Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
50 seems to be a reasonable number for the average applicant. This
isn't, and shouldn't be, a Bar Exam because folks who pass the rules
exam are not expected to be qualified to do interpretation and
analysis to the level and precision that an attorney does.




As I stated here before, I would like to see the exams get expanded to
something similar as to what has been required in the fire service, at least
all of the ones I have taken. The least amount of questions was 150, and
the most questions was 250. AND THE QUESTION POOLS WERE NOT PUBLISHED.

Before we go too far in this, I agree that it would be nice to get the
tests expanded.

Now to the rant!.....

So What, Ryan? If you are going to give a test, the answers have to be
somewhere. So what if they are in a book in text form? All that means is
that you read and memorize the book and not a question pool.

Or are you suggesting that the answers to the test questions be in NO
book at all? 8^)


Now, what is interesting, in the 2+ foot tall stack of books I had to use
for my Firefighter 1 and Firefighter 2 certifications had all of the
questions within the chapter tests, quizes, pre-tests etc.

Oops, I should have read a little further down!

So, basically if
one did the homework like they were supposed to, then they have actually
seen the questions. I distinctly remember when I took my test, seeing the
same identical question on a piece of homework that was on the final exam,
many times. I actually like the way IFSTA organizes and sets up their
instruction books. Not only do you have a main book for the
instruction/reading, but workbooks to put the chapter's contents to
practical use.

I doubt that having quizzes and pre-tests would go over very well for
the VE's! Although there are some classes where this happens, those are
all voluntary.

I would definitely like to see all three tests (tech, general, extra) go up
to at least 100 questions each. And if the question pool is released, at
least only release the questions, and not the answers. At least then the
potential testee would have to look the material up. Hell, I would even
re-test if I had too under this type of test.

What I did was indeed to look up any answers I missed. When I studied
for the General and Extra, I'd take one of the online tests, and for any
question I missed, I would go find out why the right answer was right.
THat was a lot easier than rote memorization, and less tricky, for at
least on the Extra test, the "pick a winner" letter was very often *not*
the letter in the question pool.

And when you get down to it, many of the questions are handled just
fine by a question pool setup. Regulations and bands are one part that
comes to mind.


In fact, if ham radio is
"sooo important" and "actually saves lives" I would think that retesting
every ten years would actually be a good thing. Not only would it show that
the licensee retained knowledge but might even show if he/she progressed at
all.

That would probably be a real disaster! What would they be tested for?
There are Hams that have been licensed for a long time, and are
operating comfortably within what they were tested for a long time ago.
Others keep up very well, but all are doing just fine.

"Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs."

Everyone makes me happy; some when I see them come in the door, some
when I last see them go out....

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote:

Let's have the present Element 1
replaced by this "rules" element -
it is more relevant to all amateurs
on any band, any class, any mode.


Should that not have been something
that should have been done at least 10,
20 or even 30 years ago???


Or 40, 50, or even 60, years ago. Which makes one wonder why this, and
some of the other extended test ideas, are being advocated now. I cannot
help but suspect this is another example of the intolerance of newcomers by
some existing Hams (and also a way for some to build themselves up by
putting others down). Darn few of us knew everything when we started (I
still don't). Every single person in this newsgroup, every existing Ham, has
made mistakes (even those who started 40, 50, and even 60 years ago). Yet,
when a newcomer does the same today, it is not simply inexperience, but
instead malicious, or ignorance, or even the ruin of Amateur Radio. Some
point to it to show how much better they are than that. And calls for a
solution to this pending crisis are shouted from the rooftops. There is no
need for proof of a wider problem - a few isolated examples are always
enough for the intolerant. And, once ignited, intolerance fuels itself. I
truly hope I'm wrong about this, but that suspicion continues to grow.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Len,

Jim's point was well made. You appear to simply be trying to revive the
code/no code arguement. My belief is that if the FCC enforcement bureau had
not largely been disassembled, we wouldn't have the problems we do now. If
we were to dismantle the police department of NYC and the murder rate shot
through the roof, would you blame the drivers who insist everyone should
stop for a red light?

You are seeing the same situation everywhere in society today. Nothing
wrong with selling drugs to make some money, except, of course, for the
stupid drug laws.

'Cmon, now, you can do better that that!



73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/04

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

Len,

Jim's point was well made.

No, it was not.

You appear to simply be trying to revive the code/no code arguement.

"Revive?!?"

Who said it "died?!?"

Destroying the code test requirement is a never-ending battle.

My belief is that if the FCC enforcement bureau had
not largely been disassembled, we wouldn't have the problems we do now.

?

Since WHEN was the FCC enforcement "stopped?"

FCC was very busy ENFORCING US civil radio ever since the end
of WW2. It's in the Reading Room at the FCC building if you care
to research it.

Your complaint should be rewritten to say the FCC "did not enforce
amateur radio ENOUGH"...to satisfy the purists and the prissy
olde-tymers who wanted to keep the standards and practices of the
1930s alive and well.

If
we were to dismantle the police department of NYC and the murder rate shot
through the roof, would you blame the drivers who insist everyone should
stop for a red light?

When in heck did the laws of New York City come under amateur radio
regulations?!?!?

You got a problem with NYC law, you take it to the NYC DA, okay?

You are seeing the same situation everywhere in society today.

Yeah...all those prim, proper, pejoartive-pushing anti-sex-term
purists babbling like eco-destroyed brooks about callsigns!

Ptui.

Nothing
wrong with selling drugs to make some money, except, of course, for the
stupid drug laws.

You had a bad toke or something?

This is NOT about "drugs" or "drug laws," Jim, nor is it about prim,
prissy, puritans forbidding sexist terms in callsigns. Geez!

'Cmon, now, you can do better that that!

When someone PAYS me for my words, you can damn well assume
the words WILL be better.

You sure as hell need to think some more about what YOU said.

WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

Every single one of them were superb, excellent students who
all passed. All smarter than Hiram and possessed of near
superhuman character and motivation, showing the ultimate
respect for the amateur community.
Late getting into high school? In Illinois we started at 12 or 13.

Spent a whole year studying for the amateur radio test, did
you? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Obviously due to character flaws, of not expressing enought
commitment to ham radio....all a result of lack of morse code
proficiency.

NO ONE was illegal over three decades ago...NO ONE.

It all happened NOW...and all due to low commitment and
dedication to the olde-tyme hammes and morse code.

Being a year late for high school might explain some of that.

Those things would NEVER happen in Pennsylvania, would they?

Reverend Jimmie sounds like working up to another...
Sermon On The Antenna Mount!

All that disrespect and lack of dedication to the amateur community
for not embracing the healing, curative powers of morsemanship!

Terrible, isn't it?

All those years...those wasted years...all the olde-tymers getting
older, grumping around, kvetching and belching about newcomers
not having any respect for the goode olde values of amateurism!

Nobody could do anything, could they? They all sat around and
kvetched and nobody reported anybody, demanding that the feds
should have been dedicated to their Cause and making the ham
world safe for their elitist democratic-socialism where all got one
vote...to cast as one...on one viewpoint.

You tellum, Jimmie.

WMD


Len, won't you tell us again about your purpose here? You know, the
thing about only being here for the civil debate of code test issue?
That's such a good tale.

Dave K8MN

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

I believe Jim N2EY and I have a similar viewpoint as to making
the written into two or more specific and separate elements for
each class. Where I would differ from your suggestion is that
it makes no difference which element(s) are passed first as long
as each stands on its own.

My idea was not to create separate elements but to change the marking system
slightly.

Each question in the pool would be classified by certain subjects - rules and
regs, safety, theory, etc. Probably only 4 subjects, not the 10 or so we had
before. Rules and regs are one obvious subject, safety another, operating
procedures, and theory. And each test would contain a certain number from each
subject.

The difference would be that in order to pass you'd need a certain number in
each subject correct, not just the total. So even though there might not be
that many safety questions on a test, you could not get them all wrong or most
of them wrong and still pass.

But it would only be one test and one element.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len, won't you tell us again about your purpose here? You know, the
thing about only being here for the civil debate of code test issue?
That's such a good tale.

Why?

YOUR whole purpose in here is to spit bile at those that don't
agree with your noble elitist thoughts.

You follow that course for more than 19 out of 20 postings.

You never want to discuss any subject matter unless it involves
tossing s**t on others.

Is that what U.S. amateur radio has evolved into today?

Certainly looks like it.

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len, won't you tell us again about your purpose here? You know, the
thing about only being here for the civil debate of code test issue?
That's such a good tale.

Why?

I already addressed the "why": ...because that's such a good tale.

YOUR whole purpose in here is to spit bile at those that don't
agree with your noble elitist thoughts.

That can only be guess work on your part. I've never stated a purpose
for being here. You have stated a specific purpose for being here but
can't be counted upon to do just about everything accept that which
you've stated.

You follow that course for more than 19 out of 20 postings.

....and you seem bent on outdoing me by a factor of 10 to 1.

You never want to discuss any subject matter unless it involves
tossing s**t on others.

Maybe your remarkable inferiority complex in just bubbling to the top,
kindly old gent. If you'd like, we can review some of your posts of the
past week, we can debate the matter of who tosses what.

Is that what U.S. amateur radio has evolved into today?

What's it to you, Len. You aren't involved in U.S or any other amateur
radio.

Certainly looks like it.

No, I don't think it looks like it, Len. This isn't amateur radio.
This is Usenet.


Dave K8MN

[This followup was posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy and a copy was
sent to the cited author.]

In article om,
says...
Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely to
rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the
technical elements for the license classes. One should not be able to get
on the air if they miss a significant percentage of the rules.

That's a reasonable proposal. Unfortunately, that means it will
probably never be given serious consideration.... ;-)

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email:

PS: I'm not a cynic, but I play one on TV....

Steveo wrote:

Steveo wrote:

(WA8ULX) wrote:

Yup. Because you couldn't pass 20wpm, so you waited on your chalky
butt till the FCC gave you a "gimme!"


You know thats a LIE, I never wanted the Extra. But I guess I need to
explain to you again.
A Bunch of No-Code Knuckle Draggers bet me $250.00 I couldnt pass the
TEST. Well I not only passed with a score of 100%, with no study at
all, I got to collect $250.00 From the Knuckle Draggers.
As I remember you still are not able to pass it.


You swallow. Nuff said.


Well whenever someone say's nuff said, it usually not e-nuff.

Check out my sig file, you rotten *******. hehe

Don't bother with his sig file. Just get a look at his kids. That
tells the whole story.