Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
On 05 Sep 2003 11:19:23 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Then what do you think that they test for?

Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then
Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens
are nothing more than jumping thru hoops

Bob,

If you're bothering to argue with Bruce....

I'm beginning to understand him better. :-)

He's been asked to at least turn his spellchecker on. Refuses. That
tells ya something....

In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think
that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the
questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?

You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to
memorize the correct sequence were you?

The point is that the level of UNDERSTANDING required to pass the writtens
today is a lot less than it would be if the actual Q&A were not made public.

His contention was the learning was not required.

Which is obviously an invalid contention. Proved wrong many times.

My contention is different.

I've shown him
where it is required and a very similar system is used in a validated
educational system.

Similar but not equivalent.

I used to train people at a nuclear power plant. The way I did it was
to provide the students with a list of objectives, which were usually
in the form of questions. I told them up front that when I was
finished with the class, I expected to have covered those objectives
and that they needed to know the answers. When I wrote the test, you
know where the questions came from? Yup, they came from those
objectives word for word because that was what I wanted them to learn.
So, if they would study those objectives and know the answers to those
objectives, they could pass the tests with no problems.

OK, fine.

Did they KNOW, from Day 1, that the test they would be taking would consist of
the exact questions and answers you gave them on Day 1?

They did if the believed me when I told them.

OK, fine.

Was the passing grade 74%?

For most subjects, 70% was passing. However, after academic training
was completed, the employee was required to pass an ETQS performance
based test prior to certification.

There ya go. Not the same system at all. Passing the written tests was
only the first step. In amateur radio without code tests, it would be
the only step.

Was there a penalty for wrong answers?

The lost points on the exam...we didn't beat them or anything like
that. ;-)

Sorry - "test score penalty". Like in the SATs, where, on 5 choice
multiple guess questions, a right answer is 5 points, a wrong answer
is -1 point, and no answer is 0 points. Eliminates any benefit from
random guessing.

We didn't
play games with them and train them on objectives and test them on
something unrelated. We taught them, they learned what we wanted them
to learn and we validated that they had learned it without playing
mind games with them by extending the tests beyond the objectives.

And the class was how many hours?

Nobody's saying the tests should go beyond the stated objectives.

No amount of academic training is going to make someone proficient at
performing tasks. Only experience actually doing it will make that
happen.

Bingo! And the closest thing we have to a performance test in amateur
radio is...the Morse code test. What's left of it.

That worked very well in a nuclear environment.

I imagine that the class has a lot of motivation towards safety.

Mistakes are not acceptable.

Yet they happen. I live about 100 miles from Three Mile Island.

We maintained a SALP
1 from the NRC during the time frame I was there and I was there for
quite a while.

Were the employees tested once at the beginning of their employment at the
plant, and never again? Or was continuing education an integral part of that
environment?

Academic training and testing was a one time affair. Performance
based retesting was annual.

There ya go! Continuing education and skill development is an integral
part of that environment.

Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to
operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment,
but that's simply not true and anyone who is rational would know that.

Not a question of complexity.

In both cases, the material is taught and the student learns it or
they don't pass the test.

Not all hams take formal classes - in fact, most probably don't.

In the bad old days, the FCC published a study guide that listed, in essay
form, the type of questions and typical solutions that would be found on the
tests. For example, there were questions about Ohm's Law for a DC circuit and
how to solve them. Any prospective ham knew he/she would be expected to know
how to solve E = I/R and P = IE problems, resistors in series, parallel and
series-parallel, etc. And anybody who had a basic UNDERSTANDING of that stuff
would have no problem on those test questions.

But the actual Q&A were not made public. Today, with the actual Q&A in hand,
less understanding is required.

That's what bothers some folks.

As I said in a previous post in another thread, regulatory agencies
are not democracies.

Of course!

Sometimes they do things that I don't like.
When that happens I have two choices...conform or boycott.

There's a third choice: Work to get them to change their minds and the
rules.

Consider this: Today, the test for Tech is 35 questions from a published pool.
Most of those questions are on regulations, with some operating practices,
theory and safety stuff. Yet the license granted for passing that test gives
alla amateur privileges above 30 MHz, including the authorization to design,
build, repair, align, modify and most of all operate transmitters of up to 1500
W power output on 'meat cooking frequencies' as WK3C puts it. There is no
separate safety testing nor ongoing education - someone can get all of the RF
exposure questions wrong and still pass.

Do you think that the test and its methods are really adequate for the
privileges granted?

No I don't.

Nor do I.

In addition to dropping the code requirement, I would
like to see the academic testing made much harder with a performance
based test included. However, that's not going to happen.

Probably not. It will never ever happen if hams don't ask for it,
though.

And you can count on this: Propose harder written tests and other
performance-based tests, and there will be opposition for exactly the
same reasons some people oppose the code tests.

FCC does. In fact, back in 2000 they lowered the written requirement for the
Tech license by almost half.

See my above comment regarding regulatory agencies. I can see where
they are coming from though. They have limited budget and ham radio
is a very small part of their plate.

The FCC does not spend one cent on training hams. Nor do they spend
very much on testing and test generation - volunteer hams do almost
all of that. All FCC does in connection with license testing is
process completed applications after the VEs have done most of the
work, and approve questions generated by the QPC folks.

We could have all better written exams and different performance tests
without it costing FCC anything. But it goes against the fashion. And
the "Smith chart effect" opposition would kick in, guaranteed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:48:10 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 05:16:59 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:


Bob Brock wrote in message
. ..



If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

That's shrill enough, congratulations.


I guess no answer at all was to be expected since it shows how invalid
the postion is.

How's this for an answer? NO!

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an activity.

I can't understand why you would want to talk to someone from another
country who had possibly not passed your lid filter, but to each their
own incongruiteis I guess.

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.


Real hams will talk to anyone who is duly licensed under the rules and
regulations of their own governing body. Now if someone proves himself a
lid in the course of QSO, naturally we will bow out but only if the person
has demonstrated that he actually is a lid. Besides it's seldom been
foreign operators who have been a problem. The problem is right here in
this country.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Then what do you think that they test for?

Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then
Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens
are
nothing more than jumping thru hoops

In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think
that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the
questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?


Both the pool AND answers are published.

Let's take a typical question:

What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz?

Now since the questions AND answers are published, the prospective test
taker can simply memorize the numerical answer instead of having to learn
the appropriate equation and how to use that equation. Using the memorize
the numerical answer approach, the new ham has passed the test but is unable
to calculate the dipole that he/she may actually want to build for operating

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:58:06 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On 05 Sep 2003 02:58:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world.

And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge

Then what do you think that they test for?

Whether someone can remember correct answers to known questions.

Provided that the questions cover the things that you want the person
to know, this isn't an issue.


I think it is because retention of the material is minimal when rote
memorizing for a test. I couldn't tell you anything that was on the tests I
took--because the material was not learned, it was memorized. No examples
of application, no scenarios for cause and affect, etc.

Kim W5TIT

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:55:21 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:15:41 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott
QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement
for
HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will
boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country"
due
to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get
thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.

Well, excuse the observation he but you asked and was answered, at
least
by N2EY and by me. Both answers were succinct and without merit for the
return you have above--which seems quite defensive and I'm puzzled by
why.

So, you simply asked and were quite simply answered.

And, since you were the one who asked the question of such a weird
concept
you would be observing your own actions with regard to your last
sentance.

Kim W5TIT


OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.


Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would "boycott
someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you
doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to you
and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word
about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the
victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question, with
nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic.

I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a
court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion.

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll; wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:


On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:48:10 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


Bob Brock wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:16:59 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:



Bob Brock wrote in message
. ..




If CW is indeed effective and current, then it will propagate due to
its usefulness without regulatory requirement. Judging by how
shrill
the proponents are, it appears that even they are afraid that it
won't
show itself to be advantageous enough for people to learn on their
own.

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

That's shrill enough, congratulations.


I guess no answer at all was to be expected since it shows how invalid
the postion is.

How's this for an answer? NO!

Provide references where anyone has even proposed such an
activity.

I can't understand why you would want to talk to someone from another
country who had possibly not passed your lid filter, but to each their
own incongruiteis I guess.

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.


Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it.


Whattya think Dick? This person comes in here, asks incredible slippery
slope/leading questions but won't answer them, thinks that "reasonable
approximations" are numbers, and then brags about not upgrading because:

From Bob Brock Afterall, I've
From Bob Brock boycotted General and above for about 9 years now
From Bob Brock because of antiquated requirements.

This sounds like one of the principled people that Carl speaks of who
won't go beyond technician because they don't believe in the Morse test.
Is this typical of Carl's new people?

- Mike KB3EIA


Possibly, Mike. I know you didn't ask me, but I can't help but make the
statement that if even so, it would be nice for you to be astute enough not
to roll everyone into your neat little package. Bob may be the kind of
person you allude to, I don't know; he will have to speak to that with you.
But, damned few people who don't like CW have avoided/boycotted higher class
licensure until CW went away. In fact, I know no one like that. So, like I
said, it would be intellectual of you to keep from using the broad
paintbrush. Dick's is glued to his hand, so I don't even consider that he
has the intellect to achieve such a lofty goal.

Kim W5TIT

Dick Carroll; wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


.

We play rough in here, but we do expect people to make sense.


Hey Mike, I hadn't givern it any thought, but you've had most excellent preparation, what with being an
longtime Hockey type! Way to go!

We get our educations in the strangest places, sometimes! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:56:41 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
On 04 Sep 2003 01:29:46 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:


That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.

Carl - wk3c

Bull****, Prove it.


See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.

What number was claimed? What number is "reasonable approximation?

If you just come in here to vent aimlessly, eventually no one will play
with you.

- Mike KB3EIA -

If no value was given, why are you guys asking for proof of something
that wasn't said? I do understand though. I asked a question and
that was turned into a postion that needed justifying, so I realize
that there are some serious reading comprehension problems here

I sure hope that some of the people who have replied to me can send
Morse a lot better than they can read english.


Hmmmmm. As I see it, the only thing Bob's gotten right yet is that he,
indeed, see me say I was leaving the newsgroup; although I'm not sure I said
I would never return...but even so, I'll give him that.

Kim W5TIT

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:35:08 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Well, excuse the observation he but you asked and was answered, at
least
by N2EY and by me. Both answers were succinct and without merit for
the
return you have above--which seems quite defensive and I'm puzzled by
why.

So, you simply asked and were quite simply answered.

And, since you were the one who asked the question of such a weird
concept
you would be observing your own actions with regard to your last
sentance.


Hey Kim


I don't think we can apply the regular rules of logic to this one!

- Mike KB3EIA -

If your regular rules of logic include making up a postion and then
asking someone who didn't support it to justify it, I'd have to agree
with you. All you have to do is show me where I said it. What's the
problem Mike. You're dancing all around it, but you just can't seem
to do.

Why is that?


Who said you said it, Bob. Let's start from there. Square one. WHO SAID
you said it?

Kim W5TIT

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...

I'll tell you guys why I'm here shortly, but conversing with twits
like you sure isn't it.


Oh!! Hold me back!! Now he's getting suspenseful!

Kim W5TIT