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

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!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Why?

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

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

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!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Why?

Why, Jim?

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 -