Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message news "N2EY" wrote in message ... But does the NCVEC petition, or the NCI petition address the writtens? Not at all. No, why should it? I have ALWAYS said the code was a separate issue from writtens. I'm not opposed to revisiting the writtens, but there's no need to wait for that before ending all code testing. Yes it should address writtens because by eliminating the code test without addressing the writtens, you are reducing the overall level of knowledge required to earn the various levels of ham licenses. Until the replacement exams are ready, the old exams, including the code should remain intact. Personally if the code is dropped, I would like to see the exams restructured as follows: A) Regulations element: One must pass this before being allowed to take any of the other elements. A lengthy and separate exam covering the FCC rules and regulations in depth. Based on what I hear on the air and the statements on the internet from any hams, there's a real problem in this area. This one should require at least a score of 85% to pass. B) Technician element: Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical material and operating procedures material to keep the test pool about the same size. C) General element: Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical material, operating procedures, and basic VE requirements material to keep the test pool about the same size. D) Extra element Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical material, operating procedures, and extensive VE requirements material to keep the test pool about the same size. I'd really like to see a rules test as a stand alone test that one must pass before even taking any of the other elements. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message news "N2EY" wrote in message ... But does the NCVEC petition, or the NCI petition address the writtens? Not at all. No, why should it? I have ALWAYS said the code was a separate issue from writtens. I'm not opposed to revisiting the writtens, but there's no need to wait for that before ending all code testing. Yes it should address writtens because by eliminating the code test without addressing the writtens, you are reducing the overall level of knowledge required to earn the various levels of ham licenses. Until the replacement exams are ready, the old exams, including the code should remain intact. Gee, when the states stopped requiring manual transmission knowledge and/or use of hand signals while driving, what'd they replace those elements with to keep the driving test at the same level of knowledge? The point is that licensing should be about rational requirement consistent with license privileges. It has NOTHING to do with maintaining any set level of difficulty...as if that can even be measured in some way. Personally if the code is dropped, I would like to see the exams restructured as follows: A) Regulations element: One must pass this before being allowed to take any of the other elements. A lengthy and separate exam covering the FCC rules and regulations in depth. Based on what I hear on the air and the statements on the internet from any hams, there's a real problem in this area. This one should require at least a score of 85% to pass. B) Technician element: Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical material and operating procedures material to keep the test pool about the same size. C) General element: Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical material, operating procedures, and basic VE requirements material to keep the test pool about the same size. D) Extra element Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical material, operating procedures, and extensive VE requirements material to keep the test pool about the same size. I'd really like to see a rules test as a stand alone test that one must pass before even taking any of the other elements. Not a bad approach... but not sure 85% should be expected passing rate for A. In any case, such a change in approach would involve considerable comment and discussion which should NOT stop the immediate removal of Element 1 (code). Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How does a 6146B fail? | Boatanchors |