Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
Time to end the debate I suppose...
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. -= bob =- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose... 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. Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal Register before January 24? We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go. Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not just the code test, either. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
wrote in message ups.com... KC4UAI wrote: Time to end the debate I suppose... 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. Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal Register before January 24? There is an article on the ARRL website about it. Apparently they have access to information that says it is scheduled to be published on January 24th. This would make it effective on February 23rd. We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go. Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not just the code test, either. 73 de Jim, N2EY Water under the bridge now. I will focus my efforts on teaching, elmering, and conducting tests. Dee, N8UZE |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910 @q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: KC4UAI wrote: Time to end the debate I suppose... 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. Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal Register before January 24? We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go. Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not just the code test, either. Hi Jim, Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were higher than thay are now? I think they were higher then, yes. Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion? It's not about "difficulty" but about how much relevant info a person had to know and understand to pass the tests. The Ameco guide you refer to - what license class was it for? I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1953, 1962, and 1971. They contained the study guides provided by FCC, but *not* the actual Q&A used on the tests. Having read all of them cover-to-cover, I can say I think the standards were higher then. 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... Those sample questions were *not* the actual questions used on the test. They were simply made up by Ameco. After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions? Lots of ways: For example, which of the following requires more knowledge: Question 1: The length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz is about: a) 100 feet long b) 50 feet long c) 67 feet long d) 40 feet long Question 2: Determine the length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz, using the appropriate formula. Show all work. That's just one question. -- Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not* be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would cover the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc. So the typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards, forwards and sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test. But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able to solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the correct answer out of the four supplied. In looking at the old study guides vs. the new, it seems to me that the old exams focused on a relatively few number of subjects, but covered those subjects in some depth. The new tests seem to me to cover a wide range of subjects, but in very little depth. Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample questions? I'll post them if you are interested. I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was. I think the old process was a better process in some ways and a worse process in other ways. I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited space. When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story. I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other gathering. The result was that there was testing available all over the place, but the Q&A weren't available publicly. And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
From: Mike Coslo on Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:27 pm
wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910 KC4UAI wrote: Time to end the debate I suppose... 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. Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal Register before January 24? [does that mean Miccolis can't understand what the ARRL wrote on its web page? :-)] Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not just the code test, either. [quick, someone put up a sign saying "wet floor"...a bunch of morsemen spilled their cask of sour grape mash!] Hi Jim, Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were higher than thay are now? Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion? 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! :-) I've heard that song played over and over again for as long as I've been an adult. The lyrics might change a bit from decade to decade but the tune is the same. :-) All these olde-tymers walked (uphill both ways) barefoot through the snow to take Their FCC exams. :-) Funny you should mention 1956. It's a clear time in my life experience. In the summer of 1956 I was at H&H Electronics in Rockford, IL, talking to Gene Hubbel, then a W9, later W7DI (now SK). H&H had just gotten in some new study guides. Can't remember the publisher but I categorized all such as "Q&A" books. Must have been at least three different publishers around that time. I looked through a couple of them (always a nice "feel" to a brand new book out of the carton). An "in-your-face" customer asked me if I was going to take a test? I replied, "already did it in March" and pulled out my small First 'Phone ID card. Sneering he then asked "which [Q&A book] did I use?" I said "None" and, disbelieving, he was about to get physical over that! [really, some folks wander around always looking for a fight] Gene distracted him before the small store got torn up. [not a big problem for me to handle physical stuff since I had been released from active Army duty in February] I had never used any Q&A book earlier that year because no store in town had them...had to settle for memorizing a borrowed copy of the FCC regs then published in loose-leaf format. Hard work, that, but it got done, I passed my First 'Phone but never "aced" it. Passing was good enough for me then. Didn't walk uphill both ways to Chicago, just rode the train 90 miles (shoes always on feet) to get there. shrug I looked in here nearly a decade ago and there were the "in-your-face" yahoos tawkin 'bout how HARD it was for them...in the 60s...in the 70s...etc. :-) The really rabid ones were going on about "the GROL ain't hard, not like the AMATEUR EXTRA!!!" :-) They apparently were too young to remember that a GROL didn't get created until around 1980 or so. It eventually became a lifetime thing, no renewals necessary. Wasn't so in 1956 when a First 'Phone took at least two hours to complete four different test parts, only one of which was multiple-choice. I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was. I really can't understand WHY some "vetting" process was needed. A hobby is an avocation, NOT an occupation. Survival of amateur radio never did depend on "how well anyone sent code" nor was the country in danger if some sent it badly...neither was it more secure if some could send it "perfectly." I've always regarded amateur radio as a FUN HOBBY. So many enjoy it. But, some take almost a perverse attitude in trying to "run it" according to Their standards...even personal desires. Nobody vetted Them as "bosses" but they strut around acting like bosses. Amateur radio is NOT an occupation, guild, craft, or something absolutely vital to national security. It is a HOBBY but some take it wayyyyy too seriously. Part of the problem of this nostalgia thing about "how the older testing system 'worked so well'" lies with all the 50- and 60- somethings suddenly facing their own mortality. [we are ALL going to die, no exceptions, its in our designer genes] The "old" ways are a form of comfort, of security. They've survived them. They are comfortable with what they have but don't want to remember the struggle they had to reach to reach that pinnacle of their claimed knowledge and experience. Running around with a self-made (unofficial) "boss" title is NOT going to help the hobby, regardless of how good it makes Them feel. The way I see it, the "threat" to the hobby that some cry and cry about is just a personal threat to the crier. They will LOSE their reference points for being "better" than others. TS. Federal laws and regulations aren't done to "better" the lives of minority hobbyists. Federal laws and regulations apply to ALL citizens. Hey, "change happens!" :-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Morkie Get's It Wrong...AGAIN!
nobodys old friend wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910 @q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other gathering. it has it merits but ain't happening anymopre Who says? You? The result was that there was testing available all over the place, but the Q&A weren't available publicly. And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in a day" - and they succeed. indeed they should if they are to advertise such But they are NOT "technicians" any more than you are competent in English, Morkie. Is that a good thing, though? why not? Becuase it's "dumbing down". Please notice that no such exam process exists in any of the countries that are quickly overshadowing us in REAL technology advances...Like Red China, Japan, Singapore, etc etc etc... Do the new hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed? obviously they do Obviously they can answer the questions. That doesn't make them competent in the material. Witness KB9RQZ as an example. Steve, K4YZ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Those Old Study Guides
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. More to come. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool? | Policy | |||
another place the fruit can't post | Policy | |||
LAPD getting rid of "Code 2-High" calls on 5/16 | Scanner | |||
Why You Don't Like The ARRL | General | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |