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

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

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

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

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

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

Aloha,

LA

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

"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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

That isn't how memorization works.

I was waiting for someone to fall into that one.

Of course it isn't how it works.


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


Here is a intereting note.

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


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

Yeah, Sounds like how mwmory works.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote in
:

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

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

Very true - a most old fashioned way of teaching.

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

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

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

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

wrote in
ps.com:


Mike Coslo wrote:
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?

That's the study guide, not the actual exam.

We really don't know what the old exams were actually like (actual
questions), except for the memories of those who took them, because
FCC kept them secret. All we really have are the study guides, which
are not the same thing at all.

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.

For the General - not the Extra.

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

did they get both questions again?

In the study guide.

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?

It's not about difficulty at all. It's about what knowledge is needed
to pass the test.

Look at my postings and I do not think you will find me saying I think
the old tests were "harder" or "more difficult". What you will see is
me saying they were better.

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.

Of course Elmering is part of the answer. And you're looking at the
most powerful Elmering tool ever invented. But it has to be used - by
both the Elmers and those needing help. Read the various reflectors
(much better behaved than Usenet) and you'll see a lot of that going
on.

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..

If you had a basic knowledge of the circuit, you wouldn't be guessing.

Guess it depends on what you mean by "basic". I'm a real neophyte
at hollow state, and I almost got the "Draw the schematic" version of th
equestion correct.



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. ;^)

Part of the old *process* (not the test content as much as how it was
given) was that you only had general areas of study.

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.

That's not my wish at all.

As a committee designed product, that is what would have to happen
to stop some people from griping.


What I'd like to see is more emphasis on the basics of radio (Ohm's
Law, basic antennas, how circuits actually work), particularly in the
Technician and General exams. Leave the more-exotic, niche stuff for
the Extra.

I can't argue with that. I'd happily trade all of the space
operations and all of the stupid band size questions for some more
technical stuff.


And regardless of what anyone other than FCC wants, both the number of
tests and the number of questions for each license class dropped
dramatically in 2000.

I had some profs and teachers that gave out one question tests!

One more point:

The old Novice was easy to get. Its written was very basic, and so it
had a small study guide. But that license also conveyed extremely
limited privileges! On top of that, it wasn't a permanent license -
you had one shot at the Novice. So there was a real incentive to
learn.

Comparing the old Novice to the current Tech is apples-and-oranges.

In 1956, the Technician test was the General test without Morse
testing.


How "hard" were the old exams? How much did the "old timers" actually
know?

Here's one story - you tell me:

Back in the late 1960s, I knew a young amateur who was a Technician.
This was in the days when the Advanced had just been reopened for new
issues, and the Advanced written test was reportedly the technical
equivalent of at least the Second 'Phone, if not the First 'Phone,
except for the regulations part, of course.

In those days, those who had both amateur and commercial licenses
usually said the technical part of the tests needed to get the Amateur
Extra (three exams, General.Advanced /Extra) was at least the
technical equivalent of the 'First Phone.

One summer day this young amateur, who would enter 9th grade that
fall, went to the local FCC office to take the 13 wpm code and upgrade
to General. (No additional written test was needed back then, because
the Tech and General used the same written test in those days). He
passed, and was about to go home and await his new license, when the
FCC examiner suggested he try the Advanced written. (He couldn't try
the Extra because of the "time-in-grade" requirement back then).

Time in grade - smart idea....

This young amateur hadn't studied for the Advanced written at all. He
knew some radio theory and practice, and the regulations, all of it
self-taught. He'd only been a ham about a year or two, but even a 14
year old back then knew better than to say no to The Man From FCC.

So he sat down and tried the Advanced - and passed easily. Not
because of some study guide or other, or some memorization tricks, but
because of knowing some radio theory and the regs.

So while some may have said they were "hard" and some say the OTs
didn't know much, the truth was somewhat different.

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 -

"Bob Brock" wrote in
:


wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:


Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

Always am.

Here's a sample - lots more to come.

From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:

Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being used.
It's more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is
taking it.

Every tried grading essay questions?

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

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

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

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

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

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

"The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm."

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

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

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in
:



Every tried grading essay questions?

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

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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:

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

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

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

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