"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

"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.


It's both, depending on the need. I had quite a problem with ARRL's
code practice CD. Once through and I had (unfortunately) memorized the
CD. But not the code!!



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.

Some people can't help that though. In the end, the difference is not
all that much. Memorizing a formula and knowing where to look it up and
use it is a functional equivalent. I wouldn't be caught dead without my
ARRL handbook.


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

My application of the word dumb is in reference to doing it the hard way
instead of the way one should.



(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.

I don't disagree with you there. I'm all about technical acumen. I just
don't think all hams need to be as technically clever as I am, as some
hams do.

Disclaimer: I am pretty competent in matters of computers, digital
electronics, audio equipment, and their applications to video work. I'm
a bit lacking in RF, which is one of the reasons that I became a Ham.


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.

Yer' hangin' with the wrong crowd, Mike! Just kidding. But there is
actually quite a bit of experimenting going on.


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.

It couldn't, for the many things that we can engage in with this
hobby. I doubt we would get many people into the hobby if we had to test
to proficiency in all the aspects of it.

What you speak of would almost require a large structured
apprentice program.

rest snipped..


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Some people can't help that though. In the end, the difference is
not all that much. Memorizing a formula and knowing where to look
it up and use it is a functional equivalent. I wouldn't be caught
dead without my ARRL handbook.

Yes, but what about those who simply word associate the answers and never
bother to learn the underlying theory at all? Are they really a benefit to
the ARS, other than upping the "body count".


I don't disagree with you there. I'm all about technical acumen. I
just don't think all hams need to be as technically clever as I am,
as some hams do.

I believe the theory examinations should be structured to test people on
basic knowledge and skills -- the building blocks they use to further their
journey in ham radio. I do not feel it is unreasonable to expect folks who
get licensed to actually 'know' these things.


It couldn't, for the many things that we can engage in with this
hobby. I doubt we would get many people into the hobby if we had to
test to proficiency in all the aspects of it.

70% isn't necessarily "proficient". I would say 70% is adequate for passing
the test. I would be hard pressed, for instance, to say an employee who gets
70% of their work correct is proficient at their job.

73
KH6HZ

"KH6HZ" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Some people can't help that though. In the end, the difference is
not all that much. Memorizing a formula and knowing where to look
it up and use it is a functional equivalent. I wouldn't be caught
dead without my ARRL handbook.

Yes, but what about those who simply word associate the answers and
never bother to learn the underlying theory at all? Are they really a
benefit to the ARS, other than upping the "body count".

Well, there are plenty of people who get through life kinda like
that.


I don't disagree with you there. I'm all about technical acumen. I
just don't think all hams need to be as technically clever as I am,
as some hams do.

I believe the theory examinations should be structured to test people
on basic knowledge and skills -- the building blocks they use to
further their journey in ham radio. I do not feel it is unreasonable
to expect folks who get licensed to actually 'know' these things.


It couldn't, for the many things that we can engage in with this
hobby. I doubt we would get many people into the hobby if we had to
test to proficiency in all the aspects of it.

70% isn't necessarily "proficient". I would say 70% is adequate for
passing the test. I would be hard pressed, for instance, to say an
employee who gets 70% of their work correct is proficient at their
job.

Definitely. But the idea to me is that a Ham who scored 70 percent on
the test can still put up an antenna - maybe even correctly, operate a
radio, help out in an emergency, and certainly in some cases do some
fine CW work.

I just think that trying to decide on what exactly makes a "good
test" is so subjective. I wouldn't want to base it on what I know. I
definitely wouldn't want to base it on "genius Hams" level of
knowledge. Others will differ.

I would offer this though. From what I know of EE students, at
least in my environment, is that they are loaded up with classes. They
can't take any of the gut courses. Getting through their courses is a
challenge that a fair number take an extra year to do it.

Most of them who are not Hams already, graduate with just about the
same ability to put a station together as a newly minted General. Who
had a test from a public question pool.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Well, there are plenty of people who get through life kinda like
that.

There are. If they have a ham license, are they aiding in fulfilling any
portion of 97.1 ?


Definitely. But the idea to me is that a Ham who scored 70 percent
on the test can still put up an antenna - maybe even correctly,
operate a radio, help out in an emergency, and certainly in some
cases do some fine CW work.

Maybe... maybe not. We accept 70% as an arbitrary # that someone 'knows' the
material.

However, as currently structured, that 70% passing grade is "all
encompassing" on the examination. You could miss every single question on
the antenna theory subelement (or regulations subelement, or some other
topic) and still pass the exam and get your ham license.

I proposed in my 1998 NPRM comments that applicants be required to get 70%
or better on each subelement. Thus, you would have to "pass" the subelement
on regulations, "pass" the sub-element on antenna theory, etc.


I just think that trying to decide on what exactly makes a "good
test" is so subjective. I wouldn't want to base it on what I know.
I definitely wouldn't want to base it on "genius Hams" level of
knowledge. Others will differ.

Neither would I. I think the current testing system is okay, with minor
modications to help ensure applicants actually know the material. In no way
do I want to increase the "difficulty" of the exam (although no doubt some
will claim my ideas would make it more difficult for someone to get a
license, although I counter that someone knowing the material would, in
fact, have no difficulty).

73
KH6HZ

On Jan 25, 6:36 am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Well, there are plenty of people who get through life kinda like
that.

There are. If they have a ham license, are they aiding in fulfilling any
portion of 97.1 ?

Is scarfing up a dozen callsigns fufilling any portion of Part 97?