Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM,
AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc,
then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid.

However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So
there need be no exam for Morse Code, either.

That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than
the ability to memorize answers.

Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

That is not true. You wish to change the written exams, not add
practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty
darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

Add SSB, FM, etc., to the nothing there is today.

Ummm? There's no Morse Code test anymore?

So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that?

It's a lot more.

Prove it. Show me the exams for all the other modes.

The question isn't what ham radio is, it's whether
one should be required to pass a realistic test to get a license.

Yes!!! A realistic test.

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.

Sounds like the Conditional License to me.

The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an
FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the
location.

Had everything to do with authenticity. You're asking for "real"
exams, right?

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

Then advocate passing the current exam at every license renewal.

What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a
test.

So what is it that you fear?

You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly.

I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not
the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a
second.

Mmmm. I see. You are a careerist in the electronics industry and it
****es you off that hobbyists have equal "status" as you in amatuer
radio. I've run across a lot of that in the past 20 years...

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.

You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.

Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

What if you forgot your band edges?

What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest
tactics are transparent.

You're the one that forgot the circuit, not me. Get ****ed at your own
self.

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.

Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.

Then do so. Quit complaining to me that you can't remember what it was
that you were supposed to draw.

Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and
we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests.

Correct. "WE" weren't discussing it. YOU were. YOU were discussing
how you can't draw what you can't remember.

They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago.

Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.

So let's have them on the test.

But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it
necessary for other modes?

Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal
on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show
the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The
bands would be pretty QRM-free.

YES!!!

If you are ever going to save your beloved Morse Code test, this is the
only way you're going to do it.

If all radio is merely plug and play, why do the services still have radio schools

That's my point, not yours.

No. It's MY point.

Or don't you understand what you just said?

I think it is you who don't know where you're going with this
discussion. It's gone beyond your having grief over your favorite mode
to actually having to think about the future of the service.
Conggrats. Another couple of years of RRAP tutoring and you just might
become a rational being.

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.

Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole
argument!

So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the
schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on
14 MHz"? That kind of relevance?

Sure. But you have to ask yourself one question. Can the average VE
administer such an exam? If not, can your average GS-7 FCC employee
administer such an exam? If you set up an exam that only an engineer
can administer, then your government isn't going to accept it. So be
realistic in your zeal.

Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the
example" kind of relevance?

The exam can be anything your VEC wants it to be. We learned this when
the ARRL went from administering a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM to
administering a Farnsworth Exam at 13-15WPM.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.

No you didn't.

Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did.

There has never been a practical test to show that you could operate a
radio. Ever.

Do you understand what the word "theory" means?

You got me there.

And today's exams still provide that "theory" though they don't prepare
you to actually operate a radio - never did.

All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

That's all you had to do then.

How do you draw a schematic

Memorization.

and explain the functions of parts by
memorizing answers?

Memorization.

You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k"
or "coil".

You can't memorize the def of phase shift?

C'mon, aren't you supposed to be in the industry?

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

But you had to learn how to use the radios.

I did?

They just gave you a radio and said "use it"?

On/Off and PTT. What else is there???

Oh, yeh, a magnetic compass and a chart where the satellite is.

Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed.

When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by
answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a
published answer pool.

Yes, you had to memorize paragraphs instead of multiple choices. Big
deal.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted
to get on the air. Period.

Point?

All you wonderful OF's taking trips down memory lane forget that some
of your brother hams were bootleggers.

It's only the unwashed No-code Techs that operate illegally. Hi!!!
What a stinking load.

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.

Lots of OFs on there who should know better. That's why I hold the
opinions that I hold. Your generation doesn't have a lock on decency,
respect, or apatite for knowledge. Far from it.

Very few of "my" generation there.

Explain.

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

They were trained.

Not in Morse Code.

You must be sitting on oil. Can't you stick to a topic long enough to
be coherent? You were discussing how someone can be efficient at
voice commo, not in Morse.

Effective.

If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must
also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY
(which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

I have no problem with that.

Then go for it.

It is the ONLY legitimate recourse you have for retaining the Morse
Code exam.

Best of luck.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."

Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.

What is/was your profession?

Trained as an EE. Spent years designing RF circuitry, then went into
digital design. "Is", not yet "was" - I'm still alive.

Are you drawing a pension from it? "Was."

Are you drawing a paycheck from it? "Is."

And it's so typical for Old Timers to forget that not everyone in the
ARS are CAREERIST PROFESSIONALS. Bitching and Moaning about how
everyone else doesn't know as much as them.

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.

But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.

Correct. And no one has a right to force their favorite mode on
everyone else.

I'm advocating real testing for whatever mode.

Finally!!! I hope you won't hold it against me for badgering you into
such a position.

Right now the only
test is "do you have the fee, can you get to the testing place, and
have you memorized enough answers to pass".

Welp, other than "can you get to the FCC office" things sure haven't
changed much in 50 plus years.

Let's have a test that
shows whether the testee knows anything.

Remember that you are handsomely compensated for your professional
knowledge. Amateur Radio is a non-compensated hobby.

CW, APRS, AX25, PSK - all of
it. Or separate the licenses. You want to operate FM, you take a
test on FM and, if you pass, you get an FM license.

Endorsement. Remember - your VE has to be smart enough to administer
the exam.

Want to operate
SSB, you take a different test.

Not "want to get on the air? memorize some answers and pay your fee".

And get a vanity license plate.

You are awesome. You're finally catching on.

Who say an old dog can't learn new tricks?

wrote:

: Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
: in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

You are failing (or choosing) to understand/acknowledge the difference
between understanding the principles and simply rote memorising the
answers. It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.

--
73 Chris Cox, N0UK, G4JEC

wrote in message
...
wrote:

: Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
: in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

You are failing (or choosing) to understand/acknowledge the difference
between understanding the principles and simply rote memorising the
answers. It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.

--
73 Chris Cox, N0UK, G4JEC

Even TODAY'S tests are not the same ie; Answer A in your study guide will
coorespond to Answer A on the exam. ANYONE "memorizing" those answers is
nothing short of a FOOL. It is far better to read that book for what little
it is worth - for what it will "TEACH" you to understand - thereby making
passing the exam almost a done deal. UNDERSTANDING AND REMEMBERING
(Memorizing if you will) the BASE material is what gets you through.

As the man said, at one time - there were no SET of exams. If you had no
clue of electronics or rules and regulations where it came to Ham radio -
you were "guranteed" to fail in front of the FCC. Often - that meant a long
trip. Even at that - tests today - most VEs have at least 3 - 5 sets of
exams per class. OR you could be given a test via computer which is randomly
generated. So, to "memorize" ABCD just isn't going to cut it.

As I said before - ya got to memorize many things to get through life - your
SS number, your birthdate, your name, how to spell, read, write, add,
subtract, driving a vehicle, etc......... the list goes on - SURELY you
didn't "memorize" a simple ABCD answer for MOST of that! Memorizing your SS
number, name and birthdate may equivalate to the ABCD method, but - when you
were tested in school for subjects - you had NO clue what was to be asked.
If you didn't pay attention to what was being taught - you most likely
bombed the test.

Again - we're splitting hairs here on the word "memorize". You can "try" to
memorize ABCD to pass a test without studying (and hope the test conforms to
the pattern you "memorized") OR you can MEMORIZE IT BY STUDYING it -
(committ it to memory for life) -therby understanding the principles and
being able to "honestly" answer the questions based on "knowledge" of the
subject.

I seriously do NOT understand the hang up on this issue. Maybe "I" am
missing something - but it seems to me, I had to memorize (LEARN) a whole
list of **** to be able to function in a meaningful life. Your mind is like
a computer - you have to program it (study) - to learn things TO MEMORIZE
FOR LIFE. Simply trying to recall ABCD on a test without understanding the
concepts - you're still going to be dumb as **** even if you do pass.
Wouldn't you rather "know" what you're supposed to know? Sure makes one look
a bit more inteliigent.
Maybe that is why so many people are so goofy on the highways - they
"memorized" answers to the test instead of actually "learning" what the
principle were/are. Makes sense to me! For those of you who parachute or do
other "life endangering" tasks - I'd sure hate to be you - depending on
someone who simply "memorized" ABCD on a test as opposed to "learning" the
requirements to fulfill the task.

No wonder this world is so screwed up............. TOO LAZY TO "LEARN".

L.

"L." wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote:

: Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
: in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

You are failing (or choosing) to understand/acknowledge the difference
between understanding the principles and simply rote memorising the
answers. It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.

--
73 Chris Cox, N0UK, G4JEC


Damned I hate when I screw up - to make a correction here - the word in my
second sentence should be correspond. I didn't catch it before I hit send.
I think I had a "Coors" beer on my mind...

Even TODAY'S tests are not the same ie; Answer A in your study guide will
coorespond to Answer A on the exam. ANYONE "memorizing" those answers is
nothing short of a FOOL. It is far better to read that book for what
little it is worth - for what it will "TEACH" you to understand - thereby
making passing the exam almost a done deal. UNDERSTANDING AND REMEMBERING
(Memorizing if you will) the BASE material is what gets you through.

As the man said, at one time - there were no SET of exams. If you had no
clue of electronics or rules and regulations where it came to Ham radio -
you were "guranteed" to fail in front of the FCC. Often - that meant a
long trip. Even at that - tests today - most VEs have at least 3 - 5 sets
of exams per class. OR you could be given a test via computer which is
randomly generated. So, to "memorize" ABCD just isn't going to cut it.

As I said before - ya got to memorize many things to get through life -
your SS number, your birthdate, your name, how to spell, read, write, add,
subtract, driving a vehicle, etc......... the list goes on - SURELY you
didn't "memorize" a simple ABCD answer for MOST of that! Memorizing your
SS number, name and birthdate may equivalate to the ABCD method, but -
when you were tested in school for subjects - you had NO clue what was to
be asked. If you didn't pay attention to what was being taught - you most
likely bombed the test.

Again - we're splitting hairs here on the word "memorize". You can "try"
to memorize ABCD to pass a test without studying (and hope the test
conforms to the pattern you "memorized") OR you can MEMORIZE IT BY
STUDYING it - (committ it to memory for life) -therby understanding the
principles and being able to "honestly" answer the questions based on
"knowledge" of the subject.

I seriously do NOT understand the hang up on this issue. Maybe "I" am
missing something - but it seems to me, I had to memorize (LEARN) a whole
list of **** to be able to function in a meaningful life. Your mind is
like a computer - you have to program it (study) - to learn things TO
MEMORIZE FOR LIFE. Simply trying to recall ABCD on a test without
understanding the concepts - you're still going to be dumb as **** even if
you do pass.
Wouldn't you rather "know" what you're supposed to know? Sure makes one
look a bit more inteliigent.
Maybe that is why so many people are so goofy on the highways - they
"memorized" answers to the test instead of actually "learning" what the
principle were/are. Makes sense to me! For those of you who parachute or
do other "life endangering" tasks - I'd sure hate to be you - depending on
someone who simply "memorized" ABCD on a test as opposed to "learning" the
requirements to fulfill the task.

No wonder this world is so screwed up............. TOO LAZY TO "LEARN".

L.

lid wrote:
It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.

It is true that the 1950's License Manuals were not multiple
choice but the exams were. The License Manuals went like this:

Q: What is the unit of electrical resistance?

A: The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm.

The exam then had multiple choices, one of them being "ohm".

It is hard to understand how anyone could develop that correct
answer from first principles or formulas. I memorized the
correct answer and it still exists in my memory as something
I once memorized long before I ever knew there was a man named
Ohm after whom the unit of electrical resistance was named.

The difference between memorizing the question pool answers
from the 1950's License Manuals and memorizing the question
pool answers of today is just splitting hairs. I used exactly
the same memorizing techniques to ace the Extra exam in
2000 as I did to pass the Conditional exam in 1953.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:55:09 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It is hard to understand how anyone could develop that correct
answer from first principles or formulas.

No one but you even mentioned "first principles" in this discussion.
It's certainly not part of the discussion.

I memorized the
correct answer and it still exists in my memory as something
I once memorized long before I ever knew there was a man named
Ohm after whom the unit of electrical resistance was named.

You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

Al Klein wrote:
You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

Of course I understand. When I took my Conditional exam,
I didn't know Mr. Ohm from a hole in the ground. I simply
*MEMORIZED* that the ohm was the unit of resistance. I
had no idea how to know that except by *MEMORIZATION*.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:36:49 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

Of course I understand. When I took my Conditional exam,
I didn't know Mr. Ohm from a hole in the ground. I simply
*MEMORIZED* that the ohm was the unit of resistance. I
had no idea how to know that except by *MEMORIZATION*.

Showing that you DON'T know the difference. Don't you even understand
what you post?

Al Klein wrote:
Showing that you DON'T know the difference.

I personally don't care why the unit of resistance
is named the ohm.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
lid wrote:

It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.


It is true that the 1950's License Manuals were not multiple
choice but the exams were. The License Manuals went like this:

Q: What is the unit of electrical resistance?

A: The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm.

The exam then had multiple choices, one of them being "ohm".

It is hard to understand how anyone could develop that correct
answer from first principles or formulas. I memorized the
correct answer and it still exists in my memory as something
I once memorized long before I ever knew there was a man named
Ohm after whom the unit of electrical resistance was named.

The difference between memorizing the question pool answers
from the 1950's License Manuals and memorizing the question
pool answers of today is just splitting hairs. I used exactly
the same memorizing techniques to ace the Extra exam in
2000 as I did to pass the Conditional exam in 1953.
Here here (!)
Cecil, I'm happy to agree with you.

Modern testing techniques are intended to be transparent. This is true
for FCC exams, Postal exams, any and all government qualification exams.
(And because of this, all qualifying exams in the private sector, as
well.)

It took a lot of litigation to get there. Government agencies had to
prove that their qualifying exams were directly linked to the specific
tasks required of the given position for which the individual was applying.

A Postal Carrier needn't know Pythagorus' theorum to deliver the mail.
I took the Postal Carrier exam 35 years ago and did not do well. I
wasn't good at sorting on a timed basis.

This notion of a "cheapening" of FCC requirements because the question
pool is open to the public is a red herring: transparency is the rule.
If you look at the question pool and study it, you will gain the
necessary expertise to pass the exam. This is not cheating, nor is it
short-circuiting the "REAL" ham radio "requirements" that some view as
sacrosanct.

I used ARRL manuals to pass the Extra Exam and I do not defer to anyone
in this regard. Does this make me a ham radio genius? Not AT ALL. Man,
I have SO MUCH to learn. This newsgroup is "potentially" very helpful!
For that, I give thanks.

You know, I love ham radio. I'm happy so many join the ranks each year.
If there still is a concern out there, be an Elmer and address it.

John
AB8O (yeah, I changed my call)