My Idea For A New License Structure
 

For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Same phone allocations as other
licensees on HF bands. Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Limit 100 watts output on any band.

(2) Amateur Advanced.

Additional written examination. All presently HF-licensed
Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license. Privileges
same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement required
for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those previously
code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees (not
grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band.

(3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life

(OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur Extra)
Comprehensive closed-pool written test. REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code
test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional phone
allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific classifi-
cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power.

Why?

Why not...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all.

(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz.

Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing
use of the band?

Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands.

You mean same as Extras have now?

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!

Limit 100 watts output on any band.

Requires RF exposure eval on higher bands. Why not 100/25?

(2) Amateur Advanced.

Additional written examination.

OK

All presently HF-licensed
Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license.

Even Novices and Techs? That's a worse giveaway than ARRL proposes!

Privileges
same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement required
for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those
previously
code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees
(not
grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band.

See above about code test.

(3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life

(OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur
Extra)

I have no idea why you bother with him, Steve.

Comprehensive closed-pool written test.

How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you make a
case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the others?

REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code

test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional phone
allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific
classifi-
cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power.

Why?

Three levels - good.
Incremental power and privs - good

Why not...?!?!

See above.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message ...

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:


For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all.


Agreed, but then there are folks who are still insisting on a
second shooter on the Grassy Knoll. You can't please everyone!


(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz.

Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing
use of the band?


80: Perhaps 80.

30: Let's leave this for folks who WANT to beep and for those
elusive
data modes.

20: This is where everyone wants to go and play...Let them get
their feet
wet on 17 and 15 meters...then they can come play with the
Big Boys.

12: If you're going to draw limitations on bands you have to
draw the
line somewhere.

1.25: I think this band is fodder, Jim. I realize that the metro
areas
(ie: NYC, LA, ATL, etc...) make better use of it, but we've
done
everything except beg the Pope to support the band. We can
give it
a shot, but the history of this band is that it won't
"sell".


Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands.

You mean same as Extras have now?


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!


OK...Bottom 50kHz...?!?!


Limit 100 watts output on any band.

Requires RF exposure eval on higher bands. Why not 100/25?


It rrequires an eval IF you're using that much power.

As I asked "Billy Beeper", why is everyone running away from
trying to make sure we are as safe as we can be? Isn't this a part of
the "learning curve"...?!?!

Very good point, Steve! If we have to learn about RF safety, we might
as well use it. I would want ANY amateur at ANY license level to be
capable of doing an RF safety evaluation. To not have such a thing is to
me criminal negligence!





(2) Amateur Advanced.

Additional written examination.

OK


All presently HF-licensed
Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license.

Even Novices and Techs? That's a worse giveaway than ARRL proposes!


It's one-time and it's over.

If current expiration of Novices and Techs are any indicator,
most of those folks won't be taking advantage of it anyway.


Privileges
same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement required
for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those
previously
code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees
(not
grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band.

See above about code test.


Ditto my last. There's no "data" being used in the bottom 50 of
most bands...


(3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life

(OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur
Extra)

I have no idea why you bother with him, Steve.


It's like swinging at a pinata...One guy makes a fool out of
himself while everyone else gets to laugh at the process!

HOWL!!!!!! Best comeback all week, Steve! I owe ya for the good laugh. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

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


Comprehensive closed-pool written test.

How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you make a
case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the others?

Because this would be the "final exam". If someone is truly
worthy of having "the whole enchilada", then they should be able to
prove it.

And as for the "Bash" syndrome, I suggest a new line in Part 97:
"Test Confidentiality: Except for those test items released by the
VEC as approved by the Commission, it shall be a violation of this
Part to reveal content of any examination prepared for any Amateur
Radio operator examination."

Never going to happen; this would require a FCC exemption from the Freedom
of Information Act.

The FAA has such an exemption and still publishes all the questions and
answers for FAA tests.

Of course there are those that seem to think an amateur extra license is
of greater importance than an airline transport pilot certificate and an
instrument rating.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

from previous Novice class bands. Full power.

Why?

Why not...?!?!



We could do a class of license that is code only, crystal controlled 75 watt
transmitter built from junked tube TV sets and modified AM radio receivers.

;-)

In article , writes:

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

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:


Comprehensive closed-pool written test.

How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you
make a
case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the
others?

Because this would be the "final exam". If someone is truly
worthy of having "the whole enchilada", then they should be able to
prove it.

Sell that to FCC.

And as for the "Bash" syndrome, I suggest a new line in Part 97:
"Test Confidentiality: Except for those test items released by the
VEC as approved by the Commission, it shall be a violation of this
Part to reveal content of any examination prepared for any Amateur
Radio operator examination."

Never going to happen; this would require a FCC exemption from the Freedom
of Information Act.

And how could it ever be enforced? Someone slips a disk in the right 'puter and
swipes the secret Q&A pool, then retypes or OCRs and slightly edits it to hide
its origins. How you gonna *prove* what was done? And who's going to do it?

The FAA has such an exemption and still publishes all the questions and
answers for FAA tests.

Of course there are those that seem to think an amateur extra license is
of greater importance than an airline transport pilot certificate and an
instrument rating.

HAW! That's a good one! And it makes the point perfectly.

On a completely different note, here's proof that even USAF levels of training,
testing, evaluation, leadership and review can't stop all operator errors.
Experienced pilot had a history of hotdog behavior, and may have tried to roll
a BUFF:

http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/crmde...e/darkblue.htm

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...52%20Crash.mpg


73 de Jim, N2EY

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
wrote in message ...

Of course there are those that seem to think an amateur extra license is
of greater importance than an airline transport pilot certificate and an
instrument rating.

I am a Pilot, Jim, and don't think so...But we're discussing
AMATEUR RADIO in this forum, not FAA ratings and testing policies.

The discussion was the the testing practices of an agency of the
US government.

Comparing the practices of another agency gives a reality check on
the possibility of closed question pools.

My position is that we are not going to completely (or even
remotely) get the degree of "training" the FCC sets before us with
open pools. We have far too many "Extra's" who can't calculate the
length of a dipole or know the difference between peak-envelope-power
and PeeWee Herman. That's a shame.

I have mixed feelings on that.

I think the perception of the ignorance level is skewed for those that
spend a lot of time on USENET for the simple reason that those that do
know how to calculate the length of a dipole are not going to post
a message stating that.

Only the ignorant are going to post things like that and the posts
will stand out in your memory but you will never know how many read
that post and just thought to their self "how did that guy get a
license".

If such questions were answered simply and correctly, and perhaps some
references given as to where such things may be found (such as ARRL
publications) without the usual derisive comments, maybe a goodly
part of the training you hope for would take place.

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

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.

And if it were up to me, the FAA pools WOULD be closed. I can
tolerate the idea of a 71% correct Amateur Extra, but I'd rather not
think about a 71% correct ATP droning around with a load full of pax
and wx at minimums that made that 71% from a verbatim Q&A manual!

Those that memorize the tests tend to get scores closer to 100% than
to 70%.

For some insight on the testing process and question pool challenges
for the FAA, see http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/186574-1.html.

The discussion there is a mirror of this one.

73

Steve, K4YZ

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

We could do a class of license that is code only, crystal controlled 75 watt
transmitter built from junked tube TV sets and modified AM radio receivers.



Why so much power?



;-)


Well, seeing how we will measure that power as that drawn from the
power supply and not at the antenna, .... :-)

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

wrote in message ...



Of course there are those that seem to think an amateur extra license is
of greater importance than an airline transport pilot certificate and an
instrument rating.



I am a Pilot, Jim, and don't think so...But we're discussing
AMATEUR RADIO in this forum, not FAA ratings and testing policies.



And if it were up to me, the FAA pools WOULD be closed. I can
tolerate the idea of a 71% correct Amateur Extra, but I'd rather not
think about a 71% correct ATP droning around with a load full of pax
and wx at minimums that made that 71% from a verbatim Q&A manual!



A pilot who screws up can do a lot more damage than a ham ever could.
I've been told
that small private planes )general aviation) are not permitted to fly
over Manhattan in NYC.
Because if your engine quits, there's no place to land it there. Not so
much over fear of
a 9/11 event. Some kid stole a Cesna and flew it into a skyscraper in
Atlanta IIRC.
Not much damage at all except taking out one office.

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

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

For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at
all.

Agreed, but then there are folks who are still insisting on a
second shooter on the Grassy Knoll. You can't please everyone!

Point is, don't hold yer breath until the code test issue is over.

(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz.

Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing
use of the band?

80: Perhaps 80.

30: Let's leave this for folks who WANT to beep and for those
elusive data modes.

Better yet, include it as an incentive to try out those modes.

20: This is where everyone wants to go and play

Sez who? I prefer 40

...Let them get their feet
wet on 17 and 15 meters...then they can come play with the
Big Boys.

12: If you're going to draw limitations on bands you have to
draw the line somewhere.

Why draw limitations on which HF bands newbies get? Give 'em a taste of
many, and let 'em figure out which ones they like.

Remember that one of the prime limitations of many hams are when they can get
on the air, and what antennas they can put up. (Some can't even figure out how
to end feed a simple wire, but that's *their* problem). A wide selection of
bands
insures that there will be some options for almost everyone.

1.25: I think this band is fodder, Jim. I realize that the metro
areas (ie: NYC, LA, ATL, etc...) make better use of it, but we've
done everything except beg the Pope to support the band.

Punch line to old joke about the pope:

"He's-a no play-a da game, he's-a no make-a da rules!"

We can give it
a shot, but the history of this band is that it won't
"sell".

Maybe, but Novices already have it anyway.

Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands.

You mean same as Extras have now?

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!

OK...Bottom 50kHz...?!?!

No.

Either the code test is part of the license exam, or it isn't. If it is, no
endorsement
needed. If it isn't, the solution is that the lower 20% or so of each band
should
be made CW-only.

Limit 100 watts output on any band.

Requires RF exposure eval on higher bands. Why not 100/25?

It rrequires an eval IF you're using that much power.

As I asked "Billy Beeper", why is everyone running away from
trying to make sure we are as safe as we can be? Isn't this a part of
the "learning curve"...?!?!

The point of an entry-level license is to offer an easy way to get started, and
an incentive to learn by doing. That's what the old Novice was all about, and
what a new "Basic" or whatever should be about. Making the test simple is part
of that.

(2) Amateur Advanced.

Additional written examination.

OK

All presently HF-licensed
Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license.

Even Novices and Techs? That's a worse giveaway than ARRL proposes!

It's one-time and it's over.

Has all the problems of other freebies and more.

Did you see the story about the 7 year old who just earned her Extra?
Tech at 5, General at 6, Extra at 7.

Now tell me why it's expecting too much for existing hams to pass the
current tests in order to upgrade.

If current expiration of Novices and Techs are any indicator,
most of those folks won't be taking advantage of it anyway.

Then why do it at all?

Privileges
same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement
required
for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those
previously
code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees
(not
grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band.

See above about code test.

Ditto my last. There's no "data" being used in the bottom 50 of
most bands...

Just wait...

(3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life

(OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur
Extra)

I have no idea why you bother with him, Steve.

It's like swinging at a pinata...One guy makes a fool out of
himself while everyone else gets to laugh at the process!

The only reason for swinging at a pinatta is because you know
there's something inside.

There's no point in swinging at an empty pinata.

Comprehensive closed-pool written test.

How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you make
a
case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the
others?

Because this would be the "final exam". If someone is truly
worthy of having "the whole enchilada", then they should be able to
prove it.

And as for the "Bash" syndrome, I suggest a new line in Part 97:
"Test Confidentiality: Except for those test items released by the
VEC as approved by the Commission, it shall be a violation of this
Part to reveal content of any examination prepared for any Amateur
Radio operator examination."

Already discussed. No way to enforce it. And convincing FCC
of the need is even less likely than convincing them of the need
for newcomers to pass a 30 wpm code test.

REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code

test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional
phone
allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific
classifi-
cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power.

Why?

Three levels - good.
Incremental power and privs - good

Why not...?!?!

See above.

Ya still snowed in, Jim?

Heck no, we dug out in a few hours.

Blue skies here, and I washed the car in
a scrub shirt this morning!

Washing the car is an invitation for more snow! It was 35 and sunny earlier
today. Went to BJ's and spent over $300, unloaded the car without a coat.
Spring is coming - tomorrow's Ground Hog Day.

Punxsutawney is in WPA.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Same phone allocations as other
licensees on HF bands. Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Limit 100 watts output on any
band.

(2) Amateur Advanced.

Additional written examination. All presently HF-licensed
Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license. Privileges
same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement required
for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those
previously
code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees
(not
grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band.

(3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life

(OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur
Extra)
Comprehensive closed-pool written test. REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code

test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional phone
allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific
classifi-
cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power.

Why?

Why not...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve:

Why not? Because it would make the perennial do-nothing whiners,
like your friend Lennie, scream bloody murder ad infinitum. Not that
I much care about that, mind you.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , writes:

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
wrote in message
...

The discussion was the the testing practices of an agency of the
US government.

Comparing the practices of another agency gives a reality check on
the possibility of closed question pools.

Yep - and there's ain't much chance!

My position is that we are not going to completely (or even
remotely) get the degree of "training" the FCC sets before us with
open pools. We have far too many "Extra's" who can't calculate the
length of a dipole or know the difference between peak-envelope-power
and PeeWee Herman. That's a shame.

I have mixed feelings on that.

I think the perception of the ignorance level is skewed for those that
spend a lot of time on USENET for the simple reason that those that do
know how to calculate the length of a dipole are not going to post
a message stating that.

Only the ignorant are going to post things like that and the posts
will stand out in your memory but you will never know how many read
that post and just thought to their self "how did that guy get a
license".

If such questions were answered simply and correctly, and perhaps some
references given as to where such things may be found (such as ARRL
publications) without the usual derisive comments, maybe a goodly
part of the training you hope for would take place.

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.

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.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

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.

Agree on both counts!

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

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.

And here I thought it was just me getting ornery!

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.

EXACTLY!

I first noticed this on rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Despite lots of websites
dealing with the G5RV and T2FD antennas, it seemed that about every other
thread was about either one or the other of those two. Worse, the *same*
questions would be asked over and over.

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

Agreed.

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.

On the one hand, folks like me *want* to Elmer the newcomers, but on the other,
we don't want to spend all our time answering the same questions over and over
and simultaneously reinforcing the behavior of "learned helplessness" where the
person doesn't even *try* to figure out or research the answer.

One thing I've done is to respond more to questions where it's obvious that the

person has at least tried to find the answer themselves, and is now stumped on
a particular point. Another approach is to answer in URLs.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message ...
Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
wrote in message ...

Of course there are those that seem to think an amateur extra license is
of greater importance than an airline transport pilot certificate and an
instrument rating.

I am a Pilot, Jim, and don't think so...But we're discussing
AMATEUR RADIO in this forum, not FAA ratings and testing policies.

The discussion was the the testing practices of an agency of the
US government.

Yes...The Federal Communications Commission...NOT the FAA, DOT,
DHS, DoD, etc etc etc...

Comparing the practices of another agency gives a reality check on
the possibility of closed question pools.

No more than finding diarrhea in the commode next to you means
YOU have a problem.

My position is that we are not going to completely (or even
remotely) get the degree of "training" the FCC sets before us with
open pools. We have far too many "Extra's" who can't calculate the
length of a dipole or know the difference between peak-envelope-power
and PeeWee Herman. That's a shame.

I have mixed feelings on that.

I think the perception of the ignorance level is skewed for those that
spend a lot of time on USENET for the simple reason that those that do
know how to calculate the length of a dipole are not going to post
a message stating that.

Unfortunately you are wrong. There are any number of folks who
happen along here asking questions from time-to-time that are easily
answered in any number of texts. And many of those folks "ID" with an
Amateur callsign of a class that SHOULD know.

Only the ignorant are going to post things like that and the posts
will stand out in your memory but you will never know how many read
that post and just thought to their self "how did that guy get a
license".

I know the answer to THAT question...

"They" used a verbatim "Q&A" guide that allowed them to memorize
enough to pass the test.

If such questions were answered simply and correctly, and perhaps some
references given as to where such things may be found (such as ARRL
publications) without the usual derisive comments, maybe a goodly
part of the training you hope for would take place.

And when those folks show up here I DO answer them, as precisely
and as cordially as I can. However, had they been required to actually
KNOW the material they "tested" on, they'd already know the
answer...or at least know where to find it without embarrassing
themselves.

A closed test pool is no panacea.

A closed pool would require those who took the tests tom actually
KNOW the material

And if it were up to me, the FAA pools WOULD be closed. I can
tolerate the idea of a 71% correct Amateur Extra, but I'd rather not
think about a 71% correct ATP droning around with a load full of pax
and wx at minimums that made that 71% from a verbatim Q&A manual!

Those that memorize the tests tend to get scores closer to 100% than
to 70%.

But WHAT do they know?

They "know" if they see "this" question, the answer will be
"c"...and nothing more.

For some insight on the testing process and question pool challenges
for the FAA, see http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/186574-1.html.

Interesting. Still doesn't fix the problem, though.

Steve, K4YZ

N2EY wrote:
In article , writes:


Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

wrote in message

...


The discussion was the the testing practices of an agency of the
US government.

Comparing the practices of another agency gives a reality check on
the possibility of closed question pools.


Yep - and there's ain't much chance!

My position is that we are not going to completely (or even
remotely) get the degree of "training" the FCC sets before us with
open pools. We have far too many "Extra's" who can't calculate the
length of a dipole or know the difference between peak-envelope-power
and PeeWee Herman. That's a shame.

I have mixed feelings on that.

I think the perception of the ignorance level is skewed for those that
spend a lot of time on USENET for the simple reason that those that do
know how to calculate the length of a dipole are not going to post
a message stating that.

Only the ignorant are going to post things like that and the posts
will stand out in your memory but you will never know how many read
that post and just thought to their self "how did that guy get a
license".

If such questions were answered simply and correctly, and perhaps some
references given as to where such things may be found (such as ARRL
publications) without the usual derisive comments, maybe a goodly
part of the training you hope for would take place.


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.

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?


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

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
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.


Agree on both counts!

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

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.


And here I thought it was just me getting ornery!

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.


EXACTLY!

I first noticed this on rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Despite lots of websites
dealing with the G5RV and T2FD antennas, it seemed that about every other
thread was about either one or the other of those two. Worse, the *same*
questions would be asked over and over.

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


Agreed.


ahh r.r.a.a! Now there is a interesting place! There are some
interesting characters there. Anyone that posts a "simple" question
there does so at their own risk. Threads undergo an instant
transformation from a question to unintelligible arguments between the
hoi-polloi on some minute point in the post. The experts that are
bothered by us dummies can rest secure though, because we usually go
away completely befuddled. They almost had me talked out of the idea of
ever getting on the air. Not enough antenna height, not enough space,
not a good enough ground, not a good enough tuner.... And that was just
the stuff I could understand! There really should be two separate
newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, and
rec.radio.amateur.I.just.want.to.put.up.something. that.will.get.a.signal.out.




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.


On the one hand, folks like me *want* to Elmer the newcomers, but on the other,
we don't want to spend all our time answering the same questions over and over
and simultaneously reinforcing the behavior of "learned helplessness" where the
person doesn't even *try* to figure out or research the answer.

I dunno, Jim. I suspect that teachers DO spend a lot of time answering
the same questions, and I suspect it was that way long before the
internet or liberals or whatever our favorite blame target is.

In the end, you can find out if the person wants spoon fed by seeing
what their second question is, no the first. And very importantly, how
they respond to the reference lists you send them.


- Mike KB3EIA -

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.


73 de Jim, N2EY

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. Indeed
little William Weeper will no doubt chime in that he isn't sure what a
hoop is but that he'll know one when he sees it.

Dave K8MN

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

ahh r.r.a.a! Now there is a interesting place! There are some
interesting characters there. Anyone that posts a "simple" question
there does so at their own risk. Threads undergo an instant
transformation from a question to unintelligible arguments between the
hoi-polloi on some minute point in the post. The experts that are
bothered by us dummies can rest secure though, because we usually go
away completely befuddled. They almost had me talked out of the idea of
ever getting on the air. Not enough antenna height, not enough space,
not a good enough ground, not a good enough tuner.... And that was just
the stuff I could understand! There really should be two separate
newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, and
rec.radio.amateur.I.just.want.to.put.up.something. that.will.get.a.signal.out.

Yet one more example of how it IS possible to have "TOO MUCH"
education.

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.

And I think I know that other newsgroup!

73

Steve, K4YZ

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!

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

- Mike KB3EIA -

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.

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!


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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

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.