I wonder if you have already received an email query from myself regarding one of the questions I came across in a Foundation exam paper some time ago. I did send an email, but have had no reply.

I also sent the same message voicing my concerns to the local RSGB area rep but apart from eventually acknowledging that he received it, I haven’t heard any more.

If  my email never arrived at RCE, I’ll now reiterate my concern.

One of the foundation level papers I marked some months ago asked the candidate which unit is used to measure frequency.  Two of the four answers provided included  Cycles per second and Hertz. I was horrified at this, and still am.  Now I understand that the foundation is limited in scope, and students at that level are only expected to know about coaxial cables for carrying RF, but surely this is a clear case of ignoring reality  in favour of a ‘stock’ answer.  Since Hertz is derived directly from the older unit, surely it’s highly misleading to mark Cycles per second as being ‘wrong’ when in fact, the two terms have  identical meaning.  Look up Hertz in almost any dictionary  , and it says ‘cycles per second’.   What  concerns me more is the simple fact that should the student progress to Intermediate or Advanced, he or she will surely discover that they have been comprehensively ‘had’  by the same exam system they are being asked to have faith in. 

I also have concerns regarding the RSGB endorsed book ‘Exam Secrets’ where one question asks which *cable* can be used to carry RF, then shows coaxial, twin-flex, twisted pair and three core cable, with coaxial being the ‘correct' answer. Of course should the student progress to the next level, they will quickly discover that the answer set they had chosen from previously was highly suspect! 

As for myself, the only one I haven’t yet tried for carrying RF is three core flex.  Twin-flex, twisted pair  or twin bell-wire in fact makes rather good RF feeder if you can’t find ladder-line. It’s certainly good enough for the army.

So, my real question for me is this.  Why teach candidates material  that’s simply not correct, or are we simply teaching people to tick the favoured box? 

Some of my fellow club members take a different approach. They don’t care that what they are being asked to teach is technically suspect, but I do.  Their attitude is ‘I’m teaching this person how to pass the exam’.    Reality and the laws of physics take a back seat to ‘ticking the boxes’.   I think exam candidates deserve a better deal, especially if they are serious about amateur radio as a pastime.

Regards,