[CW] Preparation FCC - Reduces testing terror

[N2EY at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/22/06 12:05:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
wb5gwb at optonline.net writes:


> David, N1EA wrote:
> > ...So a total of 2 years of independant study, 6 months needed for General
> plus 3 more months...
> 
> I believe David was saying that it used to take nearly three years of
> serious study to pass all the amateur tests from Novice through Extra, with
> two years of that needed just to prepare for the Extra exam.  Well, I can
> provide one data point on how easy or difficult the current Extra written
> exam is.  I've been studying to upgrade from Advanced to Extra these last
> few days and, now, I'm getting about 88% correct on QRZ.com practice tests
> (74% is passing).  All I did as far as studying was go through all of the
> questions in the question pool once, then I went back (once) over the
> questions I missed the first time.  I believe I invested at most 15 hours of
> intense study.  (Of course, I've been an Advanced class ham for 32 years, so
> I knew some of the answers just from general osmosis.  However, I was
> inactive for a number years after taking the Advanced exam and lost a lot of
> my electronics knowledge in the interim.)  But I would think that, to
> achieve the very highest class of amateur license, a little more than 15
> hours of serious study ought to be necessary.

Here's another data point:

I got my Novice at the age of 13, way back in 1967. Took me about 2 years, 
but that was primarily because I had to learn everything from books. Also had to 
build my first receivers and transmitter, string up an antenna, dismantle TV 
sets for parts, and then teach myself the code by listening to other hams 
using it on the air.  

Much time was wasted due to lack of information and resources. IBy the time I 
had the license, I realized I could have done it all in less than a year if 
I'd had a little better information and direction.

Within a year I had Advanced, and when the 2 year experience was up I had 
Extra.

But I never really "studied" in the formal sense. I would read anything 
radio-related that I could find, and was on the air with CW whenever conditions 
permitted. Building my own rigs and handling traffic required knowledge and skill 
far beyond the level of the tests.
> 
> A major aspect that makes the current written tests relatively easy is that,
> if you have a good memory, you can't help memorizing many of the answers to
> the specific questions in the pool, even though you may not even begin to
> fathom the underlying theory.


Agreed! In fact some questions can only be answered by direct memorization, 
such as the band edges. 

  Back when I took my Novice, General, and
> 
> Advanced, the question pools were not published, so you were forced to
> really learn the underlying principles.  God only knows how many hours of
> study I put in back in those days.  (Too much, because I would be studying
> my ham books when I should have been doing school work!) 

The 'study guides' from FCC were simply to indicate the areas that would be 
on the test. For example, the study guide would say "draw the diagram of a 
Hartley oscillator" and would show the diagram. In the actual multiple-choice 
test, they would show the diagram and ask "what is this?". Or, they would show the 
diagram with a part missing, or a wrong connection, and ask you what needed 
to be done to fix it.

The problem was that you had *no* idea what the actual question would be, 
other than that it would involve the diagram of a Hartley oscillator. So you'd 
learn that circuit backwards, forwards, upside down and sideways, so no matter 
what they asked, you'd be ready. 

And there was another factor. Getting to the exam usually required a school 
holiday or at least a half-day off work, plus you could not retest for 30 days. 
There were no CSCEs, either - you had to pass code and written in one go for 
most licenses.

So, while you might not even get a Hartley-oscillator question on the test, 
you wouldn't take the chance. You'd overlearn like mad, and then the actual 
test seemed easy.
 

 I don't understand
> 
> why the VECs started releasing the entire question pools.


Because they had to. FCC required it.

In the 1970s, DIck Bash came out with his infamous books. They contained 
sample tests that were nearly identical to the actual exams. He gathered the 
information by questioning hams who had just taken the tests, and paying $1 for 
each question they could remember and tell him. He would station himself or 
helpers outside the FCC offices on exam days. 

There were folks inside FCC who wanted to prosecute him, but FCC top brass 
decided not to. I don't know why. Maybe they didn't want to give Bash free 
publicity. Maybe they didn't want to admit that there were really only a few 
different written exams. Maybe they were afraid they'd lose in court - after all, it 
was the hams who gave Bash the information who made it possible. 

Then came the Reagan Administration and the promise to "get the government 
off your back". In reality, that meant agencies like FCC got less money and were 
told to simplify the rules. FCC hit on the idea of handing over the testing 
to amateurs themselves. They didn't want to give the whole job to any existing 
organization like ARRL, so the VECs and NCVEC were formed, plus the QPC to 
make up the tests.

Think of it! In 1983, FCC was able to turn over 99% of the testing to unpaid 
volunteers. License testing had been done mostly by specific FCC employees for 
a half century, and then all of that cost was gone. 

FCC realized that the tests could not remain secret, because 

a) there were simply too many people involved

b) somebody would just do the Bash trick again

So they required that the question pools be made public, and greatly 
increased in size. The 30 day retest wait went away, and CSCEs were created. 

Publishing the Q&A put Dick Bash out of business.

  I think they
> 
> should only publish a sample test or two.
> 

Agreed, but the tests would not be secret for long. And with the internet, it 
would be easy for "Son of Bash" to gather the required information. 



> Anyway, I guess there's no point in lamenting the dumbing down of the 
> tests,
> when you consider that the average age of hams of General class and above is
> very high and keeps increasing.  

How do we know that?

I see that claim over and over, but nothing substantial to back it up. And 
what does "average age" mean? Is it the median (half older and half younger?)  
or the mean (add 'em all up and divide?) Or something else?

How does it compare to the "average age" of Americans? In the last census, 
IIRC, the median age is now about 39, and had increased four years in the 
previous decade! More people are living longer. More people are having their kids 
later in life, and having fewer of them - or none at all.

If the "average age" of an American is 39, and there are very few hams under 
the age of, say, 10, wouldn't we expect the "average age" of a ham to be at 
least 49?


Under these conditions, it may be
> 
> self-defeating to raise the entry barriers, even though "that's not how we
> did it in my day."
> 

The entry *requirements* have been dropping steadily for about 30 years.

I think that reducing requirements may create more problems than it solves. 
In the bad old days, the licensing procedures were such that you learned a lot 
before being licensed, and usually had a station or at least a receiver set up 
before you were licensed. Nowadays it's very common to put the license cart 
before the station horse, and as a result there's a significant percentage of 
licensed hams who have never been on the air, or who have no station at all. 


> I'm particularly upset that I won't get to take the 20 WPM code test, which
> I could pass in my sleep, since I work only CW these days.  I don't know if
> I could send 20 WPM error-free with a straight key, though, since I haven't
> used one in many years.  That would require some practice.  What I plan to
> do in lieu of the code test is pass a W1AW qualifying run at 20 WPM.  If
> you've never listened to their qualifying runs, you should do so.  Let me
> tell you, they pick DIFFICULT text, with lots of lengthy and unfamiliar
> words.  It's a nontrivial exercise.
> 

The FCC did not require the use of a straight key - when I went for the test, 
anyway. What happened was that they only provided a straight key - if you 
wanted to use bug or keyer, you had to provide it. 

I knew I was ready for the FCC test when I passed the ARRL proficiency for 
the next-higher speed. 

What makes the CP runs nontrivial is the fact that you get exactly one 
five-minute text at the desired speed, with no fills or retries. And it's direct 
off-the-air, not some canned source. 


> I'm planning to take the Extra on Dec. 9.  Wish me luck, and look for me
> down below 3.025, 7.025, and 14.025 in the near future!
> 
> 

Good luck, but don't show up below 3.025!! 




73 de Jim, N2EY