In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

I deal with similar types in Nursing...Those "special" few who
have BS or Masters in Nursing who have spent no more time at the
bedside than was required to get through thier clinical time in
school, yet now THEY are the ones who "specify" what constitutes good
Nursing practice.

Hello? This newsgroup is about RADIO, specifically amateur radio.

It isn't about nursing or flying or the USMC school of helicopter
maintenance.

You and Larrah ought to get together in a Superiors Club to show
everyone how it is done based on how good you both are... :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

I believe the term for such actions is "elmering" and at one time it
was a major part of the amateur training process.


Yep. But there's also the aspect of "self-training", where the person with
the question tries to find the information on their own *before* asking.

I came to RF from the audio and computer end of things. I probably will
ask questions that may elicit a few snickers from time to time. anyone
that thinks I'm an idiot is free to not answer the question! ;^) Self
training is a great thing. In fact I'll use a book and study before I
ask another ham.

That's all we're asking. It's one thing when someone says "Explain X to me"
and
quite a different thing when someone says "I read books A, B and C on X,
but I still don't quite understand why you need to ....."..

The ignorance problem is hardly a new problem. I can remember being
at a ham gathering circa 1965 where a guy didn't know the difference
between a short and an open. To have had the license he had at that
time he would have had to take the old essay style tests complete
with diagrams.

A closed test pool is no panacea.


There's mo

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971.
The
study guides in those books are full of draw-a-diagram questions, power
supply,
filter and transmitter questions, plus all sorts of other stuff like
magnetrons, neutralization, TV, RTTY, FM and SSB.. But there are very few
questions on receivers and antennas, particularly in the lower license
calsses and older versions.

I wonder if having to draw something makes for a harder test?

Depends entirely on the person. For some people, such nonverbal stuff is
easy, while for others it's really tough. Similar to the way some people have
no
problem reading maps or blueprints, while others are completely befuddled by
such things.

The length of a dipole question appears exactly once - in the 1971 manual
only, for the Advanced class.

In fact, if you read the study guides carefully, it becomes clear that
they
are heavily focused on transmitter design and operation to avoid
interference, and regulations.

Yup, that was a probably a priority in those days.

It seems to me that a *lot* of the old exams was based on problems they
had experienced with hams. Hum modulation on ham signals? Ask a lot
of questions on rectifiers and filters. Some hams wander outside the band
edges? Lots of questions on band edges, frequency meters and computing the
tolerance of crystals an measuring systems.

What is your
opinion, Jim? given the study guide as a reference, were the tests
likely easier, harder, or not much difference?

It's impossible to say for sure without the actual tests.

However, having read all of the guides, and having taken the tests that way,
I'd say that the old exams required a prospective ham to have a better
understanding of radio than the modern ones. While the modern tests cover
more
subjects, they do so at a much lower level.

But what's most important is that the old guides only gave a general idea of
the
subject areas. For example, you knew there would be some fancy Ohm's Law
questions on the test (because the study guide had 'em) but you didn't know
exactly what they'd look like, or what the numbers would be. So you learned
Ohm's Law backwards, forwards and upside down just in case. And that was just

*one* subject.

Also, the old exams used multiple choice exams with 5 choise, not 4.

But we're not going back to those days, so other methods must be used. One
solution is to make the question pool so large and varied that it's easier for
99% of prospective hams to just learn the material rather than memorize or
word-associate their way to a passing grade.

USA amateur radio regulations require only a MINIMUM of 10 for every
written test element question. There is NO maximum.

Anyone who wants a "tougher" test that all but the eidetic could not
memorize ought to bug the VEC Question Pool Committee. They
decide on how big the question pool is, not the FCC.

I've been repeating the above for quite a while...but it seems that
"new ideas" have a difficult time catching on... :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , writes:

N2EY wrote:

Yep. But there's also the aspect of "self-training", where the person with
the
question tries to find the information on their own *before* asking.

For that I definitely blame the Internet.

In days gone by when one had to go to the library for information, two
things were different:

1) The world in general wasn't made aware of your ignorance.

2) By having to go through a book you usually picked up some other pieces
of information.

In today's age, the Internet is touted as the grand source of all
information with instant response.

It IS a grand source of information...but takes a few seconds or
minutes to respond. :-)

The Internet is a SUPERB source of information, everything from
simple through complex in technology, from primers in electronics
to vast archives of application notes from leading electronics
manufacturers. I use it regularly.

The home office room my wife and I share has 39 lineal feet of
bookshelving, books packed in literally cover to cover. Good
reference material collected over half a century of time, mostly
mine. Given the cost of textbooks today, collecting all of that
would be prohibitive now.

Hence the huge number of really ignorant questions on USENET and mailing
lists that show the questioner has obviously never bothered to read a book
or manual because anything you want to know can be found through the
Internet just by asking.

Classrooms have always been full of the ignorant. That's why
classrooms exist. :-)

In the days of the old ARPANET (the "grandfather" of the Internet
and "father" of USENET) there were a number of ignorant users.
[been there, done that, got the T-shirts and TTY printouts]

What's even worse is these people don't bother to do a search of archives or
FAQs to see if the question has already been asked, which it generally has.

In olde-tyme days of classrooms, many students never used a
library. So, what else is new?

This mode of operation is by no means limited to amateur radio; it appears
to an epidemic of major proportions.

Shall we call the Center for Disease Control about this "epidemic?"

Unfortunately, I can think of no solution to the problem in general, nor
one specific to amateur radio other than to just accept the situation for
what it is and get on with life. Bitching about it is just a waste of time.

You can always take Corrective Action.

One way is to recognize human beans and not carry on a bitch
session such as the above.

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

I believe the term for such actions is "elmering" and at one time it
was a major part of the amateur training process.

Yep. But there's also the aspect of "self-training", where the person with
the question tries to find the information on their own *before* asking.

I came to RF from the audio and computer end of things. I probably will
ask questions that may elicit a few snickers from time to time. anyone
that thinks I'm an idiot is free to not answer the question! ;^) Self
training is a great thing. In fact I'll use a book and study before I
ask another ham.

That's all we're asking. It's one thing when someone says "Explain X to me"
and
quite a different thing when someone says "I read books A, B and C on X,
but I still don't quite understand why you need to ....."..

That's all SOME of us are asking might be more accurate. Others take
umbrage at the asking.

Don't you have any good umbrages there?

I hear they are real good at keeping off rain...

The ignorance problem is hardly a new problem. I can remember being
at a ham gathering circa 1965 where a guy didn't know the difference
between a short and an open. To have had the license he had at that
time he would have had to take the old essay style tests complete
with diagrams.

A closed test pool is no panacea.

There's mo

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971.
The
study guides in those books are full of draw-a-diagram questions, power
supply,
filter and transmitter questions, plus all sorts of other stuff like
magnetrons, neutralization, TV, RTTY, FM and SSB.. But there are very few
questions on receivers and antennas, particularly in the lower license
calsses and older versions.

I wonder if having to draw something makes for a harder test?

Depends entirely on the person. For some people, such nonverbal stuff is
easy, while for others it's really tough. Similar to the way some people
have
no problem reading maps or blueprints, while others are completely befuddled
by
such things.

Or me with Morse! 8^) It is amazing to me that in the past year, I have
learned DVD production authoring,learned a new 3-D rendering program,
taught myself visual basic programming, and am learning (of all things)
pottery making); and am now getting proficient in each. Yet I have spent
more time on learning Morse code than all the others combined, and still
am pretty rank at it. Not complaining, mind ya, (well maybe a little) it
just serves to make your point.

But ya duz what you have to do!

Sounds like you went to the same school that Larrah Roll went to.

Keep up the good work.

Remember, seven year olds can be Amateur Extras.

I'm sure that child put in many HOURS of WORK to achieve that
most responsible achievement of being able to access any
amateur band, even worldwide, all by her little self. [there's
absolutely nothing in the Part 97 regulations requiring any
"parental supervision" while operating transmitters...]

The length of a dipole question appears exactly once - in the 1971 manual
only, for the Advanced class.

In fact, if you read the study guides carefully, it becomes clear that
they
are heavily focused on transmitter design and operation to avoid
interference, and regulations.

Yup, that was a probably a priority in those days.

It seems to me that a *lot* of the old exams was based on problems they
had experienced with hams. Hum modulation on ham signals? Ask a lot
of questions on rectifiers and filters. Some hams wander outside the band
edges? Lots of questions on band edges, frequency meters and computing the
tolerance of crystals an measuring systems.

What is your
opinion, Jim? given the study guide as a reference, were the tests
likely easier, harder, or not much difference?

It's impossible to say for sure without the actual tests.

However, having read all of the guides, and having taken the tests that way,
I'd say that the old exams required a prospective ham to have a better
understanding of radio than the modern ones. While the modern tests cover
more
subjects, they do so at a much lower level.

But what's most important is that the old guides only gave a general idea of
the
subject areas. For example, you knew there would be some fancy Ohm's Law
questions on the test (because the study guide had 'em) but you didn't know
exactly what they'd look like, or what the numbers would be. So you learned
Ohm's Law backwards, forwards and upside down just in case. And that was
just
*one* subject.

Also, the old exams used multiple choice exams with 5 choise, not 4.

But we're not going back to those days, so other methods must be used. One
solution is to make the question pool so large and varied that it's easier
for
99% of prospective hams to just learn the material rather than memorize or
word-associate their way to a passing grade.

The present pool has IIRC around 800some questions. That is getting to
the level you speak of. When I studied for mine, I went over all them,
although there is another incentive to learn the material, because
several of the questions are similar, and the answers are shifted
around. Question 32's answer might be "A" in the pool, but "C" on the
real test.

The OLD ways are the "best" ways?

You have a complaint on the question pool? Go direct to the VEC QPC.
Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

There is NO MAXIMUM on the number of pool questions. Those can be
20 times, 50 times, 100+ times the number of required questions per
test element. By LAW there must be 10 times the number but there has
never been any maximum. The maximum is optional.

Option is not a failure.

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I wonder if having to draw something makes for a harder test?

Now you've opened another can of worms, Mike. I'm sure that you'll hear
from those who find it difficult to draw if only to tell you that they
regard drawing as a hazing ritual or as jumping through a hoop.

Just like the difficulties I had with learning Morse, a person that has

trouble with drawing should just work hard at it!

Do you have trouble drawing a salary?

Can you draw a draft of beer?

Can you draw flies?

I have NO trouble drawing legible schematics. Did that in 1956 in
Chicago at an FCC field office. Did that for years and years
in the southern California electronics-aerospace industry. Am still
doing it.

I just deposited a hefty check in the Bank this afternoon, all for
doing real work in electronics. From General Electric.

I dunno where the idea of working hard if you need to went to, but it
seems to have gone somewhere.

Well then, you need to get down to basics...like knowing how to
skillfully shoe a horse in order to get a driver's license...like being
skillful at blowing glass so you can make your own vacuum tubes
(even if vacuum sucks). All basics taking a LOT of "work."

I'm sure that making all those analogies is a lot of work, but I don't
need them any more than I needed to use any morse code to work
in HF radio communications a half century ago.

"When I was young we whittled our own ICs out of wood!" - anon.

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


I believe the term for such actions is "elmering" and at one time it
was a major part of the amateur training process.


Yep. But there's also the aspect of "self-training", where the person with
the question tries to find the information on their own *before* asking.

I came to RF from the audio and computer end of things. I probably will
ask questions that may elicit a few snickers from time to time. anyone
that thinks I'm an idiot is free to not answer the question! ;^) Self
training is a great thing. In fact I'll use a book and study before I
ask another ham.


That's all we're asking. It's one thing when someone says "Explain X to me"
and
quite a different thing when someone says "I read books A, B and C on X,
but I still don't quite understand why you need to ....."..

That's all SOME of us are asking might be more accurate.

Agreed!

Others take umbrage at the asking.

Sad but true.

The ignorance problem is hardly a new problem. I can remember being
at a ham gathering circa 1965 where a guy didn't know the difference
between a short and an open. To have had the license he had at that
time he would have had to take the old essay style tests complete
with diagrams.

A closed test pool is no panacea.


There's mo

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971.
The
study guides in those books are full of draw-a-diagram questions, power
supply,
filter and transmitter questions, plus all sorts of other stuff like
magnetrons, neutralization, TV, RTTY, FM and SSB.. But there are very few
questions on receivers and antennas, particularly in the lower license
calsses and older versions.

I wonder if having to draw something makes for a harder test?


Depends entirely on the person. For some people, such nonverbal stuff is
easy, while for others it's really tough. Similar to the way some people
have
no problem reading maps or blueprints, while others are completely
befuddled by
such things.

Or me with Morse! 8^) It is amazing to me that in the past year, I have
learned DVD production authoring,learned a new 3-D rendering program,
taught myself visual basic programming, and am learning (of all things)
pottery making); and am now getting proficient in each. Yet I have spent
more time on learning Morse code than all the others combined, and still
am pretty rank at it. Not complaining, mind ya, (well maybe a little) it
just serves to make your point.

Exactly. But note that you're not doing Morse to pass a license test any more.

But ya duz what you have to do!

Watta concept, huh?

The length of a dipole question appears exactly once - in the 1971 manual
only, for the Advanced class.

In fact, if you read the study guides carefully, it becomes clear that
they
are heavily focused on transmitter design and operation to avoid
interference, and regulations.

Yup, that was a probably a priority in those days.


It seems to me that a *lot* of the old exams was based on problems they
had experienced with hams. Hum modulation on ham signals? Ask a lot
of questions on rectifiers and filters. Some hams wander outside the band
edges? Lots of questions on band edges, frequency meters and computing the
tolerance of crystals an measuring systems.


What is your
opinion, Jim? given the study guide as a reference, were the tests
likely easier, harder, or not much difference?


It's impossible to say for sure without the actual tests.

However, having read all of the guides, and having taken the tests that
way,
I'd say that the old exams required a prospective ham to have a better
understanding of radio than the modern ones. While the modern tests cover
more
subjects, they do so at a much lower level.

But what's most important is that the old guides only gave a general idea
of
the
subject areas. For example, you knew there would be some fancy Ohm's Law
questions on the test (because the study guide had 'em) but you didn't know
exactly what they'd look like, or what the numbers would be. So you learned
Ohm's Law backwards, forwards and upside down just in case. And that was
just
*one* subject.

Also, the old exams used multiple choice exams with 5 choise, not 4.

But we're not going back to those days, so other methods must be used. One
solution is to make the question pool so large and varied that it's easier
for
99% of prospective hams to just learn the material rather than memorize or
word-associate their way to a passing grade.

The present pool has IIRC around 800some questions. That is getting to
the level you speak of.

Yes and no. Memorizing the whole pool is one thing, but if there are only a few
questions on one subject (say, Ohm's Law), it may be easier to just memorize or
word-associate those few than to learn the material.

btw, the 1962 LM satudy guide for the Extra is 239 essay questions.

When I studied for mine, I went over all them,
although there is another incentive to learn the material, because
several of the questions are similar, and the answers are shifted
around. Question 32's answer might be "A" in the pool, but "C" on the
real test.

Sure, so you don't memorize them that way. You memorize/word associate "40
dipole/66feet" or some such.

73 es GL de Jim, N2EY

(William) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Why?

Why, Jim?

Why, Jim?

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

Option is not a failure.

Lennie Anderson: "I am only hee to civilly debate the code test issue"

Obviously nt.

Steve, K4YZ

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

some snippage

That's all we're asking. It's one thing when someone says "Explain X to me"

and

quite a different thing when someone says "I read books A, B and C on X,
but I still don't quite understand why you need to ....."..

That's all SOME of us are asking might be more accurate.


Agreed!


Others take umbrage at the asking.


Sad but true.

The ignorance problem is hardly a new problem. I can remember being
at a ham gathering circa 1965 where a guy didn't know the difference
between a short and an open. To have had the license he had at that
time he would have had to take the old essay style tests complete
with diagrams.

A closed test pool is no panacea.


There's mo

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971.
The
study guides in those books are full of draw-a-diagram questions, power
supply,
filter and transmitter questions, plus all sorts of other stuff like
magnetrons, neutralization, TV, RTTY, FM and SSB.. But there are very few
questions on receivers and antennas, particularly in the lower license
calsses and older versions.

I wonder if having to draw something makes for a harder test?


Depends entirely on the person. For some people, such nonverbal stuff is
easy, while for others it's really tough. Similar to the way some people

have

no problem reading maps or blueprints, while others are completely

befuddled by

such things.

Or me with Morse! 8^) It is amazing to me that in the past year, I have
learned DVD production authoring,learned a new 3-D rendering program,
taught myself visual basic programming, and am learning (of all things)
pottery making); and am now getting proficient in each. Yet I have spent
more time on learning Morse code than all the others combined, and still
am pretty rank at it. Not complaining, mind ya, (well maybe a little) it
just serves to make your point.


Exactly. But note that you're not doing Morse to pass a license test any more.

True. Just a strange thing.


But ya duz what you have to do!


Watta concept, huh?

At least one person here doesn't like that sort of thing. I just
consider the source.


The length of a dipole question appears exactly once - in the 1971 manual
only, for the Advanced class.

In fact, if you read the study guides carefully, it becomes clear that
they
are heavily focused on transmitter design and operation to avoid
interference, and regulations.

Yup, that was a probably a priority in those days.


It seems to me that a *lot* of the old exams was based on problems they
had experienced with hams. Hum modulation on ham signals? Ask a lot
of questions on rectifiers and filters. Some hams wander outside the band
edges? Lots of questions on band edges, frequency meters and computing the
tolerance of crystals an measuring systems.



What is your
opinion, Jim? given the study guide as a reference, were the tests
likely easier, harder, or not much difference?


It's impossible to say for sure without the actual tests.

However, having read all of the guides, and having taken the tests that

way,

I'd say that the old exams required a prospective ham to have a better
understanding of radio than the modern ones. While the modern tests cover

more

subjects, they do so at a much lower level.

But what's most important is that the old guides only gave a general idea

of

the
subject areas. For example, you knew there would be some fancy Ohm's Law
questions on the test (because the study guide had 'em) but you didn't know
exactly what they'd look like, or what the numbers would be. So you learned
Ohm's Law backwards, forwards and upside down just in case. And that was

just

*one* subject.

Also, the old exams used multiple choice exams with 5 choise, not 4.

But we're not going back to those days, so other methods must be used. One
solution is to make the question pool so large and varied that it's easier

for

99% of prospective hams to just learn the material rather than memorize or
word-associate their way to a passing grade.

The present pool has IIRC around 800some questions. That is getting to
the level you speak of.


Yes and no. Memorizing the whole pool is one thing, but if there are only a few
questions on one subject (say, Ohm's Law), it may be easier to just memorize or
word-associate those few than to learn the material.

I dunno. If I'm going to impress something on some brain cells, I'd just
as soon memorize Ohm's law as memorize specific test questions. Anyone
that would do elsewise is just getting what they deserve.



btw, the 1962 LM satudy guide for the Extra is 239 essay questions.


I'd prefer it if the test were essay. not because it would be harder,
but because for me at least, it would be easier. I liked them in school,
I still like them.


When I studied for mine, I went over all them,
although there is another incentive to learn the material, because
several of the questions are similar, and the answers are shifted
around. Question 32's answer might be "A" in the pool, but "C" on the
real test.


Sure, so you don't memorize them that way. You memorize/word associate "40
dipole/66feet" or some such.

For the circumstance you name, even that isn't too bad a thing. Of
course, knowing that 468/f is how you can find the length of a half wave
dipole is easier, and then you have something useful for *lots* of
frequencies.

I don't think they have any questions about quarter wave dipoles! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

I'd prefer it if the test were essay. not because it would be harder,
but because for me at least, it would be easier. I liked them in school,
I still like them.

You are assuming that the volunteer examiners are capable of
evaluating something other than multiple choice.