OBSERVATIONS    GM1SXX             14th October 2009

Our 'Tick Box' education system (and society)

(dedicated to GM4IHJ and SV1BSX)

As a member of the local radio club, I sometimes have to do my bit in marking exam papers. A few months ago, I came across a question in one of the Foundation papers I was marking about frequency measurement. It said 'What units are used to measure Frequency?'

It had the usual two plausible and two stupid answers, but what deeply concerned me, and still does, which is why I'm writing this, was the 'plausible wrong answer'.  The 'correct' syllabus based answer was Hertz, but the 'plausible *wrong* answer' was Cycles per second.  I'm frankly horrified at this sort of thing being allowed into exam papers.  Hertz *IS* Cycles per second, so how can Cycles per second be the 'wrong 'answer!  At one point, I even began to doubt my own sanity and education, wondering if I had somehow  misunderstood the reality. To my great shame, I went and looked up Hertz in several reference books. It said 'cycles per second'!  Unfortunately I hadn't misunderstood anything .... they do share identical meanings, but one was now deemed WRONG! 

I don't see *anything* in the above definition that suggests that only the preferred answer is the only acceptable one.  A syllabus is just  a list...a list of of topics to study.  Thats it. Doesn't mention anything about getting people to tick the 'right' boxes.

Some of my radios at home have their dials clearly marked in Mc/s and Cp/s. I guess they'll need to be changed now.. to MHz and Hz!

When you see the word syllabus, think 'tick-box society'.  That's not what a syllabus is, but in the UK at least, in large part, it might was well be.

The Radio Amateur exam system has degenerated into a state where technically impeccably accurate answers are more often than not the 'wrong' ones, and will lose you points.... and what do points mean?  Points means prizes!  Of course they do! Remember that folks, because we should never let reality and the laws of physics get in the way of a good old syllabus.

If you go into the foundation exam with a good strong practical backround in electronics and don't forget everything you know in favour of the material in the Foundation manual, I warn you that that you will most probably fail that exam. 

Whizz back in time to 1985 when I sat the RAE armed with my technical background (as a radio & TV Engineer), when I studied only the license conditions and material on Interference etc.  I got a Merit in the technical exam and a Distinction in the part I studied for.  You simply cannot rely on real-world skills and transferred  knowledge to pass the technical material in today's  exams. You need to forget reality for the duration of the exam,  along with the laws of physics etc,  and instead memorise all the 'syllabus approved' answers.  If you have no skills but a great memory, you should fly through it.. 

In 1985, there was no three-tier exam system. You could study on a course or at home and just go pay your money do the exams. Two papers of multiple-choice questions, taken with a short break between them. having a good memory might have helped a few people, but it was no substitute for a thorough understanding of the topics (syllabus) covered in the exams.

More recently, in fact just over a week ago, I purchased the RSGB book 'Exam Secrets' by Alan Betts G0HIQ. I was late for work so just had a very quick flip through it. It fell open at page 46 and I noticed a drawing alongside a question, f5a1-1.

The drawing showed 4 cables types,

The diagram shows different types of cable, which one is suitable for radio frequencies?

 Of course, the 'correct' answer is co-ax... right?  Co-ax gets mentioned in the syllabus for the Foundation, so the others are plainly wrong.... right?   Remember now!  Points mean prizes.

No more ladder-line or twisted pair for me. At work I imagine I'll have to rip out all  those miles of CAT5 and Cat6 cables I now use to carry the (RF) network data around, in favour of good old RG-58. All those BNC connectors I'll have to fit...  No more unsuitable twisted pair for me, oh no sir!

I work in the 'education' sector, so I see examples of this sort of shallow type of 'book-learning' every day.  I'm sure there are reasons for the 'tick-box' corner we have painted ourselves into, such as saving money, or making life easy for lazy inadequately qualified exam-markers, but I for one have a huge dislike of it, and I'm so glad that my own education wasn't done within this shallow excuse for 'education'.  I say a BIG THANK-YOU to my tutors, with special thanks to 'Wee Maggie and Old George' who beat mathematics into my thick skull, and to Mr Coulson and Mr Ramage 'AKA Mr Rampage' for giving me a lifelong obsession with Chemistry and Physics.  They probably didn't realise what a huge favour they were doing me. I certainly didn't comprehend what a huge favour they were doing me by teaching me to have an 'enquiring approach' to learning and most importantly, understanding.

I only see one area where the new three-tier system beats the old RAE and that is in the 'hands-on' element, which I commend.

We are not really educating  people any more, we are just teaching them how to pass exams by memorising the selected 'correct response'.  Pavlov managed the same thing a long time ago using a dog.  That's a completely different thing from understanding.

 The RSGB are promoting this tick-box future.  We owe our students a far better deal. Don't you think?

73 Al.

GM1SXX