Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |