On 11 Jul 2003 10:59:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

I for one have no problem requiring an applicant for an amateur
license to be well-rounded in radio and electronics, both theory and
operations including regulations.

There was lots of stuff that I was "forced" to learn in all three of
my professions (which I sometimes refer to as shoeshine boy, baggage
handler, and bus washer) but even though I may never use it in my
specialty, it was necessary to learn it in order to be a "well-rounded"
individual who can easily follow and evaluate what specialists in those
other fields say rather than just smiling, nodding my head, and not having
a clue.

Applying it to ham radio, the operator who may be a good traffic
handler but doesn't have a clue about what OET 65 requires of all
ham operators (OK folks, look it up) is going to be behind the
eight-ball if s/he's not in compliance. Ditto for the one who is an
antenna maven but doesn't have a clue about digital communication
protocols and emission masks.

Without the "generalist" background I'd be just another narrow geek.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
"Highball the scanner"