KH6HZ wrote nothing worth while:

Oh, my, Mikey D. is going to ignore the big who-haa in here about
his Dirty
Dozen "clubs?"

It looks like you were "collecting" OTHER callsigns in 1994. For
example, private ship call WCD6729 for the "trawler" named
"HORNBLOWER." [ship identification # 526927] Now I
suppose that is normally okay except for the required mailing
address you supplied:
Deignan, Michael P.
P. O. Box 465
Grapeview, WA 98546

Tsk. Grapeview is a tiny place on one of the innermost waterways
that make up the huge Puget Sound. It's about as far removed from
Rhode Island as is anyplace in CONUS. You'd have to steam for a
couple hours just to pass under the (old) Tacoma Narrows bridge and
then it would take lots more hours to get into International Waters.
WCD6729 states that this ship "makes international voyages!"
Ship radio license was cancelled in 2004.

A TRAWLER in Puget Sound, state of Washiington, for a
Rhode Island resident? What were you phishing phor?

Now, I can understand your other ship radio license, WCN4898,
for the motorboat "EFFLUVIA." [ship ID # MS5499FT] At least
your required mailing address was Chepachet, RI. Love that boat's
name...so fitting with what you post in here. :-)

Curiosity makes me wonder who gave you that P.O. Box in
Grapeview? It was kind of far away from Jeffie Herman's P.O.
Box in Hawaii.

Hey, no sweat, your Effluvia (the boat) radio license was also
cancelled in 2004 after ten years. You must have bailed Rhode
Island before then, right? But, your effluvia continues.

All these FACTS courtesy of the FCC's own search engine.

Aloha,

LA

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


That's not much different than a younger brother looking at his older
brother's algebra test when studying for his upcoming algebra test. Or
fraternity members in college looking at a file of previous years tests
(many profs don't bother to make more than minor changes in their tests
from year to year). Calculus students can see that there's no point in
learning mathematical proofs, as it never shows up on tests. But you
better know how to integrate 3csc^4x/((2tan^5x)-1)dx

"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.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote:

lolol.

Poor senile old boy.

I think its funny you obsess over me so much, even after 10 years.

For the record, my Ship License was WCN4898, not WCD6729. Anyone with half a
brain can check the ULS and see the FRN on my (expired) ship license.

Jot that down on a yellow sticky and put it next to your acoustic modem, ok,
Lennie?

Might wanna get the visiting nurse to come and change your diaper a little
more often too, you get so grumpy when you're soiled.

"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.

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.


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 (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.


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.


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.

My complaint with theory testing has never been about the material being
tested, simply the presentation, as the current tests do not actually ensure
the applicant knows the material.

Despites claims in another thread, I do not wish to "make the tests harder",
although I'm sure that my ideas would probably result in a higher failure
rate, since applicants would actually need to know the material, rather than
word-associating the correct answers.

To some, mainly, those looking for a free-ride anyway, this is likely to be
viewed as "making the tests harder", just as I'm sure they would claim the
existing tests are too hard for a myriad of reasons, all of which really
boil down to the fact they simply cannot sign their name to a form and
instantaneously receive an amateur radio license.

73
KH6HZ

I'm finding myself agreeing with you about this. It seems that a lot
of folks are "memorizing" the test questions and not mastering the
material. There are a lot of places where one can go take "practice"
testing that uses the exact question pool for any test you want to
take. Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not impossible to
memorize just the questions and not know the concepts.

I'd argue that this is very short sighted so one wonders what the
solution here is... I suppose we could increase the question pool by 10
fold or so and make it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?

-= bob =-


space.The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.

How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.

If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
remaining knowledge for most people.

Just so there is no mistake here...

I morn the dropping of the code from the testing requirements, more
from a nostalgia perspective than a practical one. I understand the
reasons and arguments on both sides of the debate, and I understand and
agree with the reasons it was done.

-= bob =-

On Jan 19, 5:35 pm, "an old friend" wrote:
KC4UAI wrote:
Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.only for some is it sad

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".
That part cannot be argued. The "service" that is
performed is by the federal government for the
benefit of US citizens.

It also meets the definition of "hobby". It is not
a choice of either/or. It is both.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"KC4UAI" wrote:

It seems that a lot of folks are "memorizing" the test
questions and not mastering the material.

I've been stating this very thing for close to 10 years now.


Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not
impossible to memorize just the questions and not know the
concepts.

It is important to put "memorize" in quotes, because (as others have
mentioned) it is highly unlikely someone memorizes verbatim the question and
exact answer. More likely what actually happens is people become familiar
enough with the question pool after drilling long enough that they simply
recognize the correct answer -- no real "memorization" per se of the actual
question or answer. Much like the same way you become familiar with, say,
streets along your daily commute, even though you probably do not have a map
memorized in your head.


I'd argue that this is very short sighted

It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in 97.1


so one wonders what the solution here is... I suppose we
could increase the question pool by 10 fold or so and make
it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?

My proposed solution is to eliminate question pools entirely, and instead
have a computerized question pool which is entirely randomly generated based
on various parameters. For example, take this question from the Tech
license:

T7B10 (B)
What is the satellite sub-band on 70-CM?
A. 420 to 450 MHz
B. 435 to 438 MHz
C. 440 to 450 MHz
D. 432 to 433 MHz


Now, rather than having 4 set answers, why couldn't we simply have a
computer program generate the correct answer and 3 distractors
automatically?


Some people have argued that my idea makes the test too "hard", or makes it
appear as a "graduation exam".

From the perspective that the exam is harder, that is probably true. You
would actually need to know the material, rather than simply become familiar
enough with the question pools to pass the examination.

However, in no way do I support (or suggest) that we make the examination
"harder" from a material perspective. If an applicant is supposed to "know"
ohms law on an examination, is it too much to ask that they really
demonstrate they "know" it, rather than simply "know" what the answer to the
question is, with no real understanding of the theory behind the question?

Like Cecil once said... The examinations are not supposed to be graduation
exams, nor do I support any type of proposal to make them more difficult,
from a content perspective. My suggestion, however, which I've posted for at
least 6-7 years, is to simply make the question pools computerized to
eliminate the ability of applicants to "memorize" the Q&A's, and ensure that
applicants actually know the material they are tested on.

73
KH6HZ

KH6HZ wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote:



I'd argue that this is very short sighted

It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in 97.1

it is short sighted I agree

but how was your 12 club calls anything but a violation of the intent
of that same part? it wasn't

people are allowed to be shortsighted

OTOH I doubt anyone can USE ham radio without learning something about
it

that has been a joy in watching my wife (inspried to get her tech by
the NPRM explore ham radio her degree is in fine arts not a techical
sort by any means and yet she is being to follow to discussion of our
recent reapeater mataince and even the techincal programs at our club
meeting (they are not comon alas recent programs have been foucused on
things like the NPRM and the recent FCC actions)