Amateur Radio Test - Oct 2010 - thoughts ...

brownmini

OK...lets be hearng you.

What did you think ?

Anybody remember some of the questions ?
(Never mind the supplied answers)

PauloMN

Did you do it? How did you get on?

I did one of the last written type ones. How are the multi-choice ones?

brownmini

PauloMN wrote: »

Did you do it?

Ehhhh no... I did the exams fado fado but remember the day all the same.
[feeling old now]

PauloMN

brownmini wrote: »

Ehhhh no... I did the exams fado fado but remember the day all the same.
[feeling old now]

Gotcha.

I remember my two attempts well also. First time - completely unprepared - as a young student in the '80s. Was in Terenure college. Failed of course and spent my days on 11m, building all sorts of aerials and having great craic.

Second time was in the Comreg building in town, in the early '00s. - passed it that time thankfully - then did the morse test about a year later in Coolmine.

V=IR, W=IV, half-wave dipoles, inductance, propagation... it all comes flooding back!

watty

I did the City & Guild exam. GI8JTR. We did real exams then. No Repeaters in N.I. then so VHF was more experimenting than talking to anyone.

scannyman

What were the REAL exams Watty?

watty

You had to write answers, do calculations and draw schematics.

Multiple choice is a poor test method. The reason for it is that no expertise is needed to mark and marking is fast.

Real exams need an expert to mark. There can in reality be more than "one" right answer rather that the mix of one and trick questions in Multiple Choice.

I passed a whole load of Microsoft Multiple choice stuff with high marks by picking the Marketing Dept. "correct box".

Real exams are less easily "gamed". You need huge more skill to set multiple choice. Also a large bank of questions. Then wrong answers that are "close" on multiple choice are unfair too compared to a Written Answer.

Also WHY do they have call sign Prefix questions in Current exams? What earthly purpose does that serve?

The Comreg Regulations part could be well served by Multiple choice or even filling a numeric answer in a box may be more appropriate.

But I am unconvinced that there is any value in Multiple Choice for EE & Comms Theory.

Taildragon

GI8JTR was issued in what, 1972? So the C&G exam from the spring of 1972 would be familiar to you, I imagine.

http://www.g4dmp.co.uk/rae/rae1972m.pdf

Note for younger readers: A "log book" in this context is a booklet of logarithmic tables, a sort of scientific calculator with no buttons, display, or batteries. No mention of slide rules (a sort of calculator with no buttons or batteries but at least it did have a display of sorts, and had moving parts), I notice.

Back in the "good old days", those suitably schooled in the art of "essay answer" exams could elucidate ad nauseum on the total of eight (of ten) questions required to be answered in detail.

The more astute observer will note the almost complete lack of questions on the regulatory aspects of the licence.

You know, stuff like band plans, authorised frequencies, modes of operation, callsign prefix identification, and so on. These omissions may be referred to by some as "the information that a licencee actually requires in order to operate her/his station in a fit and proper manner".

Of course, I have to admit to a degree of bias. Since I sat my exam in the really good old days, when answers were set and answered in Latin, answer sheets consisted of a stone tablet (mallet and chisel supplied by invigilator), logarithms were still a new-fangled idea from Baghdad, and the Morse test consisted of a 12WPM test using an Aldis lamp whilst landing a Tiger Moth during a F12 hurricane.

Said Morse sent by hand-made straight key, using left foot only, of course.

Given my credentials, my claim to natural superiority over those mere mortals who passed their multiple-choice papers last week is to be taken as a given, don't you agree?

Of course not. Utter bolleaux.

watty

The important thing is what you do after the exam.

No-one has a natural "superiority".

The question is what is the point of Amateur Radio and the Exam?

Is it just a way to limit access to an elitist CB club?

Or is it a medium to allow experimentation?

Or is it just another type of Stamp Collecting (High power Stations with Big Aerials on Contests, or people just collecting "Contacts").

My own opinion is that unless it's about experimenting, it's just glorified Stamp collecting or CB. Fine hobbies in themselves, but then why bother with the Technical questions at all. I did the exam as a schoolboy because I was interested in Electronics and Communications. Very much later I got a job in BBC Communications as I was interested in the technical aspects of the hobby.

BTW the exam I did in about 1972 had Theory, Operational and Regulation questions. Just like today, except not multiple choice based.

What's good about Amateur radio is how broad it is. There are "Stamp Collectors", "Black box Operators", Competitions, Software, Electronics, Aerial Design, Plumbing (Microwave). Many different interests.

It seems unreasonable that people that just want to buy gear and operate (most?) should have to answer much depth of Technical question.

It seems unreasonable that people that want to experiment should have to memorise Call Sign Prefixes rather than simply look them up.

The UK now has a multi-stage licence. We seem to simply have fossilized and solely replaced Essay based paper with Multiple Choice without any deeper considerations.

Morse was an artificial pointless barrier to HF operations nearly 20 years after it had any point due to the conservative of Regulators and Radio Societies. They used QWERTY keyboards to send Morse in 1930s!

PauloMN

watty wrote: »

The question is what is the point of Amateur Radio and the Exam?

They're two separate questions though.

Amateur radio is whatever you want to make it within the terms of the license. Contests, experimenting with aerials, QPR operation, morse, ATV, decode etc. - it's your choice whether you want to be a stamp collector, a black box operator, an experiementer or whatever.

But at the end of the day, whatever you do involves potentially transmitting a reasonable amount of RF energy and quite possibly in the middle of a bunch of other houses, so the exam has to be a mixture of theory questions and operating procedure questions. If you don't bother with the technical questions (which let's face it are not hugely technical), then you could have black box operators not having a clue as to why they are causing interference to others in the area etc..

I do agree with your points on the UK staged license and the completely stupid morse requirement though. I like the idea of the UK system and I think it promotes the hobby better, as an afternoon course and exam can get you started straight into the hobby with 10W or whatever output. The morse requirement for HF was ridiculous.

watty

Amateur radio is whatever you want to make it within the terms of the license. Contests, experimenting with aerials, QPR operation, morse, ATV, decode etc. - it's your choice whether you want to be a stamp collector, a black box operator, an experiementer or whatever.

Agreed totally.

But at the end of the day, whatever you do involves potentially transmitting a reasonable amount of RF energy and quite possibly in the middle of a bunch of other houses

We don't have black box operators with no clue why they are creating interference?

brownmini

watty wrote: »

The UK now has a multi-stage licence. We seem to simply have fossilized and solely replaced Essay based paper with Multiple Choice without any deeper considerations.

The colours revealed (again)

brownmini

PauloMN wrote: »

I do agree with your points on the UK staged license and the completely stupid morse
requirement though. I like the idea of the UK system and I think it promotes the hobby
better, as an afternoon course and exam can get you started straight into the hobby
with 10W or whatever output. The morse requirement for HF was ridiculous.

Then I suggest that you go 'up North' and ask those who witness the produce of the
the 'new system' what they think of it.



The HF requirement meant that only those who really wanted HF got it once they put the effort in.
That was when it was 12 WPM. Then it was dropped to 5.
5 WPM is sloooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww.

And youre right it was ridiculous for HF- it should have been for all bands.

PauloMN

brownmini wrote: »

Then I suggest that you go 'up North' and ask those who witness the produce of the
the 'new system' what they think of it.

Go on then, I'll bite.... what do they think of the produce of the new system?

brownmini wrote: »

The HF requirement meant that only those who really wanted HF got it once they put the effort in.
That was when it was 12 WPM. Then it was dropped to 5.
5 WPM is sloooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww.

And youre right it was ridiculous for HF- it should have been for all bands.

So people should have been tested for morse to use any band? Why? CW is a mode, nothing else. Why test people on a mode they might decide they never want to use? How would a mandatory morse requirement make someone a better operator?

Crazy not to let a potentially good experimenter loose on the air just because they've no interest in morse.

watty

brownmini wrote: »

The HF requirement meant that only those who really wanted HF got it once they put the effort in.
That was when it was 12 WPM. Then it was dropped to 5.
5 WPM is sloooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww.

And youre right it was ridiculous for HF- it should have been for all bands.

That's nonsense. You might as well claim people should run a Marathon to "prove" they Really Want HF.

It's probably easier to learn Morse at 18wpm than 5.

Morse is fine if you want to do it. But it's no more relevant to deciding who to award a licence than ability stand on head for last 20 years. It would be more relevant to have people demonstrate ability to match an aerial, verify there is no interference or demonstrate how they know that they are not overdriving.

What value are artificial constraints? I'm not against appropriate Multiple choice or easy access to licensing.

I'm against inappropriate pointless questions or tests simply for the sake of difficulty.

mordka

I agree with you about Morse Code. I`ve got my HAM licence not in Ireland, but in CEPT country and I don`t needed CW passed. 1`st class no problem ....
After 6 months on the HF with 1`st class I`ve decided .... to lern CW!
Not for exam Folks! Just for myself.
Most interesting DX stations are working CW. You don`t need 1kW for CW , when with pile-up 100W is QRP with SSB.
I`m lerning CW now. I don`t need to ... I want to.

In my opionion you don`t need CW for exam. As you said. Is one of the mode we can use.

73!

brownmini

watty wrote: »

That's nonsense. You might as well claim people should run a Marathon to "prove" they Really Want HF.

It's probably easier to learn Morse at 18wpm than 5.

I'm against inappropriate pointless questions or tests simply for the sake of difficulty.

"for the sake of difficulty''

So if that's the case why didn't you object to having to do
(quote) "real exams then" about 30 years ago ?
Exams that you described as having to write the answers and draw
diagrams/schematics.

As for morse code at 18 WPM or 5 WPM...one would think that after
approx 30 years of opportunities, that anyone would have found out
the answer for oneself.

watty

The question is

1) Is the difficulty relevent to the result?
2) What are you trying to prove/establish with the exams?
3) How relevent are the questions? Is Morse any more relevent in exam for licence than Signalling Flags or Cryillic Alphabet? Both are useful and interesting and may be useful for communications but are they needed to decide to issue a licence?

It's not about how easy or difficult the exam is. Well designed Multiple Choice may be fine. Multiple Choice is easier than written exam to mark and harder to set properly. Obviously it may take less time per question than written answers, so more questions are possible.