Is publishing the amateur radio exam question pools a bad idea?

[mmckenna]

Worst idea ever. Just makes it easy to memorize and pass.

Can't say I agree with this.

It's a hobby. It's supposed to be enjoyable. Making it more difficult isn't going to change much, the bad operators are still going to be there. If anything, it would further reduce the number of hams, an issue that isn't going to help amateur radio.

The idea of the test isn't to prove that one is a communications expert. It's intended to show that one has the most very basic amount of knowledge to get in the door and start playing. By playing, the learning continues.

Lets be honest here, AMATEUR radio ain't rocket surgery.

The idea behind the hobby is to continue to build knowledge and experience. If we required all that before one could enter the hobby, it would make it pretty boring. Learning band plans and a very small handful of the Part 97 rules is all about memorization, no matter what the method is. And that's the stuff that's important to know as a beginner.

I know a few hams that did the "walk to the FCC office, 20 miles, uphill both ways, in the snow". I haven't found them to be any better or worse that those that didn't.

 

[belvdr]

Can't say I agree with this.

It's a hobby. It's supposed to be enjoyable. Making it more difficult isn't going to change much, the bad operators are still going to be there. If anything, it would further reduce the number of hams, an issue that isn't going to help amateur radio.

The idea of the test isn't to prove that one is a communications expert.

Not saying they need to be a comma expert but memorizing answers to pre-defined questions means they may not even have a basic understanding of anything. What’s worse: having a larger number of folks that may not have a basic understanding or a smaller number that have a proven basic knowledge?

I get that a smaller number risks amateur radio being dismantled too.

 

[mmckenna]

Not saying they need to be a comma expert but memorizing answers to pre-defined questions means they may not even have a basic understanding of anything. What’s worse: having a larger number of folks that may not have a basic understanding or a smaller number that have a proven basic knowledge?

Well, I personally think (opinion) that the tests need to be a bit more of a challenge.
I'd really like to see more focus on learning FCC rules, similar to how drivers are expected to know the rules of the road. There's a lot of hams that I'm pretty confident have never read the rulebook. Only way to do that is via memorization. I'm OK with that.
Same with band plans. Trying to figure out where hams are learning that GMRS and Part 90 are part of the amateur radio bands. Apparently the current tests are not covering this part very well.

The issues that a lot of hams really complain about isn't isolated to new hams. There's plenty of the old timers that have challenges playing nice on the bands, following the rules, and generally staying out of trouble.

Some of the last big FCC enforcement actions have involved experienced hams.

I get that a smaller number risks amateur radio being dismantled too.

I get the feeling that the ARRL/amateur radio manufacturers and vendors realize this and like the current low entry bar. Much better for their bottom line.

 

[KevinC]

How is this much different than a “boot camp”? I went to one for my CompTIA certification and the instructor told us in the first 5 minutes on Monday that his goal is to have us pass the test. He doesn’t care if we forget everything on Saturday, just pass the test on Friday.

 

[belvdr]

How is this much different than a “boot camp”? I went to one for my CompTIA certification and the instructor told us in the first 5 minutes on Monday that his goal is to have us pass the test. He doesn’t care if we forget everything on Saturday, just pass the test on Friday.

Many of the advanced certifications have gone to either practical exams or require much more reading comprehension. These boot camps get paid for a pass rate, not knowledge transfer, unfortunately.

 

[belvdr]

Well, I personally think (opinion) that the tests need to be a bit more of a challenge.
I'd really like to see more focus on learning FCC rules, similar to how drivers are expected to know the rules of the road. There's a lot of hams that I'm pretty confident have never read the rulebook. Only way to do that is via memorization. I'm OK with that.
Same with band plans. Trying to figure out where hams are learning that GMRS and Part 90 are part of the amateur radio bands. Apparently the current tests are not covering this part very well.

The issues that a lot of hams really complain about isn't isolated to new hams. There's plenty of the old timers that have challenges playing nice on the bands, following the rules, and generally staying out of trouble.

Some of the last big FCC enforcement actions have involved experienced hams.

I get the feeling that the ARRL/amateur radio manufacturers and vendors realize this and like the current low entry bar. Much better for their bottom line.

I’m one of the folks that passed the Extra by rote memorization. I did it only to talk to friends on the lower portion of 75m. Some would call me the appliance operator. I bought the radio and antenna, then talked. I had no desire to try an infinite amount of antenna configurations, or build my own gear.

I keep the license so I can have a scanner in my vehicle. I no longer participate in amateur radio in any fashion, as I see no value or enjoyment in it.

 

[KevinC]

Many of the advanced certifications have gone to either practical exams or require much more reading comprehension. These boot camps get paid for a pass rate, not knowledge transfer, unfortunately.

That was my point. I wanted the knowledge, not the certification. But work told me I’m going to San Diego on x date and that was it.

 

[mmckenna]

I’m one of the folks that passed the Extra by rote memorization. I did it only to talk to friends on the lower portion of 75m. Some would call me the appliance operator. I bought the radio and antenna, then talked. I had no desire to try an infinite amount of antenna configurations, or build my own gear.

I keep the license so I can have a scanner in my vehicle. I no longer participate in amateur radio in any fashion, as I see no value or enjoyment in it.

Nothing wrong with that.

So how would removing the published question pool impact you in any way?

There's a lot of hams that have received their license for various reasons. Some just want it so they can talk to friends/family (what my wife did it for). Some only do it for "emcomm". Then you've got the "when all else fails" folks/zombie apocalypse/whacker gang. There are those, like yourself, who have done it so they can legally run a scanner in those parts of the country that require it.
I don't think any of those really take anything away from the hobby (except for the whackers, they all need to be locked up). Just different people with different needs.

I know of a couple of hams that never use their radios either. They got it for the challenge, and that was it.

I also know of a few licensed hams that would make me nervous if they attempted to change a lightbulb unsupervised.

In other words, I don't feel like a ham license, no matter how they got it, is any real indication of skill or knowledge. It's just a thing.
Just like there are licensed drivers on the road that probably should not be allowed to push a shopping cart, never mind drive a vehicle.

 

[MUTNAV]

I like the idea of knowing the rules in general and subject matter in general.... So that when a ham is going to try a new thing, at least the licensee should know that there are rules that may govern the new thing, and where to find the rules.

I've been leaning towards knowing that there is information that covers things like symbol rate, allowable frequencies and modes, permissible exposure. Where to find current information in the rules seems important.

Since the rules change over time, finding the current stuff seems more important than memorizing information that'll change in a short period of time. Assuming a person can get over the general idea of not being a jerk to everyone else.

Thanks
Joel

 

[n0xvz]

In the Air Force technical schools, there was a body of knowledge that people going through the schools were expected to learn, the people developing the curriculum and the people making the tests were separate (to the best of my knowledge) and there were constant complaints that the people teaching the classes were "teaching the test" without considering what that implied .... It was all from the same body of knowledge and set of expectations, of course the instructors would be teaching what was on the tests... Otherwise they would be teaching original thinking, and how is that tested?!

Slightly off-topic...

This is what I do. The curriculum developers create all course materials, including the tests. The issue of "teaching the test" comes from instructors (who are not developing the curriculum, but act as subject matter exerperts) only covering the course material that will be on the test instead of everything that is in the lesson plan. The instructors are supposed to teach the whole lesson plan regardless of what is in the test. The test (or other measurement device) is there to measure whether the student met the required level of proficiency for a given course objective.

 

[KK4JUG]

In the Air Force technical schools, there was a body of knowledge that people going through the schools were expected to learn, the people developing the curriculum and the people making the tests were separate (to the best of my knowledge) and there were constant complaints that the people teaching the classes were "teaching the test" without considering what that implied ....

Thanks
Joel

It's all like that. One of my majors at Auburn was Radio/TV (back in the late 60s). They taught film techniques, on-camera presentation, etc. It was nothing compared to the OJT. The stuff I learned on the street as a news reporter far out-weighed what I learned in the classroom. Later, I went into law enforcement. There were things like Constitutional law, traffic stops, fingerprint classification, etc., in the police academy. Once again, OJT on the street was where the real training took place. The academy couldn't teach me how to deal with people who hate cops, illegal marches on the street, courtroom testimony, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. One learns very quickly. Failure to do so can have fatal consequences.

The best any formal instruction can do is lay the groundwork (if you're lucky).

 

[alcahuete]

Well, I personally think (opinion) that the tests need to be a bit more of a challenge.
I'd really like to see more focus on learning FCC rules, similar to how drivers are expected to know the rules of the road. There's a lot of hams that I'm pretty confident have never read the rulebook. Only way to do that is via memorization. I'm OK with that.
Same with band plans. Trying to figure out where hams are learning that GMRS and Part 90 are part of the amateur radio bands. Apparently the current tests are not covering this part very well.

The issues that a lot of hams really complain about isn't isolated to new hams. There's plenty of the old timers that have challenges playing nice on the bands, following the rules, and generally staying out of trouble.

Some of the last big FCC enforcement actions have involved experienced hams.




I get the feeling that the ARRL/amateur radio manufacturers and vendors realize this and like the current low entry bar. Much better for their bottom line.

I've been saying exactly this for years! The majority of stuff in the current exams, nobody will ever use. They are chock full of useless info.

What do the letters FEC mean as they relate to digital operation?
What is the effect of aliasing on a digital oscilloscope caused by setting the time base too slow?
Which of the following is good practice when using an oscilloscope probe?
Which of the following displays multiple digital signal states simultaneously?
Which of the following factors most affects the accuracy of a frequency counter?
Which S parameter is equivalent to forward gain?
What is the phase angle between the voltage across and the current through a series RLC circuit if XC is 100 ohms, R is 100 ohms, and XL is 75 ohms?
What is the phase angle between the voltage across and the current through a series RLC circuit if XC is 25 ohms, R is 100 ohms, and XL is 50 ohms?


I could go on for days. For the most part, nobody cares about this stuff anymore, and if you do, then learn it on your own. Ask questions about FCC rules, propagation, etc., and call it a day. This is a hobby.

 

[mmckenna]

I could go on for days. For the most part, nobody cares about this stuff anymore, and if you do, then learn it on your own. Ask questions about FCC rules, propagation, etc., and call it a day. This is a hobby.

I had to learn about vacuum tubes when I tested. Maybe they'll come back into fashion again and I'll be all set.


(* yes, relax Francis, I know they are used in amplifiers)

 

[mmckenna]

(* yes, relax Francis, I know they are used in amplifiers)

Hey, maybe "sense of humor" needs to be on the test.

 

[DeoVindice]

The purpose of the amateur radio test is also questionable (where's Lauri when you need her ), in reality its function is to just keep people from interfering with one another or hurting themselves or others (opinion), and frankly I don't know how much that is even relevant considering whats available now (example: there's not a federal test for using basic drones, ).

Ask that TRS pirate in Colorado how well THAT worked out. Common sense is difficult to test for.

 

[MUTNAV]

Slightly off-topic...

This is what I do. The curriculum developers create all course materials, including the tests. The issue of "teaching the test" comes from instructors (who are not developing the curriculum, but act as subject matter exerperts) only covering the course material that will be on the test instead of everything that is in the lesson plan. The instructors are supposed to teach the whole lesson plan regardless of what is in the test. The test (or other measurement device) is there to measure whether the student met the required level of proficiency for a given course objective.

When I was in, there was no deviation from course instructor materials/ lesson plans, it killed me.... When retraining and going over materials that every other person in the class thoroughly new, they still wouldn't deviate at all. Theoretically, a Master Instructor in fuel systems could teach an electronics course if they had to.

I do remember people coming into the class and complaining that the instructors were "teaching the test", the instructors were literally reading out of big honking binder and following it exactly, we looked at it afterwords.

(It was kind of a special class, 2 TSgts, 2 SSgts (they were shutting the course down) all of us with more time in service and two of us with FAR more general electronics experience, so the instructors and supervisors were pretty comfortable sharing with us.)

Thanks
Joel

 

[dlwtrunked]

Worst idea ever. Just makes it easy to memorize and pass.

For anyone thinking this (publishing the question pool) is new, it is not and has been true for over 3 decades and is in the FCC Rules/Federal Regulations. Arguing about changing it is a pure wast of time.

§ 97.523 Question pools.​

All VECs must cooperate in maintaining one question pool for each written examination element. Each question pool must contain at least 10 times the number of questions required for a single examination. Each question pool must be published and made available to the public prior to its use for making a question set. Each question on each VEC question pool must be prepared by a VE holding the required FCC-issued operator license. See § 97.507(a) of this part.

 

[jhooten]

I had to learn about vacuum tubes when I tested. Maybe they'll come back into fashion again and I'll be all set.


(* yes, relax Francis, I know they are used in amplifiers)

Two words:
Collins Collectors

There are plenty of people left who collect and restore tube stuff. All thought "hollow state" devices are getting harder to acquire.

 

[PACNWDude]

This brings up an interesting (to me) and funny thing from (I hope) the past...

In the Air Force technical schools, there was a body of knowledge that people going through the schools were expected to learn, the people developing the curriculum and the people making the tests were separate (to the best of my knowledge) and there were constant complaints that the people teaching the classes were "teaching the test" without considering what that implied .... It was all from the same body of knowledge and set of expectations, of course the instructors would be teaching what was on the tests... Otherwise they would be teaching original thinking, and how is that tested?!

It would be possible to expand the question pool to, (as an absurd example) 500 questions about ohms law, with 5 basic questions with 100 variations of the numbers. That would make "memorizing" the answers almost impossible.

The purpose of the amateur radio test is also questionable (where's Lauri when you need her ), in reality its function is to just keep people from interfering with one another or hurting themselves or others (opinion), and frankly I don't know how much that is even relevant considering whats available now (example: there's not a federal test for using basic drones, ).

Thanks
Joel

I also realized this body of knowledge while in the Air Force, going through ballistic missile training, and there being tests and standards to pass the tests. There were multiple versions of each test given within each class so you could not cheat or share answers unless someone near you had the same version of the test (and lacked integrity).

Then, a few years later while cross-training into a communications role, they enacted "confidence tests" additional tests (still multiple answers for a given question), that would be administered to those that may have been cheating or learning the test (or even instructors teaching directly to the test).

Later, my work required me to complete the General Radiotelephone Operator's License (GROL), and we were literally taught the test. Reading the questions in the pool and highlighting the answers in the books issued. Passing was assured if you memorized the questions and answers highlighted as the correct answers. Luckily, in that role, we all actually worked on shipboard radios, and practical experience re-enforced the test through actual work.

Now, I work with a crew that is all required to have a GROL, and with aviation an FM professional radios, and I find myself reminding at least one co-worker about once a week that aviation radio is VHF and/or UHF, but always AM instead of FM (many think our multi-band Motorola APX8000XE radios can do aviation radio as well). I for one am not opposed to multiple answer/choice tests, but think there should be a limit to how long the license is valid for, as the GROL is issued for life, after passing once. Some people took this test when vacuum tubes were new, while others took it more recently when satcom and HF were included.

 

[jeepsandradios]

How is this much different than a “boot camp”? I went to one for my CompTIA certification and the instructor told us in the first 5 minutes on Monday that his goal is to have us pass the test. He doesn’t care if we forget everything on Saturday, just pass the test on Friday.

I wish they still did that. lol. Now they give you the class and you spend weeks trying to get to a test center and in the end forget everything.