[QUOTE=jimrr;131841]well now!!, The new generation of thinking is legislating morality bit by bit, now it’s time to legislate smarts right? The system of advancement we endure under evolved over many years with the understanding there would be a genius who couldn’t turn a screw driver and a klutz who could memorize any operating manual. You can do a lot to the rules we have but i doubt you’ll improve the ratio of good/bad.
and where is the ‘‘thank you’’ option i see some of you using?[/QUOTE]
I agree. You can’t legislate away danger (gun laws) and you can’t legislate away stupidity (licensing schemes). The system we have isn’t perfect but it’s just as good as anybody else’s. You know how I know? Because there are some pretty colossal idiots sailing under everyone else’s flags too. Just look at Schettino.
The “Thanks” button is in the lower left corner of any post when you are signed in to the forum, next to the six-pointed star and the triangle with a “!” in it.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;131799]Seems like it boils down to the nature of the test. If the test can be passed by memorizing the answers then that devalues the worth of the license for all the hawepipers including the ones who do understand the principles. Take T Nav for instance. If it requires understanding trig then the AB upgrading didn’t just spend his time running a needle gun but somehow managed learn some math. Which is impressive. If on the other hand he just memorized the answers then not so much.
The school guys on the other hand can wave a diploma around in addition to the license. We can say the that diploma doesn’t prove that someone knows anything but it sure can’t hurt.[/QUOTE]
I have never taken a bus driver exam so I can’t speak to it, but there is no way I could ever memories exam questions for a engineer test, at best they provide a study reference for prep. I thought it was a Freedom of information act lawsuit that forced the CG to publish the exam questions and answer never their intention to freely do it. It probably goes without saying that a good portion of mariners who came up the haws pipe, myself included would have loved to have had the opportunity to go to a academy, the fact is for many there are socioeconomic barriers that make that a impossibility, for some a high school diploma is out of the question. Adding a schooling requirement will not necessarily produce better unlimited mariners but it will close the door to a great many. It is also worth noting that the 3rd mate and 3rds assistant are only the first step. I have a very hard time believing that everyone, grads and hawspipers, are not taking ample advantage of the free access to questions and answers for test prep when advancing to unlimited master or chief engineer.
[QUOTE=TSCOTT;131855]I have never taken a bus driver exam so I can’t speak to it, but there is no way I could ever memories exam questions for a engineer test, at best they provide a study reference for prep. I thought it was a Freedom of information act lawsuit that forced the CG to publish the exam questions and answer never their intention to freely do it. It probably goes without saying that a good portion of mariners who came up the haws pipe, myself included would have loved to have had the opportunity to go to a academy, the fact is for many there are socioeconomic barriers that make that a impossibility, for some a high school diploma is out of the question. Adding a schooling requirement will not necessarily produce better unlimited mariners but it will close the door to a great many. It is also worth noting that the 3rd mate and 3rds assistant are only the first step. I have a very hard time believing that everyone, grads and hawspipers, are not taking ample advantage of the free access to questions and answers for test prep when advancing to unlimited master or chief engineer.[/QUOTE]
It was the potential for a lawsuit that prompted the Coast Guard to re-consider its policy of not publishing the questions in the late 80s. The Coast Guard decided to do it without being ordered to do it. At the time, the law interpreting and applying FOIA probably would have allowed the Coast Guard to continue its practice of not publishing. There was for many years, something called a “high 2” exemption to FOIA that allowed witholding certain types of records. It was based upn the second listed exemption to mandatory disclosure of records contained in the FOIA. The #2 exemption to FOIA generally addresses personnel records, but its application expanded to a broader range of records. A few years ago, about the time NMC briefly removed the questions, the Supreme Court struck down the “high 2” exemption to FOIA as being overly broad, and NMC returned the questions to the internet. See http://www.justice.gov/oip/foiapost/milner-navy.pdf
If exams were prepared the way states prepare Bar exams, the questions would likely not be disclosable. The Coast Guard maintains a pool of questions from which we generate exams. The pool of questions is a “record” under FOIA and disclosable. In contrast, Bar exams are not generated from a pool, they are written for a specific testing date and not used again. They are not a “record” and if ptrepared by the Federal government, they would not be disclosable under FOIA until after the test has been given. The down side to this is obvious, Bar exams are typically given once or maybe twice a year, and only one exam is given to everyone. That is inconsistent with having the applicant test at a time of their choice. There is a single bar exam given once a year, tthere are hundreds of Coast Guard exam modules given every day. It also takes up to 6 months to score a Bar exam essay test.
[QUOTE=TSCOTT;131855]I have never taken a bus driver exam so I can’t speak to it, but there is no way I could ever memories exam questions for a engineer test, at best they provide a study reference for prep. I thought it was a Freedom of information act lawsuit that forced the CG to publish the exam questions and answer never their intention to freely do it. It probably goes without saying that a good portion of mariners who came up the haws pipe, myself included would have loved to have had the opportunity to go to a academy, the fact is for many there are socioeconomic barriers that make that a impossibility, for some a high school diploma is out of the question. Adding a schooling requirement will not necessarily produce better unlimited mariners but it will close the door to a great many. It is also worth noting that the 3rd mate and 3rds assistant are only the first step. I have a very hard time believing that everyone, grads and hawspipers, are not taking ample advantage of the free access to questions and answers for test prep when advancing to unlimited master or chief engineer.[/QUOTE]
Third eng/deck is an entry level job and should not require prior experience. But there are still minimum standards for obtaining an unlimited third eng/deck license.
There are hawepipers out there that are well above the minimum, I thought that when without saying.
It is much easier to pass a multiple choice exam if you have seen and studied the same exact questions. It not so much memorizing the answers as it is recognizing the right answer. If you’ve seen the questions once before it makes the test much less difficult. When the questions and answers became available to the public it had the unintended effect of lowering the minimum requirement for getting a license.
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;131852]I agree. You can’t legislate away danger (gun laws) and you can’t legislate away stupidity (licensing schemes). The system we have isn’t perfect but it’s just as good as anybody else’s. You know how I know? Because there are some pretty colossal idiots sailing under everyone else’s flags too. Just look at Schettino.[/QUOTE]
Nobody expects the system to be perfect. Any licensing scheme is going to be a compromise between cost and effectiveness.
As far as other flags, it might not be a problem of inefficient licensing scheme but outright fraud.
As any ‘moderate’ student of history, ie; anyone who went to high school probably before 1980 knows, Phosgene gas was used in trench warfare during WW1. For years phosgene gas was the answer to a test question (common chemicals found aboard) but nowadays they do not use phosgene gas as the answer, instead they have you choose the chemical composition as listed on msds for instance. This in my mind does its’ part to ‘un-learning’ history and makes the test question only fair to a chemistry student for it is definitely not something the average sailor is going to answer without memorizing the chemical formula. This is typical of what too much education will do.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;131876]Nobody expects the system to be perfect. Any licensing scheme is going to be a compromise between cost and effectiveness.
As far as other flags, it might not be a problem of inefficient licensing scheme but outright fraud.[/QUOTE]
I would still leave ours be. As you can see this whole discussion has just turned into the same old back-and-forth about academy VS. hawespipe that has probably been going on since the first maritime academy was founded (Massachusetts in the 1870’s maybe? Not sure, I’ll have to check). I agree that there needs to be some tweaking about the path between limited and unlimited licenses, and I started a thread to that effect a couple of years ago and had pretty much the same discussion we’re having now. But whatever tweaking needs to take place it is minor and I do not believe that the overall system is inherently flawed. I think we should keep our exams and published questions just the way they are, updating questions for correctness and relativity of course, but adjust the seatime requirements only very slightly so that the system makes more sense and is more beneficial to hard working mariners like ourselves.
In the early '70s, I sat for AB 12 month tug and tow, tankerman, oiler and electrician with only using CMP Bluebook and a few text books. Dec '75 I sat for Chief M&O with no classes using CMP Redbook. In '79 or so, I sat for Chief uninspected motor vessels any HP (multiple choice) and Chief motor towing (inspected) (essay exam). In '82 or so, I sat for original 2nd motor, '84 1st motor and 86 Chief motor. all without attending classes or question pools. The unlimited licenses then were only tested on certain days of the month. 3rd and 2nd asst and mates in one week, 1st asst, CM Chief and master the next week.
The bunch I tested with last were waiting in the REC for our licenses to be printed, we were discussing what study material we used. The yeoman behind the counter told us that the question pool was available on floppy disc. We all looked at each other and said “what the hell is a floppy disc?”.
Updated - - -
[QUOTE=jimrr;131877]As any ‘moderate’ student of history, ie; anyone who went to high school probably before 1980 knows, Phosgene gas was used in trench warfare during WW1. For years phosgene gas was the answer to a test question (common chemicals found aboard) but nowadays they do not use phosgene gas as the answer, instead they have you choose the chemical composition as listed on msds for instance. This in my mind does its’ part to ‘un-learning’ history and makes the test question only fair to a chemistry student for it is definitely not something the average sailor is going to answer without memorizing the chemical formula. This is typical of what too much education will do.[/QUOTE]
It still helps to know that when Freon is burnt or halon is heated under compression, phosgene gas is given off. A degree in chemistry is not necessary but the ability to read and comprehend helps.
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;131878]I would still leave ours be. As you can see this whole discussion has just turned into the same old back-and-forth about academy VS. hawespipe that has probably been going on since the first maritime academy was founded (Massachusetts in the 1870’s maybe? Not sure, I’ll have to check). I agree that there needs to be some tweaking about the path between limited and unlimited licenses, and I started a thread to that effect a couple of years ago and had pretty much the same discussion we’re having now. But whatever tweaking needs to take place it is minor and I do not believe that the overall system is inherently flawed. I think we should keep our exams and published questions just the way they are, updating questions for correctness and relativity of course, but adjust the seatime requirements only very slightly so that the system makes more sense and is more beneficial to hard working mariners like ourselves.[/QUOTE]
Paddy, I wish you good luck with your upgrade plans. I don’t know you but just from reading your post you seem the kind of guy that I’d like to have on the crew.
But I think there is a problem with the testing scheme. The test was designed to screen out people at a certain level. And now, inadvertently and unintentionally that level has been lowered. People who the Coast Guard did not intend to pass the test can now pass the test. Again I understand that some people exceed the minimum.
Up-tread someone said that the bar has been lowered for both schools and hawsepipers alike and that’s true but the school path has the additional burden of having to get a degree. That requirement is going to screen out a lot of people.
There are always going be to people getting licenses who shouldn’t have them but now it’s possible for the license prep industry to really crank them out. These guys are taking jobs away from the more qualified. This is especially a problem for highly qualified hawepipers because companies that do hire haepipers (fewer and fewer) like to mix it up and have an unofficial hawepipe quota.
