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

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1169319231.725804.81990

Big difference.

IMHO, one of the problems in amateur radio today is too much emphasis
on passing the test, and not enough on what to do with it. IMHO, a
one-day Tech license course is too likely to produce a person with a
license who doesn't know enough about how to get on the air and use the
license.

that might mean we have toomany tests and to much focus on license
class and therefore need fewer tests and fewer classes

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

In 1976 the tests were all multiple-choice, same as today, except that
most of them were 5 choices rather than 4.
would going to one in 5 make you shut up on this issue

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.

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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

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

"The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm."

How is "ohm" not the exact answer? Wouldn't giving an
inexact answer have been dishonest?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Dee Flint" wrote:

Besides memorizing that way will lead to certain failure. The questions
and answers on the exam are worded the same way BUT the answers are
allowed to be in a different order and they are. The reason is to prevent
people memorizing the A, B, C, or D.

True. I would say the vast majority of people who "memorize" the question
pools do not actually "memorize" verbatim the questions and answers, but
instead simply familiarize themselves enough with the pools such that they
can recognize the correct answer on the examination, regardless of whether
it appears in position A, B, C, or D.

Granted, certain types of questions lend themselves to 'rote memorization'.
Definitions, for instance. An ohm is an ohm is not a watt. Most of the
regulations probably also fall into this category as well, as do things like
circuit diagram symbols. You just have to "know" where band limits are, and
what a NPN transistor "looks like".

I've always been a proponent of eliminating question pools, and instead
allowing computer programs to randomly generate question sets. No longer
would there be a "where on the HF 80m bands are you allowed to transmit CW?"
question with 4 static answers. Instead, the question could have 1 randomly
generated correct answer and 3 randomly generated detractors.

Such a test setup would at least ensure that folks taking the test have the
requisite knowledge base to pass the test, and didn't simply familiarize
themselves w/ the question pool enough to successfully pass the test.

73
KH6HZ

KH6HZ wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote:

Besides memorizing that way will lead to certain failure. The questions
and answers on the exam are worded the same way BUT the answers are
allowed to be in a different order and they are. The reason is to prevent
people memorizing the A, B, C, or D.

True. I would say the vast majority of people who "memorize" the question
pools do not actually "memorize" verbatim the questions and answers, but
instead simply familiarize themselves enough with the pools such that they
can recognize the correct answer on the examination, regardless of whether
it appears in position A, B, C, or D.

Granted, certain types of questions lend themselves to 'rote memorization'.
Definitions, for instance. An ohm is an ohm is not a watt. Most of the
regulations probably also fall into this category as well, as do things like
circuit diagram symbols. You just have to "know" where band limits are, and
what a NPN transistor "looks like".

I've always been a proponent of eliminating question pools, and instead
allowing computer programs to randomly generate question sets. No longer
would there be a "where on the HF 80m bands are you allowed to transmit CW?"
question with 4 static answers. Instead, the question could have 1 randomly
generated correct answer and 3 randomly generated detractors.

Such a test setup would at least ensure that folks taking the test have the
requisite knowledge base to pass the test, and didn't simply familiarize
themselves w/ the question pool enough to successfully pass the test.

now if you can describe to me how this does 2 thing you will have my
suport for a proposal

one how does it serve the interest of the ARS

two how does it serve the interest of the public at large

it was lateer that the Porocders realy feel down and the later is most
important

73
KH6HZ

From: Mike Coslo on Sat, Jan 20 2007 6:01 pm

" wrote in
From: Mike Coslo on Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:27 pm
wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
KC4UAI wrote:

...

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.

Absolutely...in my observation also. But, an addition:

Some really and truly do NOT like new anybodies. They
want to keep their little local "in-group" intact, nice
and comfortable, secure with everyone "in-tune" to one
another. [see the "No Lids, Kids, or Space Cadets"
type or Wince Ficus' "Slow Code" alter-ego]

For many middle-agers, their (sudden?) realization of
their own mortality will make new things uncomfortable.
They want, desire, and strive for the secure, the
comfortable old concepts that they managed to adapt to.
I would suppose that's rooted with the #1 human desire
of SURVIVAL (sex is only #2). Natural enough.

That age group and that striving for security through
keeping the OLD extends all throughout human groupings.
It's really a very basic lesson in psychology classes.
[I didn't learn it from my wife the retired social
worker but rather from two mandatory psych classes for
CA engineering majors a very long time ago]

Too many make out like "THE TEST" is some god-awful
ordeal or a Battle Between Good and Evil or some kind
of cataclysmic EVENT that shakes their being to
their core. For some who have been very sheltered
that might be true. :-)

I've taken all sorts of "tests" in my life and would
rate everyday WORK as being much more meaningful.
Produce results according to spec and one "passes"
(gets the paycheck regularly). Can't do the work?
Maybe not a "fail" exactly but it's a good time to
start collecting Want Ads or think about moving into
Sales. [Sales doesn't do all that work but they sure
talk about how much they do and how good they are...]


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.

Sigh...well, superior anybodies will happen. Those are
the "salesmen types" who are selling themselves, fueled
by their ego. Some are found in here and there were lots
of them in here before. :-) Usually they want to
CONTROL things, make order (usually their way), and
demand respect from their "inferiors." They can be
spotted right away. They won't learn and probably
can't understand why most folks just don't like them.

I was questioning the "necessary vetting" and the "time
in grade" concept for "advancement" to "higher classes."
For one thing, I can't see this whole business of ANY
class structure in a hobby activity. If someone NEEDS
rank-status-title, let them join a fraternal order that
has various grades of "poohbahs" or whatever, wear silly
uniforms, and do the "tradition" thing. :-)

The actual operation of a "radio" is usually very easy
and any average-intelligence human can learn it quickly.
An activity that has lots of jargon attached to it might
need some extra hours to memorize all the new terms and
how they are used, but the actual operation doesn't take
long at all. Comments about "years of service" has
always sounded bizarre and absurd to me in a hobby radio
activity. :-) Yes, telegraphy skill DOES require a
lot of practice but that is a psycho-motor skill really
unrelated to operating a radio...and certainly unrelated
to knowing HOW a radio works.

I've always said that, to me (and many others I've
worked with) radio and electronics is totally
fascinating. Ham radio is a good place to get
acquainted with that fascination possibility. That
hobby doesn't come close to encompassing all that is
in electronics, but it's a start. If an individual
LIKES the technology, they will naturally seek to
learn more about it. NOBODY has to fulfill some
kind of artificial "qualifications" test to learn nor
are they "inferior" if they didn't get those artificial
"qualifications" and be awarded a class-conscious
Title of "superiority." Yet there are "superior"
beings who strut around Telling others what they
should like and what not to like and all should
"respect" all those who push others around. Ech.
That's NOT what an enjoyable hobby is about...

Nice talkin' at ya Mike, have fun with the mobile
antenna project.

LA

"an_old_friend" wrote:

one how does it serve the interest of the ARS

two how does it serve the interest of the public at large

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

These purposes are outlined in Section 97.1.

An individual who simply passed the requisite examinations to obtain their
license without studying the underlying electronics/antenna/etc theory does
not meet those goals.

It is extremely likely that people who pass their examinations using these
methods will not continue to increase their electronics or radio knowledge,
since they didn't take the time to learn any to begin with.


I, for one, do not think that the ARS needs a pool of appliance operators.
Granted, to some degree, appliance operations are going to be a "given" in
today's age, since hardly any amateurs build their own gear any longer.


However, if you're looking for a radio service devoid of any technical
knowledge, there are many others that fit that bill available to
individuals.

KH6HZ wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote:

one how does it serve the interest of the ARS

two how does it serve the interest of the public at large

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

These purposes are outlined in Section 97.1.

An individual who simply passed the requisite examinations to obtain their
license without studying the underlying electronics/antenna/etc theory does
not meet those goals.

how? in what way?

It is extremely likely that people who pass their examinations using these
methods will not continue to increase their electronics or radio knowledge,
since they didn't take the time to learn any to begin with.

unsupported supotion


I, for one, do not think that the ARS needs a pool of appliance operators.
Granted, to some degree, appliance operations are going to be a "given" in
today's age, since hardly any amateurs build their own gear any longer.

Opinoin unsuported by facts


However, if you're looking for a radio service devoid of any technical
knowledge, there are many others that fit that bill available to
individuals.

and now you enage in making assertions as to the motives of the man
that questions you

I say answer the questions of how your proposal support the interest of
the ARS, and the public

you are the one that want to change things

I am more or less atified that the current written tests are acceptable
and slowly improving thus I see no need to change

you do suport your asertion

Mike Coslo wrote:

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?

Mike, there is none.

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.

I've said as much before, but perhaps not as clearly.

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.

Some of these guys wished they were middle aged...

Regardless, either they've spent a lifetime in the industry, or a
lifetime as an amateur, and would like to think that everything they
know now was on the tests they took 30 years ago. It was not. And
they didn't know it back then.

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.

IS THIS THE SAME MIKE COSLO THAT USED TO POST HERE???

Is someone forging your name and email address???

They do like new things when they emulate old things, such as the $350
jewelled Morse Code Keys, and No-Code Technicians like Val Germann who
bash no-coders who have no intention of learning the code.

snip

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 -

I don't have a problem with people who achieve a lot.

Forget license class... what did you actually do with your license?