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