In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Why is such a written test necessary? The
use of any of those modes is entirely
optional.

Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the
overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when
using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules
associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly
obvious.

No, it isn't.

You're avoiding my question, Dwight.

Why must hams be forced to learn about *any* modes and technologies whose use
is strictly optional? Indeed, someone who cannot speak and is totally deaf
cannot use voice modes - yet the written exams are full of questions on AM,
SSB, FM, etc. Why are such tests *necessary*?

Why is *any* written test beyond the basics of rules, regulations and safety
*necessary*?

Or consider this:

Techs are permitted to use all authorized (amateur) modes and frequencies above
30 MHz - at full authorized power. This authorization is based on the
successful passing of a single 35 question written test. FCC says so - in fact,
almost four years ago they drastically reduced the written testing needed to
get a Tech license.

Yet to have full privileges, a ham must pass additional written tests. Sure,
the addtional tests include rules and regs a Tech doesn't need to know, as well
as some things like HF/MF propagation. Buty those tests go far beyond the
additional regs and propagation. Why is that sort of thing *necessary*, since a
Tech has already shown that he/she is qualified on all authorized modes at full
authorized power?

Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test?

Sure. Here goes:

Considering the many advantages of Morse code, the number of
frequencies and bands on which it is used, the number of amateurs who
use it on the air and their exemplary conformance to the rules, regulations
and operating procedures of the ARS, the necessity of the Morse code
exam is clearly obvious.

There you go.

Prove the necessity for a written test beyond
the most basic rules and regulations.

I've already explained the necessity of the written test in the previous
message and in the paragraph above.

No, you haven't. You've explained why *a* written test on the most basic rules
and regulations is desirable, and maybe even necessary, not why we must
have the written tests we have today..

Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must
go beyond those basics.


Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim?

Yes.

The point is that some folks apply a double standard when deciding which
tests to keep and which to get rid of.

This is a
discussion about the code test.

Sure. And I've shown that if the same criteria you are using to justify dumping
the code test can also be used to justify dumping almost all of the content of
the written tests.

And so far I haven't seen anything to disprove my argument. Just "it's
obvious".

I have no desire to expand that into a
discussion about the written exams, including a review of those exams.

I can understand why.

Further, I think the value of the written exams is bloody obvious to all.

So you really don't have a counter argument when someone doesn't find it
obvious.

Therefore, there is nothing to prove.

Just the opposite.

If what matters is the learning that happens
*after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss
about written tests?

Read my first paragraph above.

I have. Doesn't answer my question.

I don't want the written tests to go away or be watered down further. But I
cannot come
up with solid counterarguments *rpoving* that all of their content is
necessary. And I
suspect that others can't, either - or they would present those arguments.

73 de Jim, N2EY