"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