"Dick Carroll;" writes:

Wrong again, Bill. I define limited interest in ham radio as limited
interest in ham radio.

Where Ham Radio isn't Ham Radio if the CW testing requirement is
dropped. I approve of keeping the requirement, but I dispute your
right to define the ARS in terms like these.

Regards,
Len.

On 05 Jul 2003 02:23:30 GMT, N2EY wrote:

The big problem with essay and fill-in-the-blank questions is that the answers
are not 100% objective. There's always a measure of judgement involved.

For example, take a simple question like "what is the length of a half-wave
dipole cut for 7.1 MHz?" With multiple choice, the QPC says that one answer
(say, 66 feet) is the correct one and all others are incorrect.

Want to make that one more fun? Do it like the 200 multi-guess
questions on the Multistate Bar Exam: give four choices - two are
obviously incorrect and two are "almost correct". Ask which of the
four is the -best- answer.

But with essays and fill-in-the-blank, what tolerance do we put on the
correct answer? Is 67 feet acceptable? 68 feet? 66 feet 3 inches? The
person being tested could write a long dissertation on tapering elements,
the effect of ground, wire/tubing sizes, etc., and come up with a whole
range of arguably-correct answers.

And run into an examiner who doesn't understand all the nuances of
such an answer.....

From what I have researched, FCC went to multiple-choice questions for all
ham exams no later than 1961.

IIRC the Novice and Tech/General that I took in 1952 were all
multi-choice. The next written exam that I took was the Advanced in
1968 and by that time multi-choice was in place for a long time in
all FCC license exams with the exception of two pages of diagrams in
the Commercial Radiotelegraph Element 6 which had to be graded by an
engineer, not a regular examiner.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Vshah101 wrote:
From: Mike Coslo:


My final original point was that that a person who would not study
Morse code in order to get a General license must have an interest akin
to mine towards piloting a plane. That is to say "Thanks but no thanks."



The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated skill as some
sort of barrier to getting a higher license class

Morse code does not necessarily show more interest. Its possible that someone
not interested in Morse may have an interest in many more areas therefore
having more interest in amateur radio than some that are mostly interested in
Morse code.

No, of course interest in Morse code does not in itself show more
interest in the ARS in general.

My thoughts were that if a person is really interested in something,
they will pursue that, even if there are some parts that they are not
concerned with.

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote in message ...
(Vshah101) writes:

The skill has to be relevant. You should not use some unrelated
skill as some sort of barrier to getting a higher license class

Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS really
want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what?

Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT
get to impose any requirements at all. The FCC makes
the rules and, as a government entity, it has NO justification
to make requirements that can not be justified.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" writes:
wrote:

Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS
really want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what?

Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT get to impose any
requirements at all. The FCC makes the rules and, as a government
entity, it has NO justification to make requirements that can not be
justified.

Agreed; the government lacks this power. I think you'll find that the
demands of the ARS licensees could constitute "justification", if the
FCC so desired. It is, ultimately, regulating a big club after all.
It's very strange business, really.

Regards,
Len.

"Dick Carroll;" writes:
wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" writes:

Wrong again, Bill. I define limited interest in ham radio as limited
interest in ham radio.

Where Ham Radio isn't Ham Radio if the CW testing requirement is
dropped. I approve of keeping the requirement, but I dispute your
right to define the ARS in terms like these.

Oh. So you don't believe that limited interest is actually limited
interest. I see.

You aren't that dense, so of course you're making this straw man on
purpose. You define "limited interest in CW" to be "limited interest
in ARS" because you define ARS as inherently including CW. Since
that's the topic under discussion, you are begging the question.

I believe in keeping the CW requirement, and even adding a few more
requirements, precisely to enhance the loyalty of licensees and to
discourage those who wouldn't be active anyway, or would engage in bad
practice. But I don't beg the original question; I've pointed out that
a swimming requirement would do almost as well.

IOW, I believe in weeding out those whose interest in ARS is
sufficiently limited that he refuses to take and pass the swimming
test--but I wouldn't say, "If you aren't interested in swimming a
mile, you aren't interested in ARS."

Likewise with CW.

Regards,
Len.

wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" writes:
wrote:

Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS
really want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what?

Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT get to impose any
requirements at all. The FCC makes the rules and, as a government
entity, it has NO justification to make requirements that can not be
justified.

Agreed; the government lacks this power. I think you'll find that the
demands of the ARS licensees could constitute "justification", if the
FCC so desired. It is, ultimately, regulating a big club after all.
It's very strange business, really.

The limits of power for government agencies is
found in 5 USC 706 that provides:

"To the extent necessary to decision and when presented,
the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law,
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and
determine the meaning or applicability of the terms
of an agency action."

"The reviewing court shall -
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or
unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings, and conclusions found to be -
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power,
privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case
subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or
otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency
hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the
facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court."

"In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall
review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party,
and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error."

The Morse code exams are unnecessary [arbitrary].
5 USC 706(2)(A).

The only thing strange thing about this is how long the
ITU and FCC allowed this nonsense to continue.

Larry, kc8epo

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 05 Jul 2003 02:23:30 GMT, N2EY wrote:

The big problem with essay and fill-in-the-blank questions is that the answers
are not 100% objective. There's always a measure of judgement involved.

For example, take a simple question like "what is the length of a half-wave
dipole cut for 7.1 MHz?" With multiple choice, the QPC says that one answer
(say, 66 feet) is the correct one and all others are incorrect.

Want to make that one more fun? Do it like the 200 multi-guess
questions on the Multistate Bar Exam: give four choices - two are
obviously incorrect and two are "almost correct". Ask which of the
four is the -best- answer.

But with essays and fill-in-the-blank, what tolerance do we put on the
correct answer? Is 67 feet acceptable? 68 feet? 66 feet 3 inches? The
person being tested could write a long dissertation on tapering elements,
the effect of ground, wire/tubing sizes, etc., and come up with a whole
range of arguably-correct answers.

And run into an examiner who doesn't understand all the nuances of
such an answer.....

From what I have researched, FCC went to multiple-choice questions for all
ham exams no later than 1961.

IIRC the Novice and Tech/General that I took in 1952 were all
multi-choice.

I was there then too, I'll vouch for that.

The next written exam that I took was the Advanced in
1968 and by that time multi-choice was in place for a long time in
all FCC license exams with the exception of two pages of diagrams in
the Commercial Radiotelegraph Element 6 which had to be graded by an
engineer, not a regular examiner.

I read somewhere that the reasons the FCC dropped the essay-type exams
of the '30's and earlier were (a) The answers were too subject to
interpretation by the examiner and/or the candidate knew the correct
answers but bungled the composition of his answers (b) Multiple choice
answer sheets can be much more quickly graded, almost automatically
with an overlay type checking mask.

w3rv

Dick Carroll; wrote:

wrote:


"Dick Carroll;" writes:

Wrong again, Bill. I define limited interest in ham radio as limited
interest in ham radio.

Where Ham Radio isn't Ham Radio if the CW testing requirement is
dropped. I approve of keeping the requirement, but I dispute your
right to define the ARS in terms like these.



Oh. So you don't believe that limited interest is actually limited
interest. I see.
And Morse code wasn't mentioned, at least by me. REQUIREMENTS for the
license was.

I'm a bit confused by this whole thing, Dick. Even though we are
talking about requirents - one of which is indeed the Morse code test -
this whole argument is NOT about whether Morse code is good bad
indifferent or whether it SHOULD be tested for or not.

It's about it being a tested requirement, and that being the case, a
person's interest can be gauged by their willingness to get a license or
not, based on their dislike of that test requirement.

If people don't want it to be about Morse code, substitute:

"I won't becoame a ham because I don't want to take a written test."

I won't become a ham, because I don't want to pay the testing fee."

I won't become a ham because I don't think there should be any
questions about RF safety."


And I originally brough this up, so I know what I was speaking of.

I'm saying that a person who is willing to meet the requirements for a
ham license is more interested in being a ham than a person who is not
willing to meet the requirements.

Nothing mentioned about mode, or which particular requirement, nothing.
Just meeting the requirements.

But some people seem to know what we're gonna say even before we say it.

There are only a few real arguments against my statement. That would be
if a requirement were illegal, immoral, or causing harm to others. And
last time I checked, there was nothing in the ARS licensing requirements
that did that! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -