LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10   Report Post  
Old July 20th 04, 10:56 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article et, "Bill

writes:


A different point altogether, Jim! A person will learn MUCH more by
reading good reference material.


That's the point, exactly.

Just as an example from the Question
pool vs boo larnin' thread I just started, I learned that Fessenden
received an optical interrupter made by a fellow named Brashear. Now
there is a piece of synchronicity! Brashear was a telescope maker of
great renown at that time. I didn't see that tidbit in any of the
history of telescopes.


I knew about the high speed interrupter but not the tie-in with telescopes.

But that isn't what they are trying to teach us in electronics. somone
somwhere has to decide what question to ask on the test.


That's what the Question Pool Committee (QPC) does.

This isn't a criticism of you or Mike or anyone who takes the tests today.
It's
just a point about the testing methods used. Not that they're going to
change any time soon.


I certainly didn't take it as such. Especially since I take the two as
a functional equivalent! 8^)


Once in a while I take an online practice test just for grins. Usually I
don't
use scratch paper or a calculator, just to make it more of a sporting
course. Ten minutes is about my speed, too, unless I push it.


Sure - they are kind of fun, and a good way to keep up with some of the
dryer details of regulation. The more enjoyable stuff masks the boring
stuff.


It's all good stuff.


Point is, if you pass the test but don;t have the 9000 hours you aren't an
electrician either.

True, but No similar "time in grade" applies to ham licensing.


It's not just time in grade but actual supervised work experience. Back in
the
old days of a 2 year wait for Extra, a ham could just toss the General
license
in a drawer and do nothing for 2 years, yet the "experience" would still
count.

We aren't likely to see such experience requirements reinstated either,
IMHO.


Too bad, that!

Yes, but why fret?

The reason we won't see them is that it adds to the admin workload, because
there would be no multistep upgrades. *Every* upgrade would be a VE visit and
an FCC transaction.

73 de Jim, N2EY



 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) N2EY Policy 6 December 2nd 03 03:45 AM
My response to Jim Wiley, KL7CC Brian Policy 3 October 24th 03 12:02 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1366 ­ October 17 2003 Radionews Dx 0 October 17th 03 06:51 PM
Low reenlistment rate charlesb Policy 54 September 18th 03 01:57 PM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. Keith Policy 1 July 31st 03 03:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017