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

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?

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

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. 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.

That worked very well in a nuclear environment. We maintained a SALP
1 from the NRC during the time frame I was there and I was there for
quite a while. 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.
In both cases, the material is taught and the student learns it or
they don't pass the test.

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....

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.

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?

Was the passing grade 74%?

Was there a penalty for wrong answers?

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.

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

That worked very well in a nuclear environment.

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

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?

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.

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?

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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. :-)

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

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.

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.

Was there a penalty for wrong answers?

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

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.

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.

That worked very well in a nuclear environment.

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

Mistakes are not acceptable.

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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

On 5 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

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:

Snipped much agreement only to save badwidth...

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

Gosh, I didn't think I'd find anyone here that I was pretty close to
agreement with. You seem to be the exception instead of the rule.

My feeling is that, unless this endless code debate ends sometime, ham
radio cannot move on in the testing area. I'd like to see a person
actually have to operate a radio in the band they are being licensed
for before they can take off by themselves. It could even be their
own radio. I think that they should know what all those nifty buttons
actually do. They should know how to enter into a conversation. A
list of "critical tasks" and "non-critical tasks" should be developed
and a person not be licensed until they can actually show competence
in those tasks. Those are the types of issues that I'd like to see
the ham community discussing rather than the endless code/no-code
debate that detracts from everything else.

All of the name calling and false accusations from both sides makes us
look silly to those who read it. I'm really glad that it will be
ending soon. Perhaps then, we can move on to more important issues.

I'm sure that not everyone will agree with performance based testing
in addition to a written test. However, perhaps a consensus could be
reached.

How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?


Its called memorizing, no knowledge. If question about the material most
wouldnt have a Clue.

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

No I wasnt, I knew the Info.



Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to
operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment,

No not really, anymore its a waste of time the way the present written is
setup.

On 05 Sep 2003 13:03:07 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?


Its called memorizing, no knowledge. If question about the material most
wouldnt have a Clue.

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

No I wasnt, I knew the Info.



Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to
operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment,

No not really, anymore its a waste of time the way the present written is
setup.

If that's the way that you feel, it's a issue that needs to be
addressed. The only issues I've seen talked about in this ng during
the many times that I've subscribed to it is this petty code/no-code
bs that detracts from any real discussion about code testing.

Don't misconsture this as agreement that "no learning" takes place.
However, I will agree that the learning is inadequate in that a
written test or even classroom training adequately prepares a person
to perform tasks without an additional step of hands on experienced
based training and/or testing.

"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

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

Both the pool AND answers are published.

And how do we convince FCC to change that?

Let's take a typical question:

What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz?

I assume you mean "half wave"...

What kind of half wave dipole? Made of wire or tubing? Of uniform thickness or
tapering? In free space or near other objects?

The answer depends on a bunch of things!

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

Exactly!

Now suppose we rewrite the question to:

"What is the formula for computing the length of a half-wave dipole for 14.240
MHz, if the dipole is made of #10 wire and is in free space?"

The person being tested then memorizes the formula from the choices in the pool
but doesn't necessarily know how to use it. Same problem.

For another example, knowing that E = IR and P = EI doesn't guarantee that
someone will have the sense to realize that they should not try to use 50 feet
of #18 zip cord to connect a 100 watt transceiver to its 13.8 volt power
supply.

73 de Jim, N2EY