Essex Ham is currently running a survey about the UK exam system, mainly focussing on the RSGB’s proposal for a Direct-to-Full exam.
Below is a summary of the results from 1353 respondents (data from 22 Feb 2021 to 7pm 14 Mar 2021). A copy of this has been submitted to the RSGB ESC and ESWG for consideration as part of their consultation.
We’d like to thank everyone who has taken part in the survey, and those who contributed to the survey questions and testing.
Survey Headlines:
- 85.8% of respondents supported the introduction of “Direct to Full” (27.5% with some reservations)
- The largest reservations were “Staged learning (over a period of time) is a better approach”, with 38.6% and “Direct-to-Full should have a practical element” at 38.1%
- The subject of ‘practical assessments’ was the most controversial. The current 3-tier system mandates 7 practicals (temporarily suspended due to Covid) and involves hands-on experience on the journey to Full. Direct-to-Full has no practical element. 39.7% of respondents felt that both routes should have practicals, and 28.5% feeling that neither route should have practicals.
- 67.2% of respondents felt that the syllabus content was appropriate
- 75.8% of respondents felt that Direct to Full would be popular
- When asked “if you were taking your first exam today, which option would you prefer?”, the response was that 70.9% would take the exam online at home, compared with 29.1% preferring the club route.
- 37.4% of respondents indicated that they would prefer an online Direct-to-Full exam from home. This indicates a perhaps higher-than-expected level of interest in Direct-to-Full.
- 46.3% thought that existing Foundation licence holders may use this new exam to go straight to Full, bypassing Intermediate. Research by two groups indicates this may be an easier route to a Full licence.
- Only 15% of trainers who responded thought their club would offer training for Direct-to-Full.
Full Survey Results
Findings from the Essex Ham exam survey are in the document below. The PDF contains a 6-page summary of data from 1,353 respondents, and an appendix containing 79 pages of text comments from participants.
Syllabus Comparison Breakdown
A breakdown of Direct-to-Full syllabus items, comparison table and results of a “Foundation-to-Full” scenario can be found in the PDF document below.
If you have any comments, please add them below.
Exam Comparison Table
| 2020 Three-tier | Proposed Direct-to-Full | 2003 RAE 7650 | |
| Number of exams | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Exam Duration | 4 hours and 30 minutes (excluding practicals) | 2 hours and 30 minutes | 2 hours and 15 minutes |
| Questions | 130 (26 + 46 + 58) | 75 | 80 |
| Practicals | 7 assessed practicals | None | None |
Our online courses are FREE. There are no live lessons and you study at a time to suit you. Start dates:
I will do the “straight to full” exam,only if you do a course on it.
That is a really good attitude to have. I did my foundation with Pete and the training was awesome. I have recently qualified for my full licence and the current full licence exam IS really tough and I took 3 attempts to get it right.
I think the RSGB should also.look at sorting their bank of questions out. Many seem to be asked in such a way as to try and trip people up through overcomplicating the question, rather than test knowledge. This is unfair for people who have difficulties with English comprehension or those where English might be a second language.
The other suggestion I’d like to put forward is that each level is split into two; a technical and seperate operational paper.
I’d argue you don’t need to know the inner workings of a transistor to operate a station to a high standard and in this day and age fewer people want to build their own equipment.
Make the ‘operational’ paper compulsory at each level, but the ‘technical’ paper only needed for those seeking to build their own equipment.
I agree with what Dave Hills responded.
As someone who had an electronics career I am finding the current approach tedious and would welcome the ‘direct to full; approach, this would free up resources for those less experienced candidates. Having to wait days to answer 6-9 questions means I could wait months for a full licence so I will sit the foundation and apply for a licence then study the rest before doing both exams.
Dave Hill Well said, and I agree with you.
I cant agree more Dave Hill as Engineer and dyslexic it is unfair for some groups of people and I would much rather of sat a single exam after some in depth training. Personally I think the practical’s are needed and some form of etiquette coaching of on air skills and practices.
Paul Moore
I also agree with Dave. I want to operate a radio, i have no interest in building one. Why do I need to know how resistors work and all the other in depth electronic questions etc? You don’t need to be able to repair a gearbox to drive a car!
It’s true some of the questions are written to catch you out, how does that prove you know the subject, it just means you know how to read badly written questions!
I’m sure this is done because it’s more like an old boys club and they are scared of change the “new joiners have to do what we did” attitude, they will end up killing the hobby.
I think it’s a great idea. There are too many licence classes anyway. I took the old RAE while at uni studying elec eng and never did a Morse test in the UK. I got my Advanced and then Extra in the US after passing their much easier multi-choice Morse tests (still easier at 20 wpm than the UK 12 wpm). Having to do three levels of UK theory test would have been a big time waster.
Incidentally I taught an RAE course while still a Class B. 9 out of 10 of my students passed. The only one who failed was also the only one I already knew beforehand. He was a dustman who continued to operate ham radio illegally, LOL!