|
Those Old Study Guides
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
... 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? Amplifier? No such thing! Just two types of oscillators: 1) Self-sustaining oscillator. 2) Input-controlled oscillator (smaller input--smaller oscillations, larger input--larger oscillations, "special case"=no input--no oscillations). Regards, JS |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
robert casey wrote:
... 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. Not only that, word on the street is: Hams are thinner, have more hair, have fewer warts and better looking than CB'ers too! attempted-straight-face Well, except for the fat-bald-warty-ugly-hams :( JS |
Those Old Study Guides
Stefan Wolfe 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: 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. The questions I listed above were from the 1976 *Novice* study guide... I vote for the old. Why did they change it to multiple guess? It's a bit of a story: From the first days of amateur licensing to 1950, all US amateur license written exams were a mixture of essay questions, draw-a-diagram questions, show-your-work calculation questions, and multiple choice questions. Test preparation and grading were all done by FCC or other government officials (FCC did not exist until the early 1930s). When the Novice license was created in 1951, its test was all multiple-choice. But the test preparation and grading were all still done by FCC. Through the 1950s the other license classes remained as they had been. All this time, the license exams were considered almost government secrets. The actual tests were not public knowledge. Instead, FCC published "study guides" in essay format that indicated the areas the tests covered. About 1961, FCC decided to "modernize" the license tests. They were all converted to multiple choice format, with a new answer sheet that could be machine-graded. This transition did not take place overnight, though - the field offices first used up their supply of old tests before going to the new ones. Still, the tests themselves remained secret, and the study guides stayed in essay format even though the tests themselves were multiple choice. By changing the written tests to multiple-choice, the person grading them did not need to know anything about the test content. This greatly reduced the FCC's workload in administering the tests. That was the main reason for the change - to reduce FCC's workload. In the 1970s, there was a fellow on the West Coast named Dick Bash who published a series of books whose contents were reportedly almost identical to the actual tests. He reportedly did this by stationing himself or a helper outside FCC offices, questioning people who had just taken the tests, and paying them for each question they could remember. He also reportedly sent people to FCC to take the tests - not to pass them, but to remember what was on them. This caused a lot of outcry and protest in both the amateur community and FCC. But the top brass at FCC refused to go after Bash, and his books stayed on the market. Although the rules said that the contents of the exam were not to be divulged to others, FCC did not stop Bash at all. This system continued until about 1983, when FCC created the VE/QPC system. The VE/QPC system turned over most of the testing work to unpaid volunteers. The Question Pool Committee prepared and maintained the questions used on the tests, and the Volunteer Examiners administered them. VE fees went to pay the direct expenses of the system - duplicating, facility rental, postage, etc. FCC retained ultimate control, approving all the questions and setting guidelines, but leaving the grunt work to unpaid amateur volunteers. The VE/QPC system meant that the tests could no longer even keep up the appearance of being secret. The question pools were made public, and there were no more study guides, since the actual exam was available. It also relieved FCC of an enormous amount of administrative work, which was the main reason for the change. The idea was that the number of questions in the pools would be much larger than the number on the actual test, and that individual tests would be made by a random choice of questions from the pools. That's how we got the system we have now. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Those Old Study Guides
Cecil Moore wrote:
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". Ah, if Webster's fails then try again using the Federal Regs huh... ;) That part cannot be argued. Your *usage* can be argued though. Heck anything can be argued... The "service" that is performed is by the federal government for the benefit of US citizens. You said (quote): "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." If as you say the "service" is that performed by the Government for the citizens, then how does your sentence make any real sense? Use hobby and it makes perfect sense. It also meets the definition of "hobby". It is not a choice of either/or. It is both. It is both only if service = hobby. And service does not equal hobby, that was my point. Everybody here knows what you meant including me. 'Service' has been used for 'hobby' as long as 'CW' has been used for 'code'. And most hams think that service means that we perform some kind of terribly useful service to the public. But the truth be told, we are more a pain in the butt to both the public and the government than any kind of real service. There. Now can we stop with the semantics... ;) |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
wrote:
Not proven at all, Len. In fact, when you argue with Mike, you are arguing with a nocodetest person. Lennie's had the proverbial "hard on" for me since he showed up on USENET back in the mid 90's. I can only conclude his obsession with me is due to the fact that I have a ham radio license while, alas, he does not. This isn't a new thing, or a secret. Look up his 1998 comments to the FCC on the subject, if you don't believe me. What is even more amusing is if you look up Lennie's comments to the FCC, out of thousands of pages of comments, he felt the need to rebut my comments virtually line for line. He specifically asked FCC to do the following in response to NPRM 98-143: I have always felt stronger (not read: more difficult) theory examinations were more important to the ARS than morse code testing. It is an opinion that I hold to this day. IOW, he *supported* the NCI proposal of that time! He's a dyed-in-the-wool no-coder! I actually have my NCI membership certificate packed someone in my boxes. 3) Reduction of the number of amateur radio license classes to two. I still feel two license classes - a 50MHZ+ and a 30MHZ- would not necessarily be a bad idea. This was almost ten years ago. I don't think Mike has changed Not at all. I still feel all my ideas presented 8 years ago hold merit today. I do not really see any need for two HF licenses. The FCC should simply eliminate the General license and have a Class A and Class B license. Well, it's interesting to see that you can be nasty to those who agree with you.... Since Lennie's first appearance... oh, 10? years ago, he's pretty much been a nasty fellow. As I've posted in the past, he reminds me a great deal of my long-since-departed paternal grandmother, who was so miserable, she had to try and make everyone else around her miserable too. I can only conclude that Lennie's inability to get a ham license has made him very, very miserable. 73 KH6HZ |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
wrote:
... "Trivial Pursuit" ... Excellent analogy, and demonstrates my point to a 'T'. 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. Because that wouldn't help the situation at all - at least not in the above example. I disagree. First off, a regulations question is essentially a memorization question. Yes. I've stated before that certain types of questions -- i.e. definitions, regulations, etc. -- tend to be more rote memorization. However, there is no reason why those examination questions cannot likewise be randomized to some extent. 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. However, my proposal has been to randomize the correct answers (as much as possible). Granted, my choice of question was not ideal. Rather than using a range, use a specific frequency and 3 distractors, requiring the applicant to choose the correct frequency (hence, knowing band limits, etc.) Where such an approach would have an effect would be in questions like Ohm's Law, where the values could be randomly generated. Yes. Some questions naturally lend themselves to randomization then others. In some respects, I think definition questions, such as "what is ohm's law" simply be eliminated. Either the person knows what ohms law is (via a test question where they have to use it to solve a problem) or they do not. Having the definition as a test question is silly. 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. I'm not really sure of this. 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. I think writing a computer program to generate examinations, and releasing the examination to the public so folks could generate their own tests in prep for taking the "real thing", would, in fact, be a 'good thing'. Heck, I'm sure W5YI would love to charge prospective hams $25 for the "actual program used to generate your FCC Examination!" Plus, it eliminates the need for the VECs to constantly maintain a pool of questions -- less long-term work. With randomization, they have a near inifinite pool of questions, all generated at the time a test is needed. 73 KH6HZ |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
spewed gibberish with:
are you claiming you did or did not I think I stated previously that the one and only ship license I held had my ULS FRN attached to it. no but it is ilgela to comit fraud to obtain even one Fraud is, alas, a criminal offense. At no time did I violate any Part 97 rules or regulations. Nor for that matter have I ever been arrested, charged, or convicted of any crime, including fraud. On the other hand, being a Gay Pagan Dyslexic Ham is an offense which the military court-martials people for -- at least, in the past. no he doesn't Yeah, I guess "Pob 212, PO BOX PoB212" on the license of KB9RQZ isn't a "PO Box" lol. how many are you? None. so the PoSBoix is merely one of the means you used to comit fraud What do you use your PO Box for, Morkie? Kiddie Porn? What's Morkie hiding? nothing but you are afraid of me Afraid of you? Are you a stalker? Probably explains why you can't get a ham license too. out right lie now MD Lennie doesn't have an amateur license, does he? |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
wrote:
back to the sex crap Sorry I got you all hot and bothered, Lt. General Colonel Morgan. |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
spewed gibberish:
not that I have seen Perhaps you should spend more time reading the applicable threads. now you say you think this is the case care to drop the condictional make the satement I can't parse this. Care to repeat it in English? so? The only "fraud" here, Morkie, is your impersonation of a radio amateur. you should have lost your license Riley was generous At no time was my license as a radio amateur ever in jeopardy of being revolked, as at no time did I ever violate any portion of Part 97, nor any other federal laws or regulations. Too bad, so sad, for you Morkie. you are afraid of me it is obvious you can't even be a man and spell my name right Considering you cannot form a coherent sentence without at least one gramatical and spelling error, you are certainly in no position to criticize other peoples' spelling. no but you lied and said he can't get one he can get one anytime so you lied again I never said Lennie couldn't "get" a ham license. Lennie's not very likely to get one, because Lennie likes to bitch, moan, and complain. Amateur Radio and code testing is merely a means to that end. |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
"robert casey" wrote in message link.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. |
Those Old Study Guides
AaronJ wrote:
If as you say the "service" is that performed by the Government for the citizens, then how does your sentence make any real sense? Don't you know what it means when someone puts a common word in parentheses? Once again, from Webster's: "service - an administrative division, as of a government". There is no service required by the members of the Amateur Radio Service. The "service" is a benefit that the federal government performs for those citizens who meet the qualifications, not vice versa. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
Maybe we could have combination questions, ones that require several
pieces of knowledge to get right. The maximum SSB peak envelope power you are permitted to have on your linear amplifier on 14.060MHz is: a) 1KW b) 2KW c) 0KW d) 250w answer is c, because that frequency is outside the phone subband. Back in 1976 when I took the general written, they had a question like You have a linear amp transmitting single sideband phone. The plate voltage is 1KV. What is the max peak plate current you can have on the output tubes? At the time, the rules defined the max RF power you were allowed to transmit as the product of the voltage and amperage supplied to the output tubes. And single side band phone had a special rule on max power, called "peak envelope power" of 2KW. As measured by a typical analog ammeter with a bouncing needle. Which had a certain amount of error that was consistent with the usual ammeters hams had back then that had to be factored in (I've forgotten what it was, something like 0.7 or just 0.5?). So that's three things you had to know to answer this one question. So the answer would be 1 amp or maybe 1.4 amps of current from the 1KV power supply. |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
KH6HZ wrote:
wrote: Not proven at all, Len. In fact, when you argue with Mike, you are arguing with a nocodetest person. Lennie's had the proverbial "hard on" for me since he showed up on USENET back in the mid 90's. I can only conclude his obsession with me is due to the fact that I have a ham radio license while, alas, he does not. No, that's not it, Mike. The problem Len has with you isn't your license, or lack of it. It's the fact that you dared to disagree with him, and/or correct one or more of his mistakes here. Once someone does either or both of those things, Len's reaction is 100% predictable. In fact, there's a handy profile that pretty much sums it all up: "No matter what employment, education, life experience or government/military service a person has, if that person disagrees with any of Len's views, or corrects any of Len's mistakes, he/she will be the target of Len's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic/gender/racial slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior." What you did was to disagree with Len. That's all it takes. This isn't a new thing, or a secret. Look up his 1998 comments to the FCC on the subject, if you don't believe me. What is even more amusing is if you look up Lennie's comments to the FCC, out of thousands of pages of comments, he felt the need to rebut my comments virtually line for line. Pages and pages worth, too, even though your comments were 100% in support of the maximum possible Morse Code test reduction under the treaty, and complete Morse Code test elimination at the earliest possible moment if/when the treaty changed. Think about it. If all Len *really* wanted was Morse Code test elimination, why would he send in all those pages refuting someone who wanted exactly that, and who supported that part of the NCI agenda to the letter? The explanation is simple: You were/are a target because you disagreed with Len. He specifically asked FCC to do the following in response to NPRM 98-143: I have always felt stronger (not read: more difficult) theory examinations were more important to the ARS than morse code testing. It is an opinion that I hold to this day. Well, we agree on the desirability of better written tests. We disagree on the Morse Code test in that you support complete elimination of that test and I don't. However, FCC's response has been to reduce both the number of written tests and the total number of questions required for every class of license. The other ideas on written test improvement were ignored by FCC IOW, he *supported* the NCI proposal of that time! He's a dyed-in-the-wool no-coder! I actually have my NCI membership certificate packed someone in my boxes. You mean you haven't got it "right out of the box"? 3) Reduction of the number of amateur radio license classes to two. I still feel two license classes - a 50MHZ+ and a 30MHZ- would not necessarily be a bad idea. Well, we disagree on that, too. This was almost ten years ago. I don't think Mike has changed Not at all. I still feel all my ideas presented 8 years ago hold merit today. Len does not want to discuss the merit of anyone's ideas if they disagree with *his* ideas, or if they correct his mistakes. I do not really see any need for two HF licenses. The FCC should simply eliminate the General license and have a Class A and Class B license. Well, it's interesting to see that you can be nasty to those who agree with you.... Since Lennie's first appearance... oh, 10? years ago, he's pretty much been a nasty fellow. About 10 years, and an enormous volume of verbiage under a variety of screen names. He used the screen name " for several posts here, then later denied ever using that name in rrap. Of course someone (ahem) pointed out that he had, indeed, posted to rrap using that screen name. Len's reaction was quite predictable. As I've posted in the past, he reminds me a great deal of my long-since-departed paternal grandmother, who was so miserable, she had to try and make everyone else around her miserable too. I can only conclude that Lennie's inability to get a ham license has made him very, very miserable. See the paragraph above about Len's behavior here. All anyone has to do is disagree with Len, or correct a mistake he makes, and it's showtime. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
wrote:
"No matter what employment, education, life experience or government/military service a person has, if that person disagrees with any of Len's views, or corrects any of Len's mistakes, he/she will be the target of Len's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic/gender/racial slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior." That's way too much for me to parse at 5am. Let me see if I can put it in simplier terms "If you don't kiss Len's ass, expect to be the target of his vitriol". Yeah, that sounds about right. The explanation is simple: You were/are a target because you disagreed with Len. I laugh about it to this day. Thousands of pages of comments, hundreds (if not thousands of hams) responding, and Lennie Well, we agree on the desirability of better written tests. We disagree on the Morse Code test in that you support complete elimination of that test and I don't. Something a few of the posters here (oddly enough, the most vocal/rabid members of the No-Code Agenda, it would seem) cannot simply seem to grasp is that gentlemen can agree to disagree without resorting to ad hominem attacks. I am not entirely opposed to having a "skills test" in addition to a theory examination. There is precedent in other testing scenarios maintained by the government. For example, to get a pilot's license, you not only take a written test, you also have to take a 'hands on' test. Of course, CW is a very easy method "skills test" to implement, which makes it a natural selection for the that component in ham radio testing. I can understand why you would support such a test. This is, IMO, a legitimate course of reasoning on your part and I can understand the viewpoint. While I agree with it in principle, personally, I do not feel that a morse test is a good selection for a skills test. Furthermore, I cannot think of a really good alternative, either. Thus, until someone can present a very concise idea on how to implement a pertinent skills test in the ARS today, I'll fall back to the side of having none. The other ideas on written test improvement were ignored by FCC Unfortunately, the trend with licensing in ham radio is very similiar to the trend we saw wih CB radio licensing back in the mid 70's. It concerns me that testing gets more and more lax. Another disturbing trend is the desire to modify our licensing standards for "quantity". Everyone focuses on license numbers, and continuing to grow the number of licensed amateurs. I believe the majority of changes in our licensing system over the past 15 years has been directly related to people's desires to 'swell our ranks'. I've always been a proponent of quality over quantity. I would rather have one person interested in learning radio electronics, antenna theory, etc. over two people who are nothing more than glorified applicance operators. You mean you haven't got it "right out of the box"? I may no longer be a member. Years ago Carl threatened to throw me out of NCI over my criticism of NCI publically, under the guise of me "really not being a no-code test advocate". What Stevenson really wanted was an army of little mindless zealots who reguritated what they were spoon-fed by NCI -- something I was not. See the paragraph above about Len's behavior here. All anyone has to do is disagree with Len, or correct a mistake he makes, and it's showtime. Lennie's fun to wind-up. Every time I post, you know his blood pressure rises a couple of points. He can't resist the urge to throw out some acerbic comments. 73 KH6HZ |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
|
Those Old Study Guides
Cecil Moore wrote:
AaronJ wrote: If as you say the "service" is that performed by the Government for the citizens, then how does your sentence make any real sense? Once again, from Webster's: "service - an administrative division, as of a government". There is no service required by the members of the Amateur Radio Service. The "service" is a benefit that the federal government performs for those citizens who meet the qualifications, not vice versa. You said (quote): "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." Paraphrasing, you say that a well rounded ham is best for the ham service. That use of the word "service" is found often in ham text but doesn't fit either of your definitions. The word service as used in this way is ham jargon and refers to all hams as a group. IMO it seems to over inflate our importance. My comment was simply that we're really just a hobby and not all that important anymore. That was my third attempt at trying to get that particular point across. I'll be happy to discuss with you or anyone else our real importance as a hobby group (or service if you prefer), but you now have the last word on the semantics... |
Those Old Study Guides
AaronJ wrote:
You said (quote): "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." Paraphrasing, you say that a well rounded ham is best for the ham service. No, you got it wrong. You left out my quotation marks around the word, "service". When you finally understand the difference that those quotation marks make in the meaning of the word, "service", you will realize that your prolonged argument is irrelevant at best. That use of the word "service" is found often in ham text but doesn't fit either of your definitions. Yes, you are finally getting it. That's exactly what happens when one uses quotation marks around a word in the following way: From Webster's "Basic Manual of (English) Style": "Use quotation marks: to draw attention to ... a usage very different in style from the context." e.g. different from the context of those ham texts to which you alluded above. My quote above, quoted by you, puts "service" in quotation marks to *draw attention to a usage very different* in style from the context that you were using, i.e. service to the public. Why are those quotation marks not drawing your attention to my very different usage? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Those Old Study Guides
Cecil Moore wrote:
... My quote above, quoted by you, puts "service" in quotation marks to *draw attention to a usage very different* in style from the context that you were using, i.e. service to the public. Why are those quotation marks not drawing your attention to my very different usage? :-) Cecil: Perhaps I can offer an explanation. I mean sitting back here in the background, with others I am sure, they demonstrate their lack of education? I mean, what other explanation is possible? Regards, JS |
Those Old Study Guides
John Smith I wrote:
Perhaps I can offer an explanation. I mean sitting back here in the background, with others I am sure, they demonstrate their lack of education? Was it W. C. Fields who objected to having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent? Winston Churchill? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Those Old Study Guides
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Was it W. C. Fields who objected to having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent? Winston Churchill? Cecil: Well, yes and no. While it is true you must be born with the "gray matter" necessary, it is how you end up using it that really matters. Education can assist to that goal very nicely. Indeed, it is possible to "educate" a monkey--well, at least to some degree. puzzled-look Regards, JS |
Those Old Study Guides
Like I said, the Amateur Radio Service is a one-way national service And I thought amateur radio was mainly 2-way |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
From: John Smith I on Tues, Jan 23 2007 9:35 am
wrote: KH6HZ wrote: wrote: The problem Len has with you isn't your license, or lack of it. It's the fact that you dared to disagree with him, and/or correct one or more of his mistakes here. Once someone does either or both of those things, Len's reaction is 100% predictable. In fact, there's a handy profile that pretty much sums it all up: Now that's funny. The problem with Len is he has pulled some covers here and pi$$ed off a few. As to Len being perfect? Well, maybe, maybe not--I kinda like him. As for Len being "predictable", hey look in a mirror, you are one we are making fun of for that very thing!!! Hee hee hee hee ... ain't that some HYPOCRISY of theirs! :-) Gotta love them "profiles." Homeland security wannabes? :-) You guys are VERY small MEN. Len knows that, I know that, the whole world knows that. If you attempt to step away from it, you can't. You will now be seen for what you truly are. You know that and it irks you, don't take that anger out on Len ... John, they MUST attack. They aren't respected for their "leadership" (that they claim, either overtly or covertly). They have a NEED to CONTROL. In der Uber Oberst's case, it seems compounded by a NEED to push others around. They are, as you say, LITTLE men. Little men act that way. It isn't restricted to amateur radio. It covers all human activity. I'm sure US amateur radio can be fun. It might be nice to have a ham license other than from the FDA. But NOT in the style these LITTLE men dictate. Back about 44 or so years ago, it was a Saturday and I had the morning free. Being a nice day outside, I thought to walk two blocks to a Ralphs supermarket and pick up a few things. Our apartment was next to a two- block long public park and the Little League teams were out there warming up. I watched for a while. One of the boys just didn't want to play ball. His jock dad kept harranging him to "get out there!" Boy resisted. Finally dad yelled loudly to him, "You're gonna go out there and enjoy playing whether you like it or not!" some muffled chuckles from the sidelines That jock dad is about like the LITTLE men in here, pretenders at being big-league and trying to control all via paternal terror tactics. It's not about having "fun" in amateur radio, it's about having "controlled fun," i.e., doing as the "jocks" (with cute little amateur uniforms on) say everyone should act, expecting "respect" for being so ruff and tuff, doing as the "jocks" say one "should." It won't be long now to the final days of amateur morse code testing in the USA. To all those ruff, tuff "jocks," I just flip them the bird. :-) LA |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
On Jan 23, 6:23*am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote: "No matter what employment, education, life experience or government/military service a person has, if that person disagrees with any of Len's views, or corrects any of Len's mistakes, he/she will be the target of Len's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic/gender/racial slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."That's way too much for me toparseat 5am. Let me see if I can put it in simplier terms "If you don't kiss Len's ass, expect to be the target of his vitriol". Looks like a pretty accurate parsing job... Yeah, that sounds about right. The explanation is simple: You were/are a target because you disagreed with Len. I laugh about it to this day. Thousands of pages of comments, hundreds (if not thousands of hams) responding, and Lennie Heck, Len's comments and reply comments alone amount to dozens if not hundreds of pages. Consider that some poor soul at FCC had to read all of that... What I find most amusing is that he took all that trouble to Reply Comment to you, when your comments were so solidly in the Nocodetest camp. Well, we agree on the desirability of better written tests. We disagree on the Morse Code test in that you support complete elimination of that test and I don't. Something a few of the posters here (oddly enough, the most vocal/rabid members of the No-Code Agenda, it would seem) cannot simply seem to grasp is that gentlemen can agree to disagree without resorting to ad hominem attacks. All sorts of reasons for that. Some consider acting civilized to be a sign of weakness. Others consider being proved wrong to be a humiliation, and lash out at the messenger. I am not entirely opposed to having a "skills test" in addition to a theory examination. There is precedent in other testing scenarios maintained by the government. For example, to get a pilot's license, you not only take a written test, you also have to take a 'hands on' test. Of course, CW is a very easy method "skills test" to implement, which makes it a natural selection for the that component in ham radio testing. Plus the fact that Morse Code is widely used in amateur radio. I can understand why you would support such a test. This is, IMO, a legitimate course of reasoning on your part and I can understand the viewpoint. TNX While I agree with it in principle, personally, I do not feel that a morse test is a good selection for a skills test. Why not? Furthermore, I cannot think of a really good alternative, either. Thus, until someone can present a very concise idea on how to implement a pertinent skills test in the ARS today, I'll fall back to the side of having none. Seems to me that the rational compromise would be to offer a variety of skills tests. For example, imagine a simple test of voice operating skill where a person being tested has to send a message in standard form and receive one, using standard phonetics and good amateur operating practice. The other ideas on written test improvement were ignored by FCC Unfortunately, the trend with licensing in ham radio is very similiar to the trend we saw wih CB radio licensing back in the mid 70's. It concerns me that testing gets more and more lax. Me too. Another disturbing trend is the desire to modify our licensing standards for "quantity". Everyone focuses on license numbers, and continuing to grow the number of licensed amateurs. I believe the majority of changes in our licensing system over the past 15 years has been directly related to people's desires to 'swell our ranks'. I would say 25 years. I've always been a proponent of quality over quantity. I would rather have one person interested in learning radio electronics, antenna theory, etc. over two people who are nothing more than glorified applicance operators. I think one of the reasons for the recent lack of growth was the popularization of amateur radio as a personal radio service in the 1980s and 1990s. There's nothing wrong with using amateur radio for that purpose, and the repeater/HT/autopatch boom of those years made it practical A lot of folks who started out that way turned out to be really good hams. Some branched out into other areas of amateur radio, others did not. But with the proliferation of inexpensive cell phones, that source of new hams has been greatly reduced. Some of those who did get licensed for personal radio reasons have let their licenses lapse because the cell phone does the job now. You mean you haven't got it "right out of the box"? I may no longer be a member. Years ago Carl threatened to throw me out of NCI over my criticism of NCI publically, under the guise of me "really not being a no-code test advocate". What Stevenson really wanted was an army of little mindless zealots who reguritated what they were spoon-fed by NCI -- * something I was not. That's the old Carl. The new (post-2001) Carl is a much nicer guy. Very reasonable and well behaved, whether you agree with him or not. Look up some of his more-recent posts and see. See the paragraph above about Len's behavior here. All anyone has to do is disagree with Len, or correct a mistake he makes, and it's showtime. Lennie's fun to wind-up. Every time I post, you know his blood pressure rises a couple of points. He can't resist the urge to throw out some acerbic comments. What will he do after Feb 23? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
wrote:
Plus the fact that Morse Code is widely used in amateur radio. Yes, but that IMO doesn't justify it as a skill test with a pass/fail result. In fact, with the largest license class being the Tech, it would be more logical to suggest an operating mode commonly in use by the vast majority of techs -- FM voice. Why not? Several reasons. First, CW is but one of many modes in use in the ARS today. I do not feel it is appropriate to weight the CW test heavily in testing, such that it becomes a pass/fail element. Simply put, some people may have no interest in operating CW. Offhand, I do not recall the percentage of hams actively using CW. I vaguely recall there was a study in the mid 90's. A quick google only yielded one recent survey, and that was hardly scientific. W5ALT presented some interesting numbers, but likewise those are questionable and only represent activity observed, not necessarily the preferred operating mode of (non-actively-transmitting) hams. Falling back to 97.1, while CW facilitates an amateur to meet all those goals, so does every other operating mode. Seems to me that the rational compromise would be to offer a variety of skills tests. Perhaps. Unfortunately, a skills test requires a greater effort on the part of VEs to implement, test, and grade. It is highly unlikely we would ever see *ANY* suggestion that makes testing "harder" ever implemented by the FCC. Fact is, it is politically incorrect to "fail" people. We will never see the return of a skills test to the ARS. That's the sad reality of the situation. For example, imagine a simple test of voice operating skill where a person being tested has to send a message in standard form and receive one, using standard phonetics and good amateur operating practice. I'd almost like to see a form of Elmering system, where as a new ham your first few contacts are handled under the watchful eye of an older, more experienced ham, who can show you the "ropes". Naturally, we can do this today without any rules changes on the part of the FCC. I would say 25 years. I believe you've been licensed longer than I. My introduction to amateur radio really didn't occur until 1982. I wouldn't argue your point. In the past with the "private" question pools and examination guides, certainly testing became "easier" when the pools went public (before my time). My own observations since becoming licensed in the early 90's is the testing infrastructure has been continuously weakened. I think one of the reasons for the recent lack of growth was the popularization of amateur radio as a personal radio service in the 1980s and 1990s. [...] Some of those who did get licensed for personal radio reasons have let their licenses lapse because the cell phone does the job now. Unfortunately true. The problem the ARS will face now is people will point at the dropping number of hams as a reason why we have to "fix" the licensing/testing system by dumbing it down even further. The new (post-2001) Carl is a much nicer guy. Very reasonable and well behaved, whether you agree with him or not. Look up some of his more-recent posts and see. Maybe he's mellowed with age. I have. What will he do after Feb 23? He'll find something to complain about. That's all he really wants to do... bitch moan and complain. A sad cry for attention in his sunset years. We can only hope cable internet at the retirement home drops out for a period of time 73 KH6HZ |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
"KH6HZ" wrote in
: "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. It's both, depending on the need. I had quite a problem with ARRL's code practice CD. Once through and I had (unfortunately) memorized the CD. But not the code!! 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. Some people can't help that though. In the end, the difference is not all that much. Memorizing a formula and knowing where to look it up and use it is a functional equivalent. I wouldn't be caught dead without my ARRL handbook. 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 My application of the word dumb is in reference to doing it the hard way instead of the way one should. (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. I don't disagree with you there. I'm all about technical acumen. I just don't think all hams need to be as technically clever as I am, as some hams do. Disclaimer: I am pretty competent in matters of computers, digital electronics, audio equipment, and their applications to video work. I'm a bit lacking in RF, which is one of the reasons that I became a Ham. 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. Yer' hangin' with the wrong crowd, Mike! Just kidding. But there is actually quite a bit of experimenting going on. 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. It couldn't, for the many things that we can engage in with this hobby. I doubt we would get many people into the hobby if we had to test to proficiency in all the aspects of it. What you speak of would almost require a large structured apprentice program. rest snipped.. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
|
Feb 23 is the No-code date
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Some people can't help that though. In the end, the difference is not all that much. Memorizing a formula and knowing where to look it up and use it is a functional equivalent. I wouldn't be caught dead without my ARRL handbook. Yes, but what about those who simply word associate the answers and never bother to learn the underlying theory at all? Are they really a benefit to the ARS, other than upping the "body count". I don't disagree with you there. I'm all about technical acumen. I just don't think all hams need to be as technically clever as I am, as some hams do. I believe the theory examinations should be structured to test people on basic knowledge and skills -- the building blocks they use to further their journey in ham radio. I do not feel it is unreasonable to expect folks who get licensed to actually 'know' these things. It couldn't, for the many things that we can engage in with this hobby. I doubt we would get many people into the hobby if we had to test to proficiency in all the aspects of it. 70% isn't necessarily "proficient". I would say 70% is adequate for passing the test. I would be hard pressed, for instance, to say an employee who gets 70% of their work correct is proficient at their job. 73 KH6HZ |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
"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 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? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
spews forth the following excrement:
what requirement is ther that they be betterment to the ARS if that is a requirement you need to turn in your ASAP I have an extensive vocabulary, correct spelling, accurate grammar and superb punctuation skills. All things you lack. Those are just "for starters", too, Morkie. |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
|
Feb 23 is the No-code date
KH6HZ wrote:
I have an extensive vocabulary, correct spelling, accurate grammar and superb punctuation skills. Yeah, you might ... I am willing to grant you that. But what the heck is that good for, all you spew is HARDCORE BS? JS |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
"KH6HZ" wrote in
: wrote: Seems to me that the rational compromise would be to offer a variety of skills tests. Perhaps. Unfortunately, a skills test requires a greater effort on the part of VEs to implement, test, and grade. It is highly unlikely we would ever see *ANY* suggestion that makes testing "harder" ever implemented by the FCC. Fact is, it is politically incorrect to "fail" people. We will never see the return of a skills test to the ARS. That's the sad reality of the situation. Just a comment about this part of the thread. Once you get away from distinct skills such as Morse code acumen, you get into a grey area. I'm trying to envision a test where one VE wants only plain english and another one thinks it is cool to say things such as QSL, QTH, or HI-HI on voice. So much subjectivity. Operating practices are OUR responsibility to teach the new guys. The idea of having to know it at the time of testing is not entirely realistic. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Once you get away from distinct skills such as Morse code acumen, you get into a grey area. I'm trying to envision a test where one VE wants only plain english and another one thinks it is cool to say things such as QSL, QTH, or HI-HI on voice. So much subjectivity. You're right. This is why I do not (currently) support any type of "skills" test. Although I am not opposed to the idea, I cannot think of a way to implement one fairly. Instead, I feel the focus should be on "strengthening" (not read: make more difficult) the theory examinations. 73 KH6HZ |
Those Old Study Guides
"Dee Flint" wrote in news:-
: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... wrote in ps.com: [snip] I didn't really study for my Tech license, only a bit for my General, and did indeed spend some time on the Extra. Even so, the tests were not "hard" when I took them. But I believe that the tests are an entrance test, not some sort of PhD thing. Its what people do after they get them that counts. And I really do like the time in grade thing before getting an Extra license. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - If a person actually knows the material and how to apply it, nothing is really hard. It's getting to the point of knowing that takes the real effort. Agreed. I actually enjoyed taking the tests. And for some, they are harder than it is for others. I'm pretty well convinced that the amount of testing that would be required to be an effective ham from the date of passing the test successfully would require so much effort that no one would attempt to become a ham any more. I've become convinced since the last time that I posted here regularly that there are some hams who wouldn't mind that a bit. 8^( - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
|
Those Old Study Guides
"Bob Brock" wrote in
: wrote in message oups.com... Bob Brock wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote in ups.com: Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample questions? I'll post them if you are interested. Always am. Here's a sample - lots more to come. From the 1976 ARRL License Manual: Study Question #31: Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being used. It's more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is taking it. Every tried grading essay questions? Yes - but you missed the point, Bob. In 1976 the tests were all multiple-choice, same as today, except that most of them were 5 choices rather than 4. But the FCC-provided *study guides* were in essay format, as given above. The exact Q&A were not publicly available - at least not officially. 73 de Jim, N2EY Yeah, but then there were all those "unofficial" question pools. The same thing is done with the "General Contractors" exam here. For a fee, you can know what questions are on the various exams and hence have a study guide. Whether it's sanctioned or not, it would still happen. I'll bet that the truth be told, there were some underground copies of test questions available even back then. You know, if everyone in the club came back an just wrote down the questions that they remember, it wouldn't take long to cover over 90 percent of the pool of questions. Perhaps the FCC study guides were in essay form, but certainly the little Ameco 1956 study guide I picked up at a hamfest had Q and A. It had the answers to the Q and A also. Judging from the questions asked there are two and only two possibilities: A. Ameco was participating in fraud, in that the Q and A they offered was not applicable to the test at the time. B. The questions that they offered were not the exact questions on an official test, but as there are only so many ways to ask the same questions, the point was moot. Giving the study guides in essay format and then testing multiple choice gives the test writer a lot of leeway in how the questions are worded. Some people get off on writing questions so that the test is not so much on your knowledge of the subject as it is about your ability to read carefully. The reason that it worked back then was because the tests were administered by the FCC and had a lot more oversight than todays test administrators do. The only real soulution would be to provide an accepted pool of test questions that would be approved to be on the tests. However, then we come back to how those test pools would be available for a price after a while. Q and A are also less subjective. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Those Old Study Guides
|
Those Old Study Guides
Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm a little confused here. My 1956 Guide has Multiple choice for the General test and Technician test at that time. Were they wrong? My 1957 License Manual is even worse than that - it doesn't even have any wrong answers. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Those Old Study Guides
Cecil Moore wrote:
... My 1957 License Manual is even worse than that - it doesn't even have any wrong answers. :-) Cecil: My gawd man!!! You have discovered a clear case of "dumbing up!" Never-before-heard-of-case where the licensees of today are required to be more intelligent and be expected to test well under more taxing circumstances than their pasts counterparts! Cecil, you can see now why you NEVER cease to amaze me ... mona-lisa-look Warmest regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com