wrote:

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.

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.

On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
radio.

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.

But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods.
Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in
fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true today.
I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's
pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years ago.

In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a
piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law?

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?

The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah,
maybe they do.

When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week
for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license. Then
I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus learning
enough theory to pass the General exam.

In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

So you walk this tightrope of trying to keep the barriers to entry high
enough so that there is some

From: Steve Bonine on Fri, Jan 19 2007 8:20 pm

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.

Good post, but I have to dispute a few things in your
paragraph. For example, on tests and testing.

In "today's environment" the "students" seem to be about
as willing and knowledge-hungry as when I was in high
school. [graduating class of 1951...:-)]

To further define that, SOME students cared and SOME
students didn't much give a snit, most of those in
between varied considerably. I can see the same
basic attitudes of invididuals now as back then...if one
strips off the veneer of what is/was social behavior
in their peer group. [that seems to cloud many
folks observation capability...of those who had a
different social environment/mores/ethos].

As a working design engineer for a long time, I've
NEVER questioned the "why" of Ohm's Law of Resistance.
It simply WAS. It's just one of the many laws of
radio-related physics.

Yes, I suppose I could write up a bunch of stuff on
Ohm and the "why" of his "law" since I once HAD to
learn that at some instructor's insistence (he never
did any design work himself, just "taught", but all
had to comply in order to pass his course). In 50+
years NOBODY has asked me about the "why" of Ohm's
Law of Resistance. That amounts to hundreds of
knowledgeable folks. Ohm's law just IS.

More radio-related is the equation for resonance.
[frequency=1/(2 pi (L*C)^0.5), in units of Hertz,
Henries, Farads] The "why" of that? I would have
to research it, spend two weeks or so at that, all
spinning my wheels on rote work that has NO
intrinsic worth. I KNOW it works because I've
proved it to myself over and over and over again
in actual calculation, construction and test. It
is one of those things that just IS. Memorize it,
engrave it on the synapses, and go to work USING it.
It is a reliable equation and works every time.

"Ohm's Law" is a very, very simple equation using
only three variables and not one single trans-
cendental function. It's almost elementary
algebra. To some licensed amateurs it might seem
to be "rocket science." :-)

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.

The material in the US amateur radio test is up to
the FCC to decide. The FCC grants the licenses,
not the "amateur community." The FCC was never
chartered to be an academic organization agency.

From my observation, most of the folks "perceiving
the goal of the exam" are usually working from a
base line of their OWN knowledge and experience;
i.e., expecting all to be "as good as they." :-)

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.

On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
radio.

Again, the function of the FCC is simply to regulate
all US civil radio. The FCC grants the licenses and
they have the task of deciding what is necessary for
Their test. To save taxpayer dollars, the FCC created
privatized testing via COLEMs and VECs. For US amateur
radio the VEC create the questions and answers which
are then approved/disproved by the FCC. By regulation
the VEC are required to be already-licensed radio
amateurs. Presumably those volunteer examiners know
something about radio and the general knowledge base
or background of those taking license tests. :-)

It would seem more logic to steer the discussion onto
the VEC Question Pool Committee rather than to blabber
about What Should Be (or What Should Not). The VEC QPC
determine the questions and answers and approval seems
to be pro-forma with the FCC. What seems to be the
case on that subject in here is merely Word War III
on licensing and an ignition point for yet one more
conflagration of the Angry Insistent (on Their way).


In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a
piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law?

Good question. :-)

One such inhabitant of this Din of Inequity (K4YZ) once
stated he "deserved an extra" because of his "ability to
tune in a signal!" :-)


In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero.

I disagree with that considerably. The expenditure of
anyone on their hobby is up to the individual hobbyist.
Being aware of several hobbies done by folks I am
acquainted with, such expenditure of personal time and
effort varies and none of it is compensated for by
anyone but the hobbyist.

It's an old, trite phrase in here that "all must dedicate
themselves and work hard" for an amateur radio license,
any class. Again, I'll ask "why?" Who is going to
compensate those ham radio hobbyists? Will they get
cheers and bouquets from their fellow hobbyists for such
"dedication?" I think not. At best they would get a
few words of approval if in person. In here they would
receive yet-another flame war trigger of antagonistic
comment, of allegedly "not doing as good" as the flamer.

This "dedication" thing seems to be an imaginary construct
existing in different forms in each individual. Amateur
radio is a hobby. It isn't a craft, a guild, a union, or
any occupation thing. The hobby is NOT necessary for the
survival of the nation nor one whose primary concern is
public safety. [like all citizen organizations, they CAN
be of aid in emergencies but that is NOT a prerequisite
in the amateur radio regulations] Does everyone have to
be "dedicated" to something? Or can't they just go and
enjoy the hobby without meeting someone else's idea of
"standards?"

There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

I differ on that. Requirements EVOLVE as I see them.
They evolve to fit many, many things but, foremost, I
think is that they should fit the present-day and the
immediate future.

There was nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 nor
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that mandated amateur
radio to preserve and protect the old ways of amateur
radio. Nothing about preservation of "tradition." The
agency granting all amateur radio licenses in the US
exists solely to regulate all US civil radio...it is NOT
a "club," NOT some agency beholden to anyone specific
or any organization.

The FCC should be responsive to ALL US citizens, on ANY
radio service it regulates. For the most part I think
they are just that. The FCC and its ham radio license
testing doesn't exist to provide emotional sustenance
to the olde-tyme ham radio lifestylers who wish to
preserve the environment as it was when they were
first licensed. That's not evolution, just stagnation
in favor of a small minority. That is FAR from
"serving the nation," just ordinary selfishness.

Steve Bonine wrote in
m:

wrote:

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.

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.


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




On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge
of radio.

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 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.

But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods.
Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in
fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true
today.

Where did you get that?


I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's
pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years
ago.

In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on
a piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But
Ohm's law?

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

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?

The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah,
maybe they do.

I'll bet those stupid Novices used to bother the good Hams too....
;^)

When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week
for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license.
Then I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus
learning enough theory to pass the General exam.

I spent 6 months learning Morse code to 5 wpm, failing my first test.
Aced the other tests.


In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

I respectfully disagree. Since we started a new program to recruit
and test new hams (and upgrade old ones) we've been doing at least one a
month. We're working well above attrition and the actuarial tables.
That's hardly vanishingly small interest.

That's just the start. We have a station for the new guys and gals
to use, with a control Op if need be (usually me) to sit with 'em as
they get their feet wet.

Wanna know the best way to turn off new hams? Be grumpy and
superior. Know for sure that you had a much harder time to earn your
stripes than they did. Don't talk to them at club meetings. Make sure
they know you're superior, so don't miss a chance to tell em that. With
that sort of attitude you'll have a self fulfilling prophecy. Ham radio
will die - all around you, wherever you go.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"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.

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".

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.


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.

73
KH6HZ

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote:

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

Not sure of your grammer school experience, since you're older than I am,
but mine mainly rested on rote-memorization. Vocabulary, math tables, etc.

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"Cecil Moore" wrote:

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

Not sure of your grammer school experience, since you're older than I am,
but mine mainly rested on rote-memorization. Vocabulary, math tables, etc.


That is because for the material being taught in grammar school, the rote
memorization approach is probably the most appropriate. There's really no
other way to learn math tables except repetition via memorization.

Dee, N8UZE

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

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"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.

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".

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.



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.

Dee, N8UZE