"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) As some have commented, right
now it is quite possible to miss the majority
of the regulatory questions on an exam yet
still pass the exam. (snip


Theoretically possible, but not really very likely. A person that poorly
prepared would likely miss several other questions on the exam, meaning he
or she would almost have to get the majority correct on each part of the
exam to pass the overall exam. That is one of the strengths of this type of
exam.


The exams for the various classes could then
focus on operating procedures and technical
elements. (snip)


What about the rules specific to each license class (VE rules, for
example)? Also, some important rules are reenforced by repeating them at
least one more time in another exam. How would you handle that?


For example, let's call the rules test Element
R and then for the various licenses we could
have a system as follows: (snip)


The rules are already in the current Technician exam and reenforced in the
General (and a few even reenforced in the Extra). A single exam for the
rules would eliminate that system of reenforcement. Also, there are about
100 questions in the current written exams, from a pool of about 600
questions. Beyond the rules, how would you break those questions down for
each element?

Finally, I have to wonder if there is any reason to change the exams at
all. The current exams have evolved over many years, and I just don't see
how the suggested changes I've seen (yours and others) offer a real
improvement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) As some have commented, right
now it is quite possible to miss the majority
of the regulatory questions on an exam yet
still pass the exam. (snip


Theoretically possible, but not really very likely. A person that poorly
prepared would likely miss several other questions on the exam, meaning he
or she would almost have to get the majority correct on each part of the
exam to pass the overall exam. That is one of the strengths of this type
of
exam.



I have known several people who already had the technical background (or
most of it) and passed the exam and knew very little about the rules. Take
the Technician exam. There are only 5 questions on the test pertaining to
rules out of a total of 35 questions. You can miss all five and pass since
you can miss as many as 9 and still have a passing score. Plus the
questions don't begin to cover all the rules that directly apply to the
operations of a Technician class licensee.

The exams for the various classes could then
focus on operating procedures and technical
elements. (snip)


What about the rules specific to each license class (VE rules, for
example)? Also, some important rules are reenforced by repeating them at
least one more time in another exam. How would you handle that?


None of the tests currently comes close to covering the full scope of rules
applying to the license class on that particular license exam and that is
what needs to be changed. Since Generals and higher can be VEs, they need
to test for the VE rules anyway. And yes Generals can be VEs as they are
eligible to administer Tech class license tests. Right now the General test
is sorely lacking in VE rule questions. The VE rules (in comparison to most
of the other material) are fairly simple so it wouldn't hurt the Techs to
learn them anyway.

Most of the rules apply across the board. Yes there are band limits for the
different license classes so perhaps that could be put on the individual
license exams or repeated on the individual exams for reinforcment but all
classes need to know the baud rate limit for RTTY on HF. Even the Techs
need to know this if they chose to earn HF privileges or if the code is done
away with in the future.

If the applicant has studied sufficiently to get 75% right on a rules only
test of say 100 or so questions, he/she shouldn't have too much problem
remembering the rules.

The rules that get reinforced on today's testing happen to be those that are
the easiest to remember. They are items such as: no playing of music, no
profanity, no interference etc. They are the common sense items that nearly
everyone can remember with just a single test simply because they are common
sense. That some people choose to flout those basic common sense rules
doesn't mean they don't know them.


For example, let's call the rules test Element
R and then for the various licenses we could
have a system as follows: (snip)


The rules are already in the current Technician exam and reenforced in
the
General (and a few even reenforced in the Extra). A single exam for the
rules would eliminate that system of reenforcement. Also, there are about
100 questions in the current written exams, from a pool of about 600
questions. Beyond the rules, how would you break those questions down for
each element?

The rules covered in the exam barely scratch the surface. And one can miss
most or all the rules questions and still pass the current exam element.
The rules that get reinforced are only those that are major (i.e. no
interference or false distress calls for example) and generally are easily
remembered anyway.

I regularly have people tell me they'd like to practice their code on the
air but "can't because they are only a Tech." They are totally unaware that
they can work code in the VHF and higher spectrum so if they want to
practice with a friend (or elmer) or work the DX 6m band openings on CW,
it's perfectly legal to do so. Another example; many people at all levels
of license classes are very confused about the difference between regulated
band requirements and band plans. This question comes up over and over.

As far as then filling in on the existing tests to make up for moving rules
to a separate element, there is plenty of operational and technical
material, etc. that could be inserted. Again, take the Tech test. There is
very little on digital operations or satellite operations yet these are open
to Technicians. Here is another example. The tests do not have questions
addressing the issue of how far from the band edge one should stay to insure
that none of their signal is outside the allowable band. I've heard
Generals, for example, operating LSB at 7.226, just 1kc above their band
limit, which puts part of their signal out-of-band. And it's not limited to
Generals. I've heard Extras operating LSB at 7.151, which is the same
problem. They, of all people, should know better but often do not. It's not
adequately covered in the study material or the exams.

Or another area that could be included in the test, although I'd admit it's
not a necessity, is something on the history of amateur radio. How many
people realize amateurs made major contributions to the development of radio
and what those contributions were? Cell phone technology is basically a
commercialized version of the linked repeater systems with phone patch that
amateurs developed. They've automated functions that the amateurs left as
manual functions.

Or how about including a little bit on space weather and it's effects not
only on propagation but how major flares can potentially effect electronics
in general.

Or how about a bit more detail on how to address RFI issues. The coverage
in the licensing and testing is extremely limited.

There's no shortage of valuable material that could be used.


Finally, I have to wonder if there is any reason to change the exams at
all. The current exams have evolved over many years, and I just don't see
how the suggested changes I've seen (yours and others) offer a real
improvement.


Dwight that argument can be turned against the proposal to eliminate code
testing as follows so don't go there.
"Finally, I have to wonder if there is any reason to change the exams
at all.
The current exams have evolved over many years, and I just don't see
how the suggested changes I've seen (yours and others to eliminate
code
testing) offer a real improvement."

Although nothing will stop the deliberate violators, knowing the rules helps
prevent the good and decent people from making mistakes. It will help
prevent, but not completely stop, well intentioned but uninformed people
from spreading misinformation about what the rules are. Do you know how
many times I've had to show them the actual FCC rules to convince people
(including Extras) that 50.0 to 50.1 and 144.0 to 144.1 are CW only with not
even digital modes allowed? It happens several times a year. They have
fallen into the trap of thinking, incorrectly, that VHF and higher has only
band plans when in fact it does have a few regulatory limits and this is one
of them.

The top three things that any ham should know, in my opinion, are
rules/regulations, safety, and good operating practices. These need a great
deal more coverage than they currently get.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I have known several people who
already had the technical background
(or most of it) and passed the exam
and knew very little about the rules.
Take the (snip)


While that might be an exception, would a person with a technical
background be the type to ignore rules? Instead, I suspect a person who
would make the effort to gain a technical background would also likely make
the effort to learn the rules of any activity he or she might be involved
in.


(snip) Plus the questions don't begin to
cover all the rules that directly apply to
the operations of a Technician class
licensee.


Well, if you're looking for a test to cover all the rules, it seems to me
you're looking for a test with several hundred questions. College students
don't even have to take a test with several hundred questions to pass a
class to prepare for a career. Likewise, an extensive exam like this doesn't
fit into the current exam concept (basic exams for entry into each license
class). With that in mind, how are you going to sell the FCC on that idea?


None of the tests currently comes close
to covering the full scope of rules
applying to the license class on that
particular license exam and that is
what needs to be changed. (snip)


Why? Do you have some evidence (personal, rhetorical, or otherwise) that
would suggest the current tests are linked to a specific problem with rule
violations? From what I've seen, most violations are the result of
intentional rule infractions, not ignorance of the rules themselves.


If the applicant has studied sufficiently to
get 75% right on a rules only test of say
100 or so questions, he/she shouldn't
have too much problem remembering
the rules.


My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international law
class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam). You're
asking for much more from people preparing for what is fundamentally a
recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous, Dee.


The rules covered in the exam barely
scratch the surface. And one can miss
most or all the rules questions and still
pass the current exam element. (snip)


You keep saying that, but do you have anything to suggest it has ever
happened (much less commonly so)? Again, it is theoretically possible, but
not really very likely. As I said before, a person that poorly prepared
would likely miss several other questions on the exam, meaning he or she
would almost have to get the majority correct on each part of the exam to
pass the overall exam.


I regularly have people tell me they'd
like to practice their code on the air but
"can't because they are only a Tech."
They are totally unaware that they can
work code in the VHF (snip)


Did they tell you that (they were unaware they can work code on VHF), or
is that your interpretation of their comment. I've made a similar comment
once or twice over the years - not because I was unaware I could work code
on VHF, but because there are so few others doing so on those frequencies.


Again, take the Tech test. There is
very little on digital operations or
satellite operations yet these are open
to Technicians. (snip)


There was such material in the pool I studied (7/97 - 6/01 pool). For
satellite, questions T1C01 through T1C11, T1E05 through T1E08, T3C01 through
T3C05, T3C10 through T3C12, and a few others here and there throughout the
pool. There are a similar number of questions for digital operations.


Or another area that could be included
in the test, although I'd admit it's not a
necessity, is something on the history
of amateur radio. (snip)

Or how about including a little bit on
space weather and it's effects not only
on propagation but how major flares
can potentially effect electronics
in general. (snip)


Come on, Dee. If you throw in a little more math and language skills, you
could almost offer a college degree to those who pass the exams you want.


Here is another example. The tests do
not have questions addressing the issue
of how far from the band edge one
should stay to insure that none of their
signal is outside the allowable band.
I've heard (snip)


Not in so many words, but the concepts are there (bandwidths of various
modes and frequency limits). The old Novice used to have a couple of
questions about this, but I'm not sure that made it's way over to the new
tests.


Dwight that argument can be turned
against the proposal to eliminate code
testing as follows so don't go there.
"Finally, I have to wonder if there
is any reason to change the exams
at all. The current exams have
evolved over many years, and I
just don't see how the suggested
changes I've seen (yours and
others to eliminate code testing)
offer a real improvement."


Not really. My objection isn't based on the fact that the current exams
have evolved over the years, but on the fact that I don't see how the
suggested changes offer an improvement. The part about the current exams
evolving over the years was intended to point out how well they fit the
current needs, leaving little room for improvement by the suggestions
offered. The same cannot be said about the code test because it hasn't
really evolved to fit the current needs (from a regulatory perspective,
there is no current need for the code test). Now, before this turns into a
code test debate, lets drop this at that.


The top three things that any ham should know,
in my opinion, are rules/regulations, safety, and
good operating practices. These need a great
deal more coverage than they currently get.


Obviously every Ham should know those things. But, as noted in section
97.3 of the rules (below), this is an activity oriented towards self-study
or self-training, not massive tests with extensive knowledge before
entrance.

Section 97.3
"A radio communications service for
the purpose of self-training,
intercommunication and technical
investigations carried out by amateurs,
that is, duly authorized persons
interested in radio technique solely with
a personal aim and without pecuniary
interest."

The rules are there for any Ham to study on their own - with plenty of
warnings in the exams about what might happen if they don't follow those
rules.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I have known several people who
already had the technical background
(or most of it) and passed the exam
and knew very little about the rules.
Take the (snip)


While that might be an exception, would a person with a technical
background be the type to ignore rules? Instead, I suspect a person who
would make the effort to gain a technical background would also likely
make
the effort to learn the rules of any activity he or she might be involved
in.


Yes they can be. I've known several. They too often fall in the "know it
all" category.


(snip) Plus the questions don't begin to
cover all the rules that directly apply to
the operations of a Technician class
licensee.


Well, if you're looking for a test to cover all the rules, it seems to
me
you're looking for a test with several hundred questions. College students
don't even have to take a test with several hundred questions to pass a
class to prepare for a career. Likewise, an extensive exam like this
doesn't
fit into the current exam concept (basic exams for entry into each license
class). With that in mind, how are you going to sell the FCC on that idea?


I think 50 to 100 questions ought to do it. Only the pool would need to be
several hundred questions, just as today's pools are far larger than the
number of questions actually occurring on any one exam.


None of the tests currently comes close
to covering the full scope of rules
applying to the license class on that
particular license exam and that is
what needs to be changed. (snip)


Why? Do you have some evidence (personal, rhetorical, or otherwise) that
would suggest the current tests are linked to a specific problem with rule
violations? From what I've seen, most violations are the result of
intentional rule infractions, not ignorance of the rules themselves.



I find band edge violations almost every time I dial up and down the HF
bands.

If the applicant has studied sufficiently to
get 75% right on a rules only test of say
100 or so questions, he/she shouldn't
have too much problem remembering
the rules.


My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international law
class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam). You're
asking for much more from people preparing for what is fundamentally a
recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous, Dee.


How many questions has she had to pass to get her law degree and to pass her
bar exam?

Fifty to 100 multiple choice questions on the FCC rules is simple as the
rules are very simple.


The rules covered in the exam barely
scratch the surface. And one can miss
most or all the rules questions and still
pass the current exam element. (snip)


You keep saying that, but do you have anything to suggest it has ever
happened (much less commonly so)? Again, it is theoretically possible, but
not really very likely. As I said before, a person that poorly prepared
would likely miss several other questions on the exam, meaning he or she
would almost have to get the majority correct on each part of the exam to
pass the overall exam.


On the Tech exam there are only 5 rules questions. That means missing all 5
gives you a score of 30, which is passing. This gives you room to miss
several other questions on the exam. However several of those 5 are so
common sense (i.e. no interference) that even someone who has not studied
will not miss them all. Afterall the passing grade for the exam is only
74%. That means you can miss a total of 9 and still get it.

Neither the examiners nor the applicants know which specific questions were
used on any one exam. The answer sheets and question sheets are separated.
So determining whether someone had difficulty with the technical, operating,
or rules sections is not allowed at the test session. The data could be
computerized and correlated at the VEC but isn't. However in teaching
classes and using practice exams, it is common for a student to struggle
with a particular section while acing the others. The section will vary
from student to student however.


I regularly have people tell me they'd
like to practice their code on the air but
"can't because they are only a Tech."
They are totally unaware that they can
work code in the VHF (snip)


Did they tell you that (they were unaware they can work code on VHF), or
is that your interpretation of their comment. I've made a similar comment
once or twice over the years - not because I was unaware I could work code
on VHF, but because there are so few others doing so on those frequencies.


They actually told me so and were astonished that it was legal for them to
work CW on VHF even though they had not passed a code test. The sad thing
is the only people I ever find on VHF CW are Generals, Advanced and Extras.


Again, take the Tech test. There is
very little on digital operations or
satellite operations yet these are open
to Technicians. (snip)


There was such material in the pool I studied (7/97 - 6/01 pool). For
satellite, questions T1C01 through T1C11, T1E05 through T1E08, T3C01
through
T3C05, T3C10 through T3C12, and a few others here and there throughout the
pool. There are a similar number of questions for digital operations.


The current question pool however no longer includes the data rates for
digital. This is quite important for legal operation that does not exceed
the bandwidths for these modes. These groups in the pool are repetitious
repeating the same question in several forms and thus a lot of important
material is omitted.


Or another area that could be included
in the test, although I'd admit it's not a
necessity, is something on the history
of amateur radio. (snip)

Or how about including a little bit on
space weather and it's effects not only
on propagation but how major flares
can potentially effect electronics
in general. (snip)


Come on, Dee. If you throw in a little more math and language skills,
you
could almost offer a college degree to those who pass the exams you want.


Note that I said these areas aren't really necessary but simply interesting.
One or two questions in the pool might spark a person's interest to pursue
self study in these areas.


Here is another example. The tests do
not have questions addressing the issue
of how far from the band edge one
should stay to insure that none of their
signal is outside the allowable band.
I've heard (snip)


Not in so many words, but the concepts are there (bandwidths of various
modes and frequency limits). The old Novice used to have a couple of
questions about this, but I'm not sure that made it's way over to the new
tests.


No it hasn't made its way into the new tests. And I hear this violation
happening regularly when I am on HF and it seems to be increasing.


Dwight that argument can be turned
against the proposal to eliminate code
testing as follows so don't go there.
"Finally, I have to wonder if there
is any reason to change the exams
at all. The current exams have
evolved over many years, and I
just don't see how the suggested
changes I've seen (yours and
others to eliminate code testing)
offer a real improvement."


Not really. My objection isn't based on the fact that the current exams
have evolved over the years, but on the fact that I don't see how the
suggested changes offer an improvement. The part about the current exams
evolving over the years was intended to point out how well they fit the
current needs, leaving little room for improvement by the suggestions
offered. The same cannot be said about the code test because it hasn't
really evolved to fit the current needs (from a regulatory perspective,
there is no current need for the code test). Now, before this turns into a
code test debate, lets drop this at that.


Difference of opinion is fine but don't assume that the FCC knows what they
are doing. Just because they've said it doesn't make it true. They have a
long history of mistakes.


The top three things that any ham should know,
in my opinion, are rules/regulations, safety, and
good operating practices. These need a great
deal more coverage than they currently get.


Obviously every Ham should know those things. But, as noted in section
97.3 of the rules (below), this is an activity oriented towards self-study
or self-training, not massive tests with extensive knowledge before
entrance.
[snip]
The rules are there for any Ham to study on their own - with plenty of
warnings in the exams about what might happen if they don't follow those
rules.


Adding one 50 question test on rules hardly constitutes massive tests with
extensive knowledge. Changing the handful of rules questions in the current
tests to other material if a separate rules test were instituted hardly
constitutes asking for extensive knowledge. My comments on what could be
used for this were to point out that there was a wealth of material to pick
from not to say that ALL technical and operating issues should be covered.
Or one could simply reduce the number of questions in the Tech, General, &
Extra since the rules would already be covered in the rules exam..

There are NOT plenty of warnings in the exams about what can happen to
violators if they do not follow the rules. Reread the question pool. There
NO questions in the Technician pool about the possible penalties for
violating the rules. Questions about the rules, yes. Questions about the
penalties, no.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com:


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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I have known several people who
already had the technical background
(or most of it) and passed the exam
and knew very little about the rules.
Take the (snip)


While that might be an exception, would a person with a technical
background be the type to ignore rules? Instead, I suspect a person
who would make the effort to gain a technical background would also
likely make the effort to learn the rules of any activity he or she
might be involved in.


Yes they can be. I've known several. They too often fall in the "know
it all" category.


(snip) Plus the questions don't begin to
cover all the rules that directly apply to
the operations of a Technician class licensee.


Well, if you're looking for a test to cover all the rules, it seems
to me
you're looking for a test with several hundred questions. College
students don't even have to take a test with several hundred questions
to pass a class to prepare for a career. Likewise, an extensive exam
like this doesn't fit into the current exam concept (basic exams for
entry into each license class). With that in mind, how are you going
to sell the FCC on that idea?


I think 50 to 100 questions ought to do it. Only the pool would need
to be several hundred questions, just as today's pools are far larger
than the number of questions actually occurring on any one exam.


None of the tests currently comes close
to covering the full scope of rules
applying to the license class on that
particular license exam and that is what needs to be changed.
(snip)


Why? Do you have some evidence (personal, rhetorical, or otherwise)
that
would suggest the current tests are linked to a specific problem with
rule violations? From what I've seen, most violations are the result
of intentional rule infractions, not ignorance of the rules
themselves.



I find band edge violations almost every time I dial up and down the HF
bands.

If the applicant has studied sufficiently to
get 75% right on a rules only test of say
100 or so questions, he/she shouldn't
have too much problem remembering the rules.


My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international
law
class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam).
You're asking for much more from people preparing for what is
fundamentally a recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a
little ridiculous, Dee.


How many questions has she had to pass to get her law degree and to
pass her bar exam?

Fifty to 100 multiple choice questions on the FCC rules is simple as
the rules are very simple.


The rules covered in the exam barely
scratch the surface. And one can miss
most or all the rules questions and still pass the current exam
element.
(snip)


You keep saying that, but do you have anything to suggest it has
ever
happened (much less commonly so)? Again, it is theoretically possible,
but not really very likely. As I said before, a person that poorly
prepared would likely miss several other questions on the exam,
meaning he or she would almost have to get the majority correct on
each part of the exam to pass the overall exam.


On the Tech exam there are only 5 rules questions. That means missing
all 5 gives you a score of 30, which is passing. This gives you room
to miss several other questions on the exam. However several of those
5 are so common sense (i.e. no interference) that even someone who has
not studied will not miss them all. Afterall the passing grade for the
exam is only 74%. That means you can miss a total of 9 and still get
it.

Neither the examiners nor the applicants know which specific questions
were used on any one exam. The answer sheets and question sheets are
separated. So determining whether someone had difficulty with the
technical, operating, or rules sections is not allowed at the test
session. The data could be computerized and correlated at the VEC but
isn't. However in teaching classes and using practice exams, it is
common for a student to struggle with a particular section while acing
the others. The section will vary from student to student however.


I regularly have people tell me they'd
like to practice their code on the air but
"can't because they are only a Tech."
They are totally unaware that they can work code in the VHF (snip)


Did they tell you that (they were unaware they can work code on
VHF), or
is that your interpretation of their comment. I've made a similar
comment once or twice over the years - not because I was unaware I
could work code on VHF, but because there are so few others doing so
on those frequencies.


They actually told me so and were astonished that it was legal for them
to work CW on VHF even though they had not passed a code test. The sad
thing is the only people I ever find on VHF CW are Generals, Advanced
and Extras.


Again, take the Tech test. There is
very little on digital operations or
satellite operations yet these are open to Technicians. (snip)


There was such material in the pool I studied (7/97 - 6/01 pool).
For satellite, questions T1C01 through T1C11, T1E05 through T1E08,
T3C01 through
T3C05, T3C10 through T3C12, and a few others here and there throughout
the pool. There are a similar number of questions for digital
operations.


The current question pool however no longer includes the data rates for
digital. This is quite important for legal operation that does not
exceed the bandwidths for these modes. These groups in the pool are
repetitious repeating the same question in several forms and thus a lot
of important material is omitted.


Or another area that could be included
in the test, although I'd admit it's not a
necessity, is something on the history of amateur radio. (snip)

Or how about including a little bit on
space weather and it's effects not only
on propagation but how major flares
can potentially effect electronics in general. (snip)


Come on, Dee. If you throw in a little more math and language
skills, you
could almost offer a college degree to those who pass the exams you
want.


Note that I said these areas aren't really necessary but simply
interesting. One or two questions in the pool might spark a person's
interest to pursue self study in these areas.


Here is another example. The tests do
not have questions addressing the issue
of how far from the band edge one
should stay to insure that none of their
signal is outside the allowable band.
I've heard (snip)


Not in so many words, but the concepts are there (bandwidths of
various
modes and frequency limits). The old Novice used to have a couple of
questions about this, but I'm not sure that made it's way over to the
new tests.


No it hasn't made its way into the new tests. And I hear this
violation happening regularly when I am on HF and it seems to be
increasing.


Dwight that argument can be turned
against the proposal to eliminate code
testing as follows so don't go there.
"Finally, I have to wonder if there
is any reason to change the exams
at all. The current exams have
evolved over many years, and I
just don't see how the suggested
changes I've seen (yours and
others to eliminate code testing)
offer a real improvement."


Not really. My objection isn't based on the fact that the current
exams
have evolved over the years, but on the fact that I don't see how the
suggested changes offer an improvement. The part about the current
exams evolving over the years was intended to point out how well they
fit the current needs, leaving little room for improvement by the
suggestions offered. The same cannot be said about the code test
because it hasn't really evolved to fit the current needs (from a
regulatory perspective, there is no current need for the code test).
Now, before this turns into a code test debate, lets drop this at
that.


Difference of opinion is fine but don't assume that the FCC knows what
they are doing. Just because they've said it doesn't make it true.
They have a long history of mistakes.


The top three things that any ham should know, in my opinion, are
rules/regulations, safety, and good operating practices. These need
a great deal more coverage than they currently get.


Obviously every Ham should know those things. But, as noted in
section
97.3 of the rules (below), this is an activity oriented towards
self-study or self-training, not massive tests with extensive
knowledge before entrance. [snip]
The rules are there for any Ham to study on their own - with plenty
of
warnings in the exams about what might happen if they don't follow
those rules.


Adding one 50 question test on rules hardly constitutes massive tests
with extensive knowledge. Changing the handful of rules questions in
the current tests to other material if a separate rules test were
instituted hardly constitutes asking for extensive knowledge. My
comments on what could be used for this were to point out that there
was a wealth of material to pick from not to say that ALL technical and
operating issues should be covered. Or one could simply reduce the
number of questions in the Tech, General, & Extra since the rules would
already be covered in the rules exam..

There are NOT plenty of warnings in the exams about what can happen to
violators if they do not follow the rules. Reread the question pool.
There NO questions in the Technician pool about the possible penalties
for violating the rules. Questions about the rules, yes. Questions
about the penalties, no.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I don't think it is practical to test everyone on everything. Tests are
written in such a way that the candidate doesn't know what will come up, so
has to learn everything in the pool. There should be more questions in the
pool, though, covering topics that are presently left out.

Interestingly, WRC 2003 laid down a syllabus for the first time. However, I
confess I have no idea whether current FCC tests comply with it or not.

Unlike in the US, the UK tests have extensive questions on operating
practice. One thing at least that comes out of that is that UK hams all
know the international phonetics by heart. US hams don't, because it's not
in the FCC question pools. It should be. There are also extensive questions
on interference in the UK, including questions on band edges. If that were
the case in the US, I doubt if you would come across so many US hams
operating USB on 14.350 or the like (I hear them too, and much too often).
The UK question pools are not published, but I know these questions occur.

This is not meant to say that the UK tests are superior, it is just an
observation on a couple of things that ought to be in the FCC question
pools that aren't, and the corresponding broader areas in which the FCC
tests are weak. Yes, I suppose I should write some questions on these
subjects and submit them. It is one of the good points of the US system
that I could do that. It is perhaps also one of it's bad points, in that
questions submitted by volunteers may have a few holes in the first place
(gaps in coverage, not necessarily flaws in the questions).

73 de Alun, N3KIP (Ex-G8VUK, G0VUK)

PS: I am a 'know-it-all' EE, but I don't think anyone in my position would
take the tests without at least reading Part 97.

"Alun" wrote in message
...
I don't think it is practical to test everyone on everything. Tests are
written in such a way that the candidate doesn't know what will come up,
so
has to learn everything in the pool. There should be more questions in the
pool, though, covering topics that are presently left out.

Interestingly, WRC 2003 laid down a syllabus for the first time. However,
I
confess I have no idea whether current FCC tests comply with it or not.

Unlike in the US, the UK tests have extensive questions on operating
practice. One thing at least that comes out of that is that UK hams all
know the international phonetics by heart. US hams don't, because it's not
in the FCC question pools. It should be. There are also extensive
questions
on interference in the UK, including questions on band edges. If that were
the case in the US, I doubt if you would come across so many US hams
operating USB on 14.350 or the like (I hear them too, and much too often).
The UK question pools are not published, but I know these questions occur.

This is not meant to say that the UK tests are superior, it is just an
observation on a couple of things that ought to be in the FCC question
pools that aren't, and the corresponding broader areas in which the FCC
tests are weak. Yes, I suppose I should write some questions on these
subjects and submit them. It is one of the good points of the US system
that I could do that. It is perhaps also one of it's bad points, in that
questions submitted by volunteers may have a few holes in the first place
(gaps in coverage, not necessarily flaws in the questions).

73 de Alun, N3KIP (Ex-G8VUK, G0VUK)

PS: I am a 'know-it-all' EE, but I don't think anyone in my position would
take the tests without at least reading Part 97.


Alun, not everyone is as conscientious as you are about having checked out
the rules. Of those hams that I personally know, only a small percentage
have a copy of the Part 97 rules and an even smaller percentage bother to
keep up with making sure it is current.

Also you didn't have to quote the ENTIRE discussion to make a reply. I was
beginning to wonder if you had written anything as I scrolled down.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

snip

PS: I am a 'know-it-all' EE, but I don't think anyone in my position
would take the tests without at least reading Part 97.


Alun, not everyone is as conscientious as you are about having checked
out the rules. Of those hams that I personally know, only a small
percentage have a copy of the Part 97 rules and an even smaller
percentage bother to keep up with making sure it is current.

Also you didn't have to quote the ENTIRE discussion to make a reply. I
was beginning to wonder if you had written anything as I scrolled down.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



My newsreader (XNews) has a 'skip quoted text' button. As a result I tend
not to snip much!

Alun

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:21:06 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international law
class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam). You're
asking for much more from people preparing for what is fundamentally a
recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous, Dee.


How many questions has she had to pass to get her law degree and to pass her
bar exam?

Pending Dwight's reply, I can add from my own experience.

Minimum accredited law school requirements for a JD were 80 units of
classwork, in which 60 units required written tests of six essay
questions (3 midterm, 3 final) per unit, one hour per essay. Rarely
did we have a multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank exam. The other
20 units were performance subjects where every day was, in effect,
an exam.

The Bar Exam is something different. Each state has slightly
different requirements, one or two days' worth of written "essay"
exams and the one-day Multistate Bar Exam (MBE). The MBE is a
national requirement, a 200-question multiple-choice exam,
100 in the morning, 100 in the afternoon, with three hours per
session. The time for each question comes out to 1.8 minutes each.
Half of the questions come from a published 500 question-and-answer
pool. Of course there's a hitch - two or more choices are close to
the expected answer and it's the applicant's job to pick the right one.

In the year that I took the Bar Exam, most states required a minimum
of 130 correct answers (65%) to even be considered for admission,
and the average nationwide was 132 including the superstars from
places like Harvard and Yale Law Schools. California - the toughest
of the states - granted admission to anyone who scored 152 (76%) or
more, regardless of his/her performance on the written portion.

Not quite the same as the FCC license tests.....

Fifty to 100 multiple choice questions on the FCC rules is simple as the
rules are very simple.

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.

Another radical idea: The (commercial) radiotelephone operator's
exam has two elements that all classes must pass: Element 1 dealing
with Rules and Regulations, and Element 2 dealing with operating
practices and procedures.

As this is a requirement even for a charter boat skipper operating
in tidal waters who isn't even allowed to do anything with the
transmitter except to operate the external channel and volume knobs,
I can see having a counterpart of perhaps another 50 questions in
the Amateur exam dealing with operating practices in all modes.

Like the Rules exam, pass it once, never have to pass it again
unless the license lapses beyond the grace period for renewal or the
licensee's conduct is found to be so egregious that a re-exam under
FCC supervision is necessary - "all or nothing".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote:
Dee D. Flint wrote:

How many questions has she had to pass
to get her law degree and to pass her
bar exam?

Pending Dwight's reply, I can add from my
own experience. (snip)


Since a person still in college obviously hasn't yet got a law degree or
passed the later bar exam, I thought Dee's question was rhetorical.
Therefore, I didn't answer in that vein. However, before anyone takes it
seriously in regards to my wife, let me add that my wife isn't seeking a
degree in law. The international law class was just one class leading to a
degree in another subject.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Phil Kane" wrote in
et:

snip

Another radical idea: The (commercial) radiotelephone operator's
exam has two elements that all classes must pass: Element 1 dealing
with Rules and Regulations, and Element 2 dealing with operating
practices and procedures.

As this is a requirement even for a charter boat skipper operating
in tidal waters who isn't even allowed to do anything with the
transmitter except to operate the external channel and volume knobs,
I can see having a counterpart of perhaps another 50 questions in
the Amateur exam dealing with operating practices in all modes.

Like the Rules exam, pass it once, never have to pass it again
unless the license lapses beyond the grace period for renewal or the
licensee's conduct is found to be so egregious that a re-exam under
FCC supervision is necessary - "all or nothing".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



I don't think the FCC will ever again go for anything that increases the
total number of elements. However, if the licence structure were ever
rationalised to a two-tier system, then your idea might fit in. One rules
and regs test, and two theory tests, with the higher theory test giving
access to, say, 20m and the WARC bands, plus more power (1500W versus
200W).