RadioBanter - View Single Post - Feb 23 is the No-code date

Mike Coslo · January 20th 07, 03:03 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote in
ups.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this
year and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will
no longer be required for ANY class license it seems after that
date.

Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the
Federal Register before January 24?

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again.
Not just the code test, either.

Hi Jim,

Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's
were
higher than thay are now?

I think they were higher then, yes.

As a person who took all the tests during the recent past -
Technician 1999, General and Extra 2001 and couppled with my research
into the issue, I respectfully disagree.

Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco
study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?

It's not about "difficulty" but about how much relevant info a person
had to know and understand to pass the tests.

I'm not sure that this isn't changing the criteria in mid stream, but
assuming it isn't, I would then say that the tests are indeed relevent
today as well as apparently during that time.

The Ameco guide you refer to - what license class was it for?

Novice and General.

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1953, 1962, and
1971. They contained the study guides provided by FCC, but *not* the
actual Q&A used on the tests.

Having read all of them cover-to-cover, I can say I think the
standards were higher then.

In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that
little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first,
and answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the
book! All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question
pool...

Those sample questions were *not* the actual questions used on the
test. They were simply made up by Ameco.

After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?

Lots of ways:

For example, which of the following requires more knowledge:

Question 1:

The length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz is about:

a) 100 feet long
b) 50 feet long
c) 67 feet long
d) 40 feet long

Question 2:

Determine the length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz, using
the appropriate formula. Show all work.

That's just one question.

Okay, you show two separate and related questions. But that isn't
the scope of the questions that I extracted from the study guide. Almost
all the questions were in the form of your question 1.

Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few
sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not*
be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would
cover the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc.
So the typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards,
forwards and sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test.

Frankly, that is what I did for my Extra exam. That was much easier that
trying to memorize the pool.

But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able
to solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the
correct answer out of the four supplied.

I am so weary of that chestnut. I suppose real engineers don't
consult design manuals for hints and ideas.

In any field these days where it is necessary to prove that the
worker has been exposed to a particular bit of knowledge, there will be
a question pool. I've seen it for fields where a mistake can cost lives,
such as study guides with question pools for electrical code work. I can
get you the name of the book if you are skeptical. Its just how it is.
And I can remember what I studied for on my tests - I believe that the
pool does no harm, and a de facto pool has existed for many years.

In looking at the old study guides vs. the new, it seems to me that
the old exams focused on a relatively few number of subjects, but
covered those subjects in some depth. The new
tests seem to me to cover a wide range of subjects, but in very little
depth.

Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

Always am.

I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially
from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams
regarding how much better a vetting process the old old system was is
going to be a greater threat to the ARS than any code test
elimination ever was.

I think the old process was a better process in some ways and a worse
process in other ways.

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not
know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a
limited space.

My own thoughts on how Amateur radio should be organized are that
the higher classes of license should be earned by time in grade, so to
speak. I don't think that an extra should not know how to erect a HF
antenna, or have no experience with operations in general - and the
present system allows that.

Of course, it is possible for the person to wait out the period of
time before upgrading, but two things work against that - attrition due
to lack of interest, and the likelyhood that a person who does simply
wait it out without actually doing anything before upgrading is just
going to be some sort of statistic.

When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.

Related story:

I wanted to "build a Heathkit". Not wanting to get one of the rare
unbuilt ones and destroy it's value, I found an SB-200 at Dayton. I
bought it and completely dissassembled it. I cleaned everything,
replaced any parts that needed replaced, and some that didn't- like the
many modes the previous owners had done. I got a copy of the assembly
manual, and proceeded to put it back together. GReat gobs of fun, I'll
tell ya!

I would agree with your point. In this day of 100 percent appliance
stations, Amateurs should build as much as they can.

I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
gathering.

Well, that was when our tax dollars were going to other things.

The result was that there was testing available all over the place,
but the Q&A weren't available publicly.

I still am convinced that it essentially was available. Perhaps not in
verbatim form, but close enough.

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background
needed?

I think that the old novice test could have been taught in a day
also. Much of what is on the Technician test is common sense.

As for needed background, I think that getting licensed, getting on
the air and being elmered is what produces good hams.

Too much of what I have heard from a lot of old time hams is
disdain for newcomers - even now before the "great unwashed" come into
the hobby. Fortunately nickle Extras such as myself will be there to
help, not belittle or chase away.

I think I'm going to go heat up the Garage and get to work on that
mobile antenna I am building. Fun chat, Jim.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -