Should Amateur Radio testing be modified..

[N5LRZ]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the question before us is weither the testing to become an Amateur Radio Operator be midified to include a manditory "Practical" requirement?

The evidence before us is overwealming. Just look at the Q & A pages of this board for that ever popular question How do I build a Dipole? And the problem lies NOT in the question being asked but rather should it NEED to be asked at all.

Should not we include a PRACTICAL element in the testing in which the testing person must build say an actual working dipole for 2 meters and be able to explane how she figured out the lengths of wire (MUST KNOW the math). Or how to properly set up a station? How to solder? How to use a VOM?

Ya get the drift I hope. Required practical basic knoledge in the mechanical aspects of the hobby? So should we continue to breed ham ops who feel obligated to ask, how do I build a dipole?

What say all ye good folk?

[N5LRZ]

If there is no objection I will go first, yes I do supprt the proposition that a knoledge of the practical be required to pass an Amateur Test.

[K0RGR]

When my grandmother took her driver's test in Colorado, she had to stop at the top of a mountain road, chop down a small tree, and tie it to the back of the car in case the brakes failed on the way down.

The questions about the length of a dipole are already on the test. Sadly, there is no requirement that one understand the content of the answers. There never has been. I remember very well learning what all those things actually meant long after I passed the exam.

Rather than some sort of draconian examination, which seems to be the overall direction society wants to take these days, I would prefer #that newbies be required to undergo a course of instruction. We do not allow people to fly airplanes or drive cars without some hands-on training. We require those wanting to do first aid to attend so many hours of training. You can actually cover the Technician material and demonstrate what it all means in two Saturdays - we do it in our classes here, and our graduates know what a dipole is and how to make one.

So, I agree to some extent, but I would prefer to see a class with written exams as part of the class.

[ai4ep]

Personally I could present an idea that might mention the idea that the written tests should be made harder , and with more questions , along with increasing the morse code requirement to no less than 13 words per minute.

Those who have already passed the minimum requirements would be grandfathered in as they are.

Just a possible idea for an imaginary scenerio, which of course would never happen.

[K4AY]

I believe that what we are seeing is the obvious result of the process of memorizing a list of questions and answers. #This enables one to pass the test without possessing any substantial knowledge.

Although this is weaker than the former process of learning a body of material and taking a test based upon it, the greater knowledge comes from actually implementing this base learning as applied to the reality of the operation: #building, modifying, operating, experimenting. #After you get your ticket, then you can really learn about ham radio. #Formerly, the new ham had a better base of knowledge at his command.

There was a time when prospective hams took license classes and learned much of these basic concepts, as many of us recall. #There was an elmer upon whom to call for advice and support. #The modern equivalent of this elmer is the internet to augment the deficiencies inherent in the memorization process.

The facility of the internet seems to encourage asking questions that would otherwise have been answered by referring to one of many books that the ham of old would have around the shack. #In this regard, the internet discourages doing much research and learning on one's own.

At the risk of offending all those who got their new licenses via the new method of licensing, I recommend learning some of this on your own. #Then ask questions that are not so fundamental. #As would be said in the computer and computer operating systems arena, Read The Fine Manual. #Performing a search on the internet with Google will yield resources that cover many of these topics in depth. #I have seen sites built by those who have invested endless hours in assembling a wealth of knowledge and examples for anyone's use.

The current process produces hams with a shallow knowlege; and it shows.

[K0RGR]

Unfortunately, the process of "memorizing the list of questions and answers" goes back to when they called it "the ARRL License Manual" - sometime before I was born, which was in the Truman Administration. So, claims of superiority based on hard study for the written exam really can't be proved from that time forward. But I agree that a required course covering the material and the practical aspects would be much better way to license people.

[AG3Y]

One of the inherent deficiencies of the Internet itself is the dubious quality of some of the answers you will find to such basic questions as "How do I build a dipole?" That particular answer might be fairly straight forward, but one that is almost as basic "How do I build a J-Pole" has almost as many different answers as there are web pages addressing the question ! If you get into any more involved questions, you will find some correct answers, and seemingly even more that are totally off the wall!

Back in the days of books, there were some publishers whos books were quite athoritative, and others that you had to accept with a sizable grain of salt. Unfortunately, nowdays, it is not so easy to separate the "wheat from the chaff!" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

It is too bad that the F.C.C. has decided to "dumb down" the licensing process to the point it has reached today, but the path has not been all that unpredictable!

Now it is up to those of us who have "been around the block" a few times to do our best to make sure that the new operators do get the correct information and instruction to suppliment their "learning by rote!"

73, Jim

[K7KBN]

I, too, favor eliminating the published question pools complete with answers. The ARRL License Manual had representative questions, with the correct answers, but these would not be THE questions on THE test. It might show how to calculate power in a circuit, but THE test might give the power and require a calculation to determine voltage or resistance.

I also favor the 5/13/20 wpm code speed requirement, as it used to be. If one wants additional privileges, he should work for them.

[w1vt]

I'd love to see someone derive the correct length formula for a 2M dipole from first principles. What is the right length if you use 1/2" copper pipe? What about #12 stranded THHN wire 9 feet above ground? #I think computer modeling is the appropriate way to solve such problems--the math is just too hard.

[K7JBQ]

Quote[/b] (k7kbn @ Oct. 29 2004,08:32)]I, too, favor eliminating the published question pools complete with answers. #The ARRL License Manual had representative questions, with the correct answers, but these would not be THE questions on THE test. #It might show how to calculate power in a circuit, but THE test might give the power and require a calculation to determine voltage or resistance.

I also favor the 5/13/20 wpm code speed requirement, as it used to be. #If one wants additional privileges, he should work for them.
Exactly right, and that is the crucial difference between then and now.

Memorizing the answers in the License Manual did you no good at all. You had to learn the theory in order to solve the problem posed in the exam. That also led to a pretty good feeling of accomplishment when I passed the General at age 14.

Maybe one solution would be to keep the present system, but eliminate the situation where multipal questions have identical answers. The present system just makes it too easy to get by on rote alone.

As for computer modeling of antennas, indeed, 'tis wonderful. But in the real world, you cut the antenna according to theory, and then trim to resonance, the same way we've always done.

73,
Bill

[WA5KRP]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Oct. 29 2004,07:50)]When my grandmother took her driver's test in Colorado, she had to stop at the top of a mountain road, chop down a small tree, and tie it to the back of the car in case the brakes failed on the way down.


I would prefer#that newbies be required to undergo a course of instruction. We do not allow people to fly airplanes or drive cars without some hands-on training. We require those wanting to do first aid to attend so many hours of training. You can actually cover the Technician material and demonstrate what it all means in two Saturdays - we do it in our classes here, and our graduates know what a dipole is and how to make one.

So, I agree to some extent, but I would prefer to see a class with written exams as part of the class.
I'm with RGR. If we care enough about our privileges we should be willing to give the time to train folks. This can go a long way in helping newbies know not just theory, but the do's and don'ts of using a radio. (I wish I had a nickel for every time I've had to explain an offset and tone.)

I also agree with eliminating question pools where one merely has to memorize a set of answers. Everybody should have to do some homework.

RGR - I'll take the bait. What the hell does chopping down a tree and tying it to the back of a car have to do with brake failure? Let me say in advance that I think you set me up for a joke.


WA5KRP
Texas

[WB2WIK]

What the heck's a ham radio related question doing in the "Talk & Opinions" forum? Geesh.

I'd love to see a practical element to the exams.

To supplement that, or possibly in lieu of it, how about making all prospective licensees attend some number of hours of classroom training and have a graduation certificate signed by the instructor prior to being allowed to apply for a license? In most states, a "newbie" (teenager) cannot apply for a driver's license without having such a certificate indicating they completed classroom and behind-the-wheel instruction. Doesn't seem to slow down any of the applications one bit.

I've long believed our strength is not found in numbers, but in merit. We don't need a million licensees to retain our bands; 100,000 highly competent licensees are capable of doing so -- maybe a lot more capable. Nobody's impressed by "numbers." According to the numbers, the Cardinals should have won the World Series.

WB2WIK/6

[K7JBQ]

Steve,

Excellent idea, but two concerns:

What about the poor prospective ham in East Bejeezus, Montana who's about 350 miles from the nearest class?

Who would monitor the instructors so they wouldn't take a payoff? The VE system has had enough problems with this as it is.

73,
Bill

[ai4ep]

Well what ever you do ...dont give him an EXEMPTION for being so far away...there will be 10 million prospective others who will move there to get the same exemption within 48 hours, once word got out.

[kg4kww]

Now, testing on how to build a antenna or set up a station or grounding your tower is much more usfull and makes more sense than testing for CW, which will in most cases never be used after the exam.

BRAVA

UNDERTAKERS AND GRAVE DIGGERS FOR BUSH

[w1vt]

Would it be reasonable to ask prospective hams whether "1/2-inch type M copper pipe" would slide through a 17/32" hole, for a test of practical knowledge?

[w9pw]

I too agree that the license process is not what it used to be, but with the state of Amateur Radio today, we do need to have a hobby ! In the society we live in, don't be surprised to see the code requirement eliminated. I would hate to see this, but take a close look at the FCC!
I still favor the code requirement, as stated earlier in these comments...if you want the extra privilages then earn them. It would be practical for all new anateurs to undergo a training program on operation, station set-up, antenna installation with mentors...thats why we have local ham CLUBS. Its' a shame what is happening, but if we stay static, the hobby and frequencies will disappear.
There has to be a middle ground solution that is logical and benefits everyone from the 25+ year Ham to the 13 year old who wants to get a license.

[WB2WIK]

The solution for the "13 year-old who wants to get a license" is the same solution as we've had since the beginning: Study for it, and get it. No sweat.

I never hear 13 year-olds complaining about the code requirement, or much of anything else. They're in 8th grade, learn new things every day, study, take tests, and pass them. It's normal.

The ones who are complaining about the code requirement, or anything else they perceive to be an obstacle, aren't 13 year-olds.

WB2WIK/6

[K6BBC]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Oct. 29 2004,13:21)]The solution for the "13 year-old who wants to get a license" is the same solution as we've had since the beginning: Study for it, and get it. #No sweat.

I never hear 13 year-olds complaining about the code requirement, or much of anything else. #They're in 8th grade, learn new things every day, study, take tests, and pass them. #It's normal.

The ones who are complaining about the code requirement, or anything else they perceive to be an obstacle, aren't 13 year-olds.

WB2WIK/6
Passed my General in 1969, 13 WPM, age 13.

K6BBC

[AB8TM]

What if we had in supplement to the current written exam format, a list of different interests in ham radio, such as computer related digital modes, antennas, morse code, and electronic principles, etc.

From this list the ham would choose what interests them, and be required to show a greater than average knowledge on their chosen interest. It's what we that stick with the hobby seem to do anyway. If the FCC allowed it, they could put an endorsement of the particular interest on the license, or other body's like the ARRL could handle it for a private fee.

Sort of like having a 'ham radio major.'

Yes, I have a lot of time on my hands. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif