wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18
-0500

It's been my life experience that MOST citizens will
voluntarily help out others in REAL emergencies, whether
or not they know how to operate a radio. Having been
IN a couple of REAL emergencies locally, I have yet to
experience first-hand any flurry of amateur activity to
"aid organizations who cannot communicate directly via
radio." During one of those REAL emergencies I've found
that the existing organizations were quite adequately
prepared...and drilled and trained on emergencies WITH
their equipment and worked-out emergency plans that
weren't public-relations news releases.

Back in 1999, I spent a week or so coordinating commumications between E-Com
(AKA 911) the National Guard, and the American Red Cross taking people to
shelters during an ice storm and major power outage. Nothing has upgraded
around here since then to allow the different agencies to communicate if
cell phones went out, so I'd be ready to do it again. Not all of us live in
the big cities and based on what I've seen critiqued, they aren't much
better than those of us out in the sticks when it comes to interagency
communications.

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.

And this benefited the ARS in which way. If someone knows the task...they
know the task. To be honest with you, I've known some CB'ers who knew as
much or more about radio than ham's. However, I've not known any CB'ers
since about 1974 or so.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:37:34 -0500, "Bob Brock"
wrote:


"robert casey" wrote in message
thlink.net...


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.

I agree. If it's not broke, don't try to fix it.

esp as it seem to me at least the questions pools are getting better
now that the FCC has left them to us (or rather to NVEC)
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

I'm reviewing to go to General and they seem to be pretty comprehensive to
me.

How about a question like this:

"A manufacturer guarantees his crystals to be within .01% of the
marked frequency, when used in the recommended circuit at 20
degrees C. The crystals have a negative temperature coefficient of
50 parts per million per degree C.




Would you put that question in an Amateur Radio test today?

Well, you could. You'd have to pick the correct answer from those
offered in the multiple choice. But you could work "backwards" with
each choice to find the one that fits right.




There are ways to cheat almost any system. Do you know of any
actual cheating under the old system?

Oh, there were jokes to the effect that for an extra fee, you were
guaranteed to pass...

There have been documented
cases of suspected cheating under the VEC system, where the FCC
called in hams who then flunked the retest.

I imagine that some of those recalled may have passed their retests....


Good, glad they were caught. One of the interesting things about
people when they get to be curmudgeons is that they use present day
exposures and punishments as some sort of evidence of corruption as
compared with the good old days, when there was apparently no corruption
because there wasn't any expose's of the wicked.

The FCC probably weighed the downsides of a cheater escaping undetected
and decided that such a cheater would not degrade the quality or safety
of the amateur service that much. Unlike say a cheater "passing" state
medical board exams to become a licensed medical doctor. You just have
to do enough to limit it to a level that doesn't make testing look like
a joke.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:04:35 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:21:23 -0500, "Bob Brock"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.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.

And this benefited the ARS in which way. If someone knows the task...they
know the task. To be honest with you, I've known some CB'ers who knew as
much or more about radio than ham's. However, I've not known any CB'ers
since about 1974 or so.

again he all but says that the exact pool was avable in point of fact
just through offical sources

how indeed does benifit the ARS or the Public that SOME folks did have
an unofficail leg up and some folks did not?

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Since you're replying to my post, let me make it emphatically clear
that I advocate publishing the questions and the answers as long as
the questions are all encompassing of what a ham needs to know.

From: "Bob Brock" on Mon, Jan 29 2007 12:18 am

wrote in message
From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18

It's been my life experience that MOST citizens will
voluntarily help out others in REAL emergencies, whether
or not they know how to operate a radio. Having been
IN a couple of REAL emergencies locally, I have yet to
experience first-hand any flurry of amateur activity to
"aid organizations who cannot communicate directly via
radio." During one of those REAL emergencies I've found
that the existing organizations were quite adequately
prepared...and drilled and trained on emergencies WITH
their equipment and worked-out emergency plans that
weren't public-relations news releases.

Back in 1999, I spent a week or so coordinating commumications between E-Com
(AKA 911) the National Guard, and the American Red Cross taking people to
shelters during an ice storm and major power outage. Nothing has upgraded
around here since then to allow the different agencies to communicate if
cell phones went out, so I'd be ready to do it again. Not all of us live in
the big cities and based on what I've seen critiqued, they aren't much
better than those of us out in the sticks when it comes to interagency
communications.

Yes, I can understand that "the sticks" (as you say) don't
have all the communications facilities. However, we can't
neglect the fact that so much of the USA population lives
in urban areas.

In my life experience, as I wrote, I've also been in
emergencies. Further, since I live in a "sunbelt" area,
we don't have ice storms and, usually, electric power
here is a reliable thing. But, I spent the first 19
years of my life IN a northern Illinois city that DID
experience ice storms, regular winter snowfall, etc.,
and the electric power was not always reliable. No, I
wasn't involved in radio comms then.

My urban area has a LARGE population. On January 17, 1994,
we all experienced a sizeable earthquake here. It killed
58 people. It left thousands temporarily homeless,
hundreds requiring medical aid for injuries. The ENTIRE
population (roughly 8 million) was without ANY electric
power for half a day, a few areas (physically damaged)
without for 3 days. My point was not a "can you top this"
thing but to point out that the public safety and utility
infrastructure had ALREADY prepared for this sort of thing
and acted as they had planned and trained for when
disaster struck. At that time the centralized emergency
communications network was new, involving dozens of
neighboring government public safety organizations. It
received a "trial by fire" test and passed it. Now I don't
claim (or "boast") that it is best, only that it WORKS.
Intelligent advanced planning and continuing training
WORKS.

Let's see. Others have complained that "the sticks" don't
have lots of money to do such things. No doubt true. But
the Greater Los Angeles area doesn't have "lots of money"
either. TAXES pay for nearly all. If there are 8 million
taxpayers, then the amount becomes large. In the case of
the LA emergency communications network, the local public
safety organizations ALREADY HAD the major part of the
communications equipment. So did the utility companies.
The thing needed was some way to tie them all together,
ORGANIZE, PLAN AHEAD, and KEEP TRAINING in the different
possible scenarios.

Out here there's lots of nature lovers who grouse and
grumble about our "concrete rivers." Flood control
channels, numerous in the 1.5 million population San
Fernando Valley. What most of them don't realize is that
the normally quiet, peaceful rivers and streams have
become raging torrents during heavy rainfall and flash
flooding. There's a few old, old motion pictures still
around that recorded one of the old floods. It used to
KILL people and render a lot of "the Valley" impossible
to settle for cities. Some good thinking, PLANNING AHEAD,
help from the WPA following the Great Depression enabled
the flood control channels to be built and make the place
safe from flood destruction. Yeah, "the sticks" couldn't
afford that, either...the federal government had to help
out. [need I mention the TVA?] But, we wound up with
no terrible destructive flash flooding as had been
nature's norm in past centuries. Mama Nature goes on a
big bender every once in a while, everywhere. We can't
stop that, only divert some of it.

The key is not necessarily money, just to ORGANIZE, PLAN
AHEAD, and KEEP TRAINING for any area, large, small, or
in-between, using resources at hand. More resources is a
different problem...politics of money disbursement is
something to handle at the local level.

ORGANIZE, PLAN AHEAD, TRAIN and keep on TRAINING.
It works. For professionals and amateurs alike. Press
releases won't do it.

"Bob Brock" wrote in
:


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

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."

Hear, hear!

Q and A pools are here to stay, Amateur radio is no exception. The
moaning and wailing, gnashing of teeth and hand wringing about the
good old days -that my research convinces me *weren't* anyhow - is
more likely just nostalgia for a time that didn't really exist.

I agree.

I can understand that a little bit. Since I got my license, I've
started a love affair with hollow state. I love the heat, the look
and feel, even the smell of that vintage equipment.

But there is too much evidence that those good old days weren't
all
that good after all.

I wonder who is going to provide a better learning environment,
people such as myelf - a presumably substandard product of the dumbed
down newfangled system, who only passed a 5wpm code test, and the
"easy" new tests, or one of the old geniuses who comes into the room
with the attitude that the new ham is as likely an idiot as not?

My experience so far is that it's up to the new guy to learn on his
own.

Unfortunately, I had much the same experience. There is a good bit
of "anti-Elmering that has gone on the last few years. I will note
at the same time I did get some excellent help from a few old
timers. They are the ones who should be emulated.

The group I am in is doing what we can to change the Anti-Elmering
situation. We're starting Classes, projects even at beginners level,
and above all grumpy superior Hams who believe that the new guys are
just glorified CB'ers are welcome - but they have to check their
attitude at the door.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

robert casey wrote in
hlink.net:



How about a question like this:

"A manufacturer guarantees his crystals to be within .01% of the
marked frequency, when used in the recommended circuit at 20
degrees C. The crystals have a negative temperature coefficient of
50 parts per million per degree C.




Would you put that question in an Amateur Radio test today?

Well, you could. You'd have to pick the correct answer from those
offered in the multiple choice. But you could work "backwards" with
each choice to find the one that fits right.

Sure you could put it in. But as one of a limited number of
questions in a test, it falls at the bottom of the relevency scale.


There are ways to cheat almost any system. Do you know of any
actual cheating under the old system?

Oh, there were jokes to the effect that for an extra fee, you were
guaranteed to pass...

I'd heard a little bit of that kind of stuff too.

There have been documented
cases of suspected cheating under the VEC system, where the FCC
called in hams who then flunked the retest.

I imagine that some of those recalled may have passed their
retests....


Good, glad they were caught. One of the interesting things
about
people when they get to be curmudgeons is that they use present day
exposures and punishments as some sort of evidence of corruption as
compared with the good old days, when there was apparently no
corruption because there wasn't any expose's of the wicked.

The FCC probably weighed the downsides of a cheater escaping
undetected and decided that such a cheater would not degrade the
quality or safety of the amateur service that much. Unlike say a
cheater "passing" state medical board exams to become a licensed
medical doctor. You just have to do enough to limit it to a level
that doesn't make testing look like a joke.


Agreed. If a cheater were to keep their nose clean and operate
properly, they would appear to everyone as just another good ham.

Of course, those with a tendency to cheat tend to expose themselves
in the end.Probably part of the personality, and general stupidity that
cheaters have in common.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Bob Brock" wrote in
:


wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18
-0500

It's been my life experience that MOST citizens will
voluntarily help out others in REAL emergencies, whether
or not they know how to operate a radio. Having been
IN a couple of REAL emergencies locally, I have yet to
experience first-hand any flurry of amateur activity to
"aid organizations who cannot communicate directly via
radio." During one of those REAL emergencies I've found
that the existing organizations were quite adequately
prepared...and drilled and trained on emergencies WITH
their equipment and worked-out emergency plans that
weren't public-relations news releases.

Back in 1999, I spent a week or so coordinating commumications between
E-Com (AKA 911) the National Guard, and the American Red Cross taking
people to shelters during an ice storm and major power outage.
Nothing has upgraded around here since then to allow the different
agencies to communicate if cell phones went out, so I'd be ready to do
it again. Not all of us live in the big cities and based on what I've
seen critiqued, they aren't much better than those of us out in the
sticks when it comes to interagency communications.

And you can bet any new systems that come along will have more
layers of structure embedded in them. Which of course will fail sooner
rather than later.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

...
And you can bet any new systems that come along will have more
layers of structure embedded in them. Which of course will fail sooner
rather than later.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

In college, in the very early '70s, I had an electronics instructor,
came to teach through the military. I was confused and seen academia as
a series of VERY rigid hoops you had to jump through.

On day, Mr. Willet(sp) said to me, during a discussion, "It doesn't
matter how you learn a thing, it only matters you learn it."

At the time I did not realize the importance of his words, but not too
much after, I adopted them and have shared them with others, along the
way ... and, more importantly, I have adopted them as a rule to live by.

Those words have served me well ...

Warmest regards,
JS