"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?