"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.


I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra. However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that. The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.
To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting). So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.



I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra. However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that. The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.
To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting). So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests?


Well said, Dwight. Everything is built on what went before it. So now
what sounded kind of easy is not so easy. Someone here, perhaps Jim,
pointed out how the Extra license tests did not address RF safety much
if at all. But wait! the Class B tests are apparently not going to
address RF safety either because the power is limited to a "safe"
amount. So now safety related learning is confined to the second test
for class A.

Dat's gonna be one big test!


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Dat's gonna be one big test!


Back when I took the Extra exam it had 100 questions. Seems about right to
me.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) Dat's gonna be one big test!


Yep. And covering a massive variety of information.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.

I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra.

But emphasis on different things.

However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that.

Depends what vintage Extra you're talking about.

The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.

Yet if lots of time elapsed between upgrades, that's not going to be completely
accurate.

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

Not really. It would only have to cover the stuff not covered in the Class B
test.

And if it takes a 120 or 150 question test, is that really a problem? We're not
talking EE or PE level questions here, just multiple choices from a published
pool.

So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests.

Well said, Dwight. Everything is built on what went before it. So now
what sounded kind of easy is not so easy. Someone here, perhaps Jim,
pointed out how the Extra license tests did not address RF safety much
if at all.

I don't recall saying that, but maybe I did.

Point is that a Tech today needs to be tested on RF safety at the 1500 W level
for VHF/UHF/microwaves, which are obvioulsy present the most hazard (as WK3C
says "meat-cooking frequencies"). Generals need to be tested on *all* RF
exposure, because they have *all* bands and full power.

Meanwhile us *old* (pre-1996) hams never had any RF safety stuff in our tests.
(At least some of us - ahem - learned the stuff anyway so we'd be current with
the current tests)

But is RF safety really that tough a subject?


But wait! the Class B tests are apparently not going to
address RF safety either because the power is limited to a "safe"
amount. So now safety related learning is confined to the second test
for class A.

Dat's gonna be one big test!

If so, is that really a problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

I expect it would be a longer test than todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level), and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those
who are intimidated by lengthy exams or have weak bladders.

My Extra exam was 100 questions. You were allowed 3.5 hours to complete it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

I expect it would be a longer test than
todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band
segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level),
and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken
in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those who are
intimidated by lengthy exams or have
weak bladders.


In the end, I've described several, what I consider, serious faults in
your proposal, and that's without even getting into what I think the FCC's
perspective might be. I don't even think you're being realistic at this
point. Because of that, I don't think your proposal has a chance in Hades of
getting any further than a passing discussion in this newsgroup. As such,
I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more
substantial is added to the discussion.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more
substantial is added to the discussion.

Thank you. I was kind of hoping you might have something to add but so far
you've only been a detractor, so it's probably just as well that you have
decided to withdraw from the discussion.

Have a great holiday season.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

Thank you. I was kind of hoping you might have
something to add but so far you've only been a
detractor, so it's probably just as well that you have
decided to withdraw from the discussion.


Didn't you say the proposal has already been submitted? If so, there
really isn't anything that can be added and therefore any further discussion
is pointless.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered
in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

I expect it would be a longer test than todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level), and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those
who are intimidated by lengthy exams or have weak bladders.

My Extra exam was 100 questions. You were allowed 3.5 hours to complete
it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra? If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK