"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.


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?

Frankly, I believe VE rules don't belong on the license exam at all.
Far better to focus on operating rather than regulatory minutia
of how to operate VE sessions, etc. I'd have no problem with
a "VE" endorsement if the FCC deemed it necessary or just
handle things as they do today via ARRL, W5YI or other
VE accreditation (sp?).

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.

I think Dee's suggestions would make a small, but valid, improvement.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK