Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Those Old Study Guides
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- 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). 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Those Old Study Guides
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 - |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Those Old Study Guides
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Those Old Study Guides
"Dee Flint" wrote in news:-
: "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. Agreed. I actually enjoyed taking the tests. And for some, they are harder than it is for others. I'm pretty well convinced that the amount of testing that would be required to be an effective ham from the date of passing the test successfully would require so much effort that no one would attempt to become a ham any more. I've become convinced since the last time that I posted here regularly that there are some hams who wouldn't mind that a bit. 8^( - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
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 |