| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#10
August 31st 05, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. no it isn't but no you are not the only one using this red herring Except it's not a red herring. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. WHY? Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. why does anyone need to memorized what Inductor do? or how caps ad in paralell? Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Elcetronics is the only thing techinal? Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). and there is not enough Pratical stuff Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. not a bad idea given the way even the extras don't seem to agree on what the rules say. But an entry license without the ability to anything but shelf gear limited power etc That's what NCVEC wanted... Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. no it isn't we will always see the tug between getting folks in the door and the keep em out with hard tests Thank you, Mark - you've just proved my point! For some folks (like Mark) it's not about the code test in isolation. It's about "hard" tests in general - written, code, practical, whatever. Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I wrote a detailed rebuttal. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... That's what they called themselves in the "21st Century" thing... There was a time, not so long ago, when if someone had suggested a nocodetest amateur license, they would have been told it was a "red herring" and "something FCC would never consider". Now look where we are. The trend isn't just towards less code testing, but to less testing overall. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Headline: Brain Dead Woman Gives Birth To Baby Girl | General | |||
| Breaker 1-9 good buddy! I got a Dead Leprechaun on my tail! | CB | |||
| Wanted Dead or alive Communications receiver,s and radio equipment | Shortwave | |||
Threaded Mode
