What are we coming to? Dumbing down??

[N8UZE]

Other than examples given by one VE in this thread, how would a VE know if someone memorized the pool or knew the material?
Mike

You can't be sure but I too am a VE. Naturally most of the applicants are testing for Technician. When they pass the Technician test, I encourage them to take a crack at the General test. If they know the material, they will come within a question or two of passing the General. I've even had a couple pass it much to their own surprise. If, on the other hand, they have a very low score (say 25%) when they try the General, then IMHO they didn't really know the Tech material or can't recognize it when phrased differently (perhaps reading comprehension issues rather than material comprehension) since there is about a 50% overlap and is of the memorize type nature and should score at least that.

However, I only consider it an indicator not a sure sign.

Most of the Tech applicants that pass do come very close to passing the General.

This methodology of guessing however doesn't work for the General applicants as the step between the General and Extra exams is too big and there is little overlap between these two groups of material.

[KA4DPO]

You are exaggerating. For starters many of the "basic questions" are not being asked by the Extras but by hams of all classes and lengths of time in ham radio. In addition many of the questions being asked are about material that isn't covered in the study guides and therefore does not appear on the tests. So whether they memorized the pool or not is irrelevant.


Oh I don't think I'm exagerating at all. In fact, there are lots and lots of folks who will back me up on this.

For the record, 99% of what I learned as a novice wasn't on any study guide, it was however, in the ARRL handbooks and other publications. All of this information is still readily available today. Just because it's not on the test is about the weakest excuse in world unless your unable to read a book for some reason.

You don't have a valid argument and I don't have any patients with people who poke sticks in the bee hive just to PO the bees.

[N8UZE]

Oh I don't think I'm exagerating at all. In fact, there are lots and lots of folks who will back me up on this.

For the record, 99% of what I learned as a novice wasn't on any study guide, it was however, in the ARRL handbooks and other publications. All of this information is still readily available today. Just because it's not on the test is about the weakest excuse in world unless your unable to read a book for some reason.

You don't have a valid argument and I don't have any patients with people who poke sticks in the bee hive just to PO the bees.

You missed my point entirely. What I am saying is that just because a person passed a test does not mean they are going to know what other people think they ought to know. No matter what type of test one devises, any applicant is going to first address the material to be tested and worry about any other material when he actually needs it. In addition, if he does not use the material that he is tested on fairly soon afterwards, then he will forget it and may even become a little fuzzy on where to find it. Finally to the new ham, the quantity of material is apt to be so overwhelming that despite being tested on it, when he goes to actually use it, he may not be able to use it even if he does remember it. Learning is entirely different from knowing and using.

You say that 99% of what you learned as a novice wasn't on any study guide. Well that merely means that you chose to learn more than was required to pass the test or that you learned it after you passed the test and got on the air and found you needed to know it. I bet you asked your elmer questions that could have been looked up in a book. Sometimes that is the best way. The elmer can keep trying different ways of explaining something until it clicks with the questioner.

Your viewpoint that the original Novice test was so very hard has been refuted by Ed Hare, a licensee from the same era. Per his statements everything that he needed to pass the test was listed in the study guide. Nor are your statements about the difficulty of the Novice test consistent with the purpose of the Novice license, i.e. a basic bare bones license to let people get their feet wet in amateur radio and try it out.

Since the original Novice license was administered to the propspective applicant by other hams who is to say how many were "coached" in the answers before the administering ham sent the paperwork to the FCC. Here was a huge opportunity to cheat the system though I suspect that it was probably rare.

Yes sometimes I get annoyed when some one asks me a question that I think they should know but I do my level best not to let them know I'm annoyed and do my level best to help them find the answer. I consider it my responsibility to elmer them and show them the joy of ham radio and self discovery not to put them down because of my viewpoint on what they should or should not know. Since I wish to promote self discovery, I will give them an abbreviated answer (i.e. sufficient to get them started in the short term but will not overwhelm them either) and tell them where to find more info if they wish to pursue the subject further.

By the way, it's patience not patients. They become patients after they poke the beehive whether or not you have any patience with them.

Also keep in mind that candidates cannot be denied a license because of poor reading comprehension or even illiteracy. When a VE team has such a candidate, we must accommodate them. In some cases, that means actually reading the test to them. Now we can require them to give us sufficient advance notice so as to have enough examiners on hand to do that or to make any other special arrangements or direct them to a team who can handle it better than we can but we can't refuse them.

[KA4DPO]

Spelling errors aside, I think you missed the point. The point being that any licensed amateur who doesn't try to find information or learn anything that will improve their skills and abilities as a ham operator needs to find a different hobby.

I already said the original novice test was extremely simple so I'm not sure where you got that notion from. almost 100% of the novices I have known learned everything they knew from other sources. Since there was no internet we used books. Those same books are still here and now we also have the internet so there is utterly NO EXCUSE for someone not to be able to find any information relating to amateur radio. The issue is, are they willing to study and put some effort into the hobby or do they just wan't to be spoon fed.

The unfortunate truth is that most new extra class operators don't know as much about basic radio and electronics as novices did 30 and 40 years ago. I was there and I'm here now, I don't need to hear excuses.

I've heard that same tired argument a hundred times before and it's just as weak now as it was then.

The solution is simple. Revamp the testing process and place restrictions on time in grade. 1 year for Tech, and two years for general before you can test for extra. At least then a larger portion of the extra class population might have a clue.

Bottom line is, if your not willing to invest some time and effort to improve your knowlege base then it's just CB.

[N8UZE]

Spelling errors aside, I think you missed the point. The point being that any licensed amateur who doesn't try to find information or learn anything that will improve their skills and abilities as a ham operator needs to find a different hobby.

Like it or not, there is no requirement to improve.

I already said the original novice test was extremely simple so I'm not sure where you got that notion from. almost 100% of the novices I have known learned everything they knew from other sources. Since there was no internet we used books. Those same books are still here and now we also have the internet so there is utterly NO EXCUSE for someone not to be able to find any information relating to amateur radio.

Yet often a person learns better with personal guidance or guidance tailored to what they are trying to do at the moment. Newcomers can simply be overwhelmed by the extent of the available material and need help to sort it out. A book can't do that to the extent that a live mentor can and that includes a remote but live mentor such as an online question/answer forum.

The issue is, are they willing to study and put some effort into the hobby or do they just wan't to be spoon fed.

The unfortunate truth is that most new extra class operators don't know as much about basic radio and electronics as novices did 30 and 40 years ago. I was there and I'm here now, I don't need to hear excuses.

What they actually knew and what they were required to know are two different things. What a Novice was required to know to get a Novice license then is far less than what an Extra is required to know to get an Extra license now. What the Novices of the past may have learned in addition to that before or after passing their test is not germaine to what the license requirements should be.

I've heard that same tired argument a hundred times before and it's just as weak now as it was then.

The solution is simple. Revamp the testing process and place restrictions on time in grade. 1 year for Tech, and two years for general before you can test for extra. At least then a larger portion of the extra class population might have a clue.

I've maintained all along that to accomplish the stated goals of some people that it would indeed be necessary to revamp the testing process not just expand the test pools. I actually favor time in grade but since they could not prove if they actually learned anything it's probably not worth making such a change. The current testing process requires the candidates to at least demonstrate that they have been exposed to the material whether a "better" process can be devised is open to doubt.

Bottom line is, if your not willing to invest some time and effort to improve your knowlege base then it's just CB.

Actually you are demonstrating your prejudice. Not all CBer's are bad. My neighbor is quite a fine fellow. If the CB laws had been enforced against the most egregious offenders, there would be little problem on the CB bands and no reason to condemn them.

[W1RFI]

I have no doubt that human nature has not changed in the years since I was licensed, so there were certainly a handful of hams then, as now, that want to be spoon fed. Most didn't succeed as hams, and just quietly faded away. Others went on to learn and grow, just as hams are doing today.

The difference is that today, some of both types post in forums like this, so everybody can see our best and worst.

I am always amazed at how some people tend to be able to see only the worst.

As a ham, I have learned FAR more in what I DID with my license than I learned from getting it, and I took all my tests before the FCC.

Somehow, some of us seem to think that all of the problems within ham radio could be cured if only we had the right test to keep out those that approach ham radio differently than we do. In all of the decades of changes to our test structure, that has never happened, and some of our worst offenders are among those that had to draw schematics for steeley-eyed FCC examiner. Some of our worst offenders are among those that took a test through the VE process.

No change in testing has changed my experience in ham radio one bit as far as I see. Nothing in the last round of changes affected what I can do within ham radio; I can still operate my favorite mode, and there is still plenty of room for me to do so.

Every single change in ham radio has been heralded and followed by the howls of the doomspeakers, predicting the end of amateur radio as we know it. I take consolation in knowing that so far, every single one of the doomspeakers has been wrong. I have enough faith in the value of Amateur Radio, and the principle that most who choose to enter it WANT a lifetime of learning to go along with it. Those that just want to talk have so many alternatives today that the idea that people are becoming hams not to learn is flawed on its face.

Ed, W1RFI

[AE6IP]

No studying, no trying to grasp and apply new concepts, no memorization of rules and regs, formulas, or constants. Just reading questions and answers, and in six months they will have read every question and answer 24 times.

Can you honestly tell me that you couldn't remember most of the correct answers to questions and answers read 24 times over 6 months?

Don't know. Haven't tried. Do know that I could cram the study guide in less time.

I still think that what you should think about no response from NC-VEC is that you either got the wrong person or your email didn't get through. Always assume email didn't reach its intended audience until you have confirmation otherwise.

Other than examples given by one VE in this thread, how would a VE know if someone memorized the pool or knew the material?

About 80% of the people we test on my VE team are applying for technician licenses immediately after completing a cram course. So I know how they learned the material. In this area, most of those upgrading to general or extra already have a background in electronics, and tend to hang around and chat with the VEs after the test, talking about how they prepared for the class.

Beyond that, most people bring calculators to the exam or do rough calculations on paper during the test. It's pretty easy to say that they're not trying to recall memorized answers.

In testing several thousand people, I've not seen one who fails to fit one of the above categories. This is not to say that some rare individual might have chosen to memorize the answers, but statistically you're talking about an upper limit of a fraction of a tenth of a percent of those taking the test having memorized the answer pool.

The "dumbing down" isn't happening because of memorizing the pool. If the pool gets bigger or goes away there'll still be the cram books and most of the 'dumb' people will pass via cramming, just like now.

[KA4DPO]

I'm not speaking about doom and gloom Ed. I agree that the information in any test then or now is very little in terms of value in the hobby. My point is simply that there are volumes of information available through the ARRL and other sources that cover every aspect of this hobby. The argument that it wasn't on the test so I don't know where to find it is bogus.

We all learned about ham radio by reading and studying the things we were most interested in. Many still do but because it is now easier to obtain an extra class license than ever before there is a growing number of licensees who simply get the ticket to talk on the radio. If they don't learn anything then when the likes of you and I are gone elmering will be down to " you mash on this here button and you can talk". That's kind of sad if you think about it.

[AE6IP]

Marty, I do know for a fact. I'm just not going to name names. Others on here know for a fact. No one is going to name names. If you wish to call me a liar, then go ahead.

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm simply pointing out that you haven't established your claim as fact, and so there should be no surprise that others, including myself dispute it.

I won't defend myself by displaying another's laundry. I think it sufficient that many hams say that this is happening. There's no logical fallacy there, just discretion.

The logical fallacy is that "many believe" does not equal "is true".

I'm certain you believe that you know people who have memorized the test. Since I don't know these people I don't know of they're having you on or have done what they told you. Thus your claim is your belief and not established fact.

You summed up your position about this in your last paragraph. You're not refuting my opinion and beliefs, you're just using it as a means to express your opinion about the tests in general. You're marginalizing the tests because they're just for a hobby, and therefore my opinion is pointless to you.

Sorry Mike, but I don't work that way.

There are separate issues being discussed. One is whether the test system should be restructured, and I supposed I shouldn't have brought that up in this thread.

The other is to what extent memorizing the test plays a role in "dumbing down" the hobby and what, if anything, should be done about it, given the current testing regime.

It is my very informed opinion that memorizing plays, at most, a tiny role. Based on my experience as a VE, fewer than .1% of all applicants memorize the answers rather than learn, or at least cram, the material. This means two things that should matter to people who care about "dumbing down":

1) Changing the size of the pool or eliminating access to it won't make any difference.

but more importantly

2) You still don't have an explanation of what is causing the "dumbing down."

If "dumbing down" is something you see as a problem you want fixed, then you should care about item two, because you can't fix it if you don't understand the cause.

[kf4vgx]

I agree ,I have enough faith in our new amateurs that they will be just fine.
However I will say that they will learn from what they read "here and other places" and hear on the airways. A few will pick up those bad habits from others.

Major mistakes are being made when we ridicule them in public ,here and on the airways.
Most of that is bickering,name calling and just poor operating practices,in trying to impress others to how intelligent we think we are .

None the less I still believe the majority will follow the right path in becoming better operators. Most amateurs become amateurs to improve on themselves.
I highly believe that !

Some of us just need to keep our nose's out of other people business.
And handle our own affairs.
Amateur radio will be just fine .

[W1RFI]

The point being that any licensed amateur who doesn't try to find information or learn anything that will improve their skills and abilities as a ham operator needs to find a different hobby.

And just how would you test for that, or enforce that?

The real point is that alny licensed amateurs who doesn't want to learn anything WILL find a different hobby. Why in the name of sanity would anyone want to stay in an endeavor that gave them nothing in return? Because they want to yakk? Plenty of places to do that.

There is no testing for stamp collecting, yet stamp collectors generally try to learn more about stamps. There is no test to get a fishing license, yet most fisherpeople try to learn as much as they can about fishing. Why would you think that every hobby except amateur radio will attract people that want to learn, but envision vaste hordes of people getting amateur licenses so they won't learn anything?

The premise is illogical on its face.

The solution is simple. Revamp the testing process and place restrictions on time in grade. 1 year for Tech, and two years for general before you can test for extra. At least then a larger portion of the extra class population might have a clue.

So it the time spent in amateur radio, not the testing, that accounts for the majority of our knowledge. It has ever been that way.

Our exams are not final exams; even the Extra is an entrance exam. It is a lifetime of experience that teaches us things that often won't be found in the book.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

[ab1ga]

I think that if you'll go to the ncvec.org site you will find what *they* require to be on the test. The FCC changed Part 97 when they delegated the test preparation to the NCVEC. That doesn't mean that there are no requirements as to what has to be on the test. Those requirements just aren't set out in Part 97 anymore.

tim ab0wr

Actually, I have visited the site a number of times looking for written guidance on what constitutes a Technician vs. General vs. Extra Class question, and have come up empty. As far as I can ascertain, there is no pubically viewable syllabus for the different license classes. The only guidance regarding question submission concerns the format (number of lines, length of lines, etc), and not the content. If you know of a source of a syllabus, I'd be grateful if you could pass it on to me.

73,

[N8UZE]

There is no testing for stamp collecting, yet stamp collectors generally try to learn more about stamps. There is no test to get a fishing license, yet most fisherpeople try to learn as much as they can about fishing. Why would you think that every hobby except amateur radio will attract people that want to learn, but envision vaste hordes of people getting amateur licenses so they won't learn anything?


Please don't fall into the trap of politicizing our language by modifying fishermen to fisherpeople. The suffix -man, -men happens to mean people not those persons of the male gender.

As my father used to say, it is putting the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble when you do that.


Dee, N8UZE
YL, proud of it, and against politicizing the language

[N8UZE]

Actually, I have visited the site a number of times looking for written guidance on what constitutes a Technician vs. General vs. Extra Class question, and have come up empty. As far as I can ascertain, there is no pubically viewable syllabus for the different license classes. The only guidance regarding question submission concerns the format (number of lines, length of lines, etc), and not the content. If you know of a source of a syllabus, I'd be grateful if you could pass it on to me.

73,

As far as I know, the only thing close to it is the breakdown that precedes the question pools in the downloads from the ARRL site. That breakdown lists the topic areas and how many questions from each area. I would suppose you could consider that a syllabus.

[AB8XA]

As far as I know, the only thing close to it is the breakdown that precedes the question pools in the downloads from the ARRL site. That breakdown lists the topic areas and how many questions from each area. I would suppose you could consider that a syllabus.

I don't know about the ones at the ARRL site, but the question pool files from the NCVEC site title that breakdown before the questions as "Master Syllabus."

[W1RFI]

As I recall, draft syllabi are released as the QPC is about to undertake revisions of the pools, with the very first step being for the QPC to ask for input from the amateur community on the content of the syllabi. They they proceed to develop questions within those syllabi, again asking for input on specific questions.

It is rare for them to get significant input on the syllabi or the input for questions.

The requests for input have been featured in the ARRL Letter, among many other news sources.

The syllabi appear to be the first thing included in the publicly available question pools:

http://www.ncvec.org/downloads/2008%20Extra.pdf

Ed, W1RFI

[W1RFI]

The suffix -man, -men happens to mean people not those persons of the male gender.

Like wo-man?

I have no problem at all with degenderizing language, because those gender distinctions were very real in the memory of our living ancestors, and still very real in some of today's socieities. If some of us offer that, accept it as the well intended recognition of the fact that being feminine and different from us ugly dudes is not at all secondary in any way. I find that some of the women in the Terryville Fish and Game Club take offense at being called fishermen, and few take offense at being called fisherpeople or fisherladies, so I continue to play the odds.

A woman was once introduced to her future colleagues, and one asked whether she was Miss Smith, Mrs. Smith or Ms. Smith. "Doctor Smith," she replied.

Ed, W1RFI

[ab1ga]

Thanks for the reference to the syllabi. I hadn't thought of looking in the question pools themselves, expecting them to be reviewed independently of the question pools themselves. And no, I don't know why I thought that! :confused:

[W1RFI]

The syllabi are created independtly of the questions in the pools, but it makes a lot of sense to include them in the pool. It kind of tells the applicant more about the material he or she will memorize without understanding. :-)

Ed, W1RFI

[kb9rqz]

The syllabi are created independtly of the questions in the pools, but it makes a lot of sense to include them in the pool. It kind of tells the applicant more about the material he or she will memorize without understanding. :-)

Ed, W1RFI


Ed does the FCC or NVEC set the sylabi these days?

[N8UZE]

Like wo-man?

I have no problem at all with degenderizing language, because those gender distinctions were very real in the memory of our living ancestors, and still very real in some of today's socieities. If some of us offer that, accept it as the well intended recognition of the fact that being feminine and different from us ugly dudes is not at all secondary in any way. I find that some of the women in the Terryville Fish and Game Club take offense at being called fishermen, and few take offense at being called fisherpeople or fisherladies, so I continue to play the odds.

A woman was once introduced to her future colleagues, and one asked whether she was Miss Smith, Mrs. Smith or Ms. Smith. "Doctor Smith," she replied.

Ed, W1RFI

Actually once upon a time, in the very ancient times, a female was a wo-man and a male was a wer-man. Wo- was the prefix for female and wer- was the prefix for male with -man being the suffix for human being.

So it was woman for female human and werman for male human.

Perhaps we should resurrect that very old form werman. Nah wouldn't work. It might sound too much like vermin if mispronounced.

I can understand playing the odds though. However if we ever run into each other in a fishing environment, I'm a fisherman regardless of sex.

I particularly dislike the term chairwoman. It can come out as charwomen, depending on accents, and these are two entirely different things. My preference is for Madame Chairman.