[CW] 50% Copy

[ham@w3eax.umd.edu]

I always gave fill-in-the-blank tests when I was a W5YI VE and ran my own
test sessions at the U of MD.  I don't believe we were overly harsh, but
it meant you really had to copy 70% in order to get 70%.

The callsigns, of course, were repeated at the end, so you had two
chances.

 as
some of those questions were really easy if you could copy anything

Scott Rosenfeld  ARS N7JI
541-684-9970  Eugene, OR  Land o' much rain
If you find me on the air, I'm probably in my car
ham@w3eax.umd.edu  http://w3eax.umd.edu/~ham

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:

> I believe it because I know the fellow.  She had failed several times
> before, had perhaps talked to others who had taken the test, and was very
> lucky.  But her 50% ability to copy strikes a chord with another observed
> behavior in "commercial radio".
>
> I also know from first hand experience that there were many who couldn't
> copy (and were never tested to send) code at the speed required.  Those who
> were tested at 20 could copy perhaps 13 but more often 10, solid.  I was
> professionally embarrased by a Radio Officer who never had to take the code
> part of the commercial test because he had an Amateur Extra (a new exemption
> that happened in the middle 1980s.) --- He couldn't copy 10 wpm and he was
> supposed to be able to copy 20 by law.
>
> Back to the ham matter, say she couldn't copy 4 of the 10 questioned areas.
>
> But what were the answers?  If she got parts of the callsign, she could
> eliminate the callsigns that were wrong.
>
> If the callsigns were KD5WFX DE N1EA and the choices were KB5XFW WA5FLX
> K5FWX KD5WFX KN5AXF, and she got some of the letters, her chances of knowing
> the answer could improve to the point she choses the correct answer.
>
> For the others? She guessed!
>
> I used to give exams and I would routinely look at the "hard copy" of the
> exam and read it.  Many of the people who passed the exam during that period
> would NOT pass the old FCC style exam. They often got as many (sic) as 40
> characters in a row for their 20 wpm exam, whereas the FCC (and the VEC)
> required 100 characters in a row.
>
> Often the VEC would allow them to take the exam again, the same day, the
> same exam.  What they didn't get the first time, they got the second time.
>
> I have given a different exam to a candidate who was visably shaking, and
> said "I will give you the test again" but I will give you a practice run
> first, then you can have a break and we will do the test.  I gave the
> practice - which was an exam tape - then graded it.  She passed easily.
>
> She had also taken the code test four or five times before and failed.  This
> time she passed both the multiple choice and (I checked) the FCC method.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jay Eimer" <kd5wlx@familynet.net>
> To: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@arrl.net>
> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 10:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [CW] Re: AR
>
>
> > I'm not sure I believe you (or him?) unless there was some shady goings on
> > with the test.  4 of the 10 questions on the multiple choice (if there is
> > multiple choice at all) are supposed to be Sender, Receiver, and at least
> 2
> > of Power Out, Antenna Height, or RST.  That means if you know none of the
> > numbers, you will automatically miss 4 (or 5) of the 10 questions.  And
> the
> > way the tests are normally structured (normal QSO) there will rarely be 25
> > characters in a row without a number, callsign, or prosign.
> >
> > In other words, while the code receiving test is admittedly easier than in
> > the "good old days", it IS a realistic test of receiving - at 15 WPM, just
> > with extra long "word" pauses - and it is tough to pass unless you know
> your
> > stuff.  On the other hand, if you know all your letters and prosigns, it's
> a
> > piece of cake (and rediculously slooowww).  Then again, if you learn at 15
> > wpm (slowed to 5 for farnsworth) then it takes nothing but a little time
> on
> > the air to be right up to 15.
> >
> > Jay
> > AD5PE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>