations. More bands to have those stupid band questions. Seems like a
good thing to me.

We often hear (and I believe) that the test is a starting point, not an
end. Exposure to the many facets of Amateur radio can only be better
than lots of questions about just a few subjects.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:qoush.50660$wc5.9835
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:


There are so many more possibilities in Amateur radio these days.
Lots of possibilities for test questions. RF safety, spaec station
operations. More bands to have those stupid band questions. Seems like a
good thing to me.

We often hear (and I believe) that the test is a starting point, not an
end. Exposure to the many facets of Amateur radio can only be better
than lots of questions about just a few subjects.

we do need (and we hams have in theory) good questions which ARE hard
to write and some the questions we have are well stinkers but each pool
I have read sems to be better than the one it replaced

so i suspect our current system is the worst of all worlds for testing
except of course for all the others that have been tried (seem to
recall that as a quote of someone

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -