Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

-= bob =-

KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.

Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.

Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.

Hi Jim,


Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were
higher than thay are now?

Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?

In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first, and
answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the book!
All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question pool...

After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?

I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.

Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.

Hi Jim,

Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were
higher than thay are now?

I think they were higher then, yes.

Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?

It's not about "difficulty" but about how much relevant info a person
had to know and
understand to pass the tests.

The Ameco guide you refer to - what license class was it for?

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1953, 1962, and
1971. They contained the study guides provided by FCC, but *not* the
actual Q&A used on the tests.

Having read all of them cover-to-cover, I can say I think the standards
were higher then.

In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first, and
answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the book!
All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question pool...

Those sample questions were *not* the actual questions used on the
test. They were simply made up by Ameco.

After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?

Lots of ways:

For example, which of the following requires more knowledge:

Question 1:

The length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz is about:

a) 100 feet long
b) 50 feet long
c) 67 feet long
d) 40 feet long


Question 2:

Determine the length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz, using
the appropriate formula. Show all work.

That's just one question.

--

Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few
sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not*
be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would cover
the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc. So the
typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards, forwards and
sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test.

But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able to
solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the
correct answer out of the four supplied.

In looking at the old study guides vs. the new, it seems to me that the
old exams focused on a relatively few number of subjects, but covered
those subjects in some depth. The new
tests seem to me to cover a wide range of subjects, but in very little
depth.

Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.

I think the old process was a better process in some ways and a worse
process in other ways.

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know
the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited
space.

When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.

I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
gathering.

The result was that there was testing available all over the place, but
the Q&A weren't
available publicly.

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know
the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited
space.

The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.

How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.

If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
remaining knowledge for most people.

On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
radio.

When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.

But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods.
Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in
fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true today.
I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's
pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years ago.

In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a
piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law?

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?

The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah,
maybe they do.

When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week
for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license. Then
I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus learning
enough theory to pass the General exam.

In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

So you walk this tightrope of trying to keep the barriers to entry high
enough so that there is some

From: Steve Bonine on Fri, Jan 19 2007 8:20 pm

The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.

Good post, but I have to dispute a few things in your
paragraph. For example, on tests and testing.

In "today's environment" the "students" seem to be about
as willing and knowledge-hungry as when I was in high
school. [graduating class of 1951...:-)]

To further define that, SOME students cared and SOME
students didn't much give a snit, most of those in
between varied considerably. I can see the same
basic attitudes of invididuals now as back then...if one
strips off the veneer of what is/was social behavior
in their peer group. [that seems to cloud many
folks observation capability...of those who had a
different social environment/mores/ethos].

As a working design engineer for a long time, I've
NEVER questioned the "why" of Ohm's Law of Resistance.
It simply WAS. It's just one of the many laws of
radio-related physics.

Yes, I suppose I could write up a bunch of stuff on
Ohm and the "why" of his "law" since I once HAD to
learn that at some instructor's insistence (he never
did any design work himself, just "taught", but all
had to comply in order to pass his course). In 50+
years NOBODY has asked me about the "why" of Ohm's
Law of Resistance. That amounts to hundreds of
knowledgeable folks. Ohm's law just IS.

More radio-related is the equation for resonance.
[frequency=1/(2 pi (L*C)^0.5), in units of Hertz,
Henries, Farads] The "why" of that? I would have
to research it, spend two weeks or so at that, all
spinning my wheels on rote work that has NO
intrinsic worth. I KNOW it works because I've
proved it to myself over and over and over again
in actual calculation, construction and test. It
is one of those things that just IS. Memorize it,
engrave it on the synapses, and go to work USING it.
It is a reliable equation and works every time.

"Ohm's Law" is a very, very simple equation using
only three variables and not one single trans-
cendental function. It's almost elementary
algebra. To some licensed amateurs it might seem
to be "rocket science." :-)

How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.

The material in the US amateur radio test is up to
the FCC to decide. The FCC grants the licenses,
not the "amateur community." The FCC was never
chartered to be an academic organization agency.

From my observation, most of the folks "perceiving
the goal of the exam" are usually working from a
base line of their OWN knowledge and experience;
i.e., expecting all to be "as good as they." :-)

If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
remaining knowledge for most people.

On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
radio.

Again, the function of the FCC is simply to regulate
all US civil radio. The FCC grants the licenses and
they have the task of deciding what is necessary for
Their test. To save taxpayer dollars, the FCC created
privatized testing via COLEMs and VECs. For US amateur
radio the VEC create the questions and answers which
are then approved/disproved by the FCC. By regulation
the VEC are required to be already-licensed radio
amateurs. Presumably those volunteer examiners know
something about radio and the general knowledge base
or background of those taking license tests. :-)

It would seem more logic to steer the discussion onto
the VEC Question Pool Committee rather than to blabber
about What Should Be (or What Should Not). The VEC QPC
determine the questions and answers and approval seems
to be pro-forma with the FCC. What seems to be the
case on that subject in here is merely Word War III
on licensing and an ignition point for yet one more
conflagration of the Angry Insistent (on Their way).


In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a
piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law?

Good question. :-)

One such inhabitant of this Din of Inequity (K4YZ) once
stated he "deserved an extra" because of his "ability to
tune in a signal!" :-)


In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero.

I disagree with that considerably. The expenditure of
anyone on their hobby is up to the individual hobbyist.
Being aware of several hobbies done by folks I am
acquainted with, such expenditure of personal time and
effort varies and none of it is compensated for by
anyone but the hobbyist.

It's an old, trite phrase in here that "all must dedicate
themselves and work hard" for an amateur radio license,
any class. Again, I'll ask "why?" Who is going to
compensate those ham radio hobbyists? Will they get
cheers and bouquets from their fellow hobbyists for such
"dedication?" I think not. At best they would get a
few words of approval if in person. In here they would
receive yet-another flame war trigger of antagonistic
comment, of allegedly "not doing as good" as the flamer.

This "dedication" thing seems to be an imaginary construct
existing in different forms in each individual. Amateur
radio is a hobby. It isn't a craft, a guild, a union, or
any occupation thing. The hobby is NOT necessary for the
survival of the nation nor one whose primary concern is
public safety. [like all citizen organizations, they CAN
be of aid in emergencies but that is NOT a prerequisite
in the amateur radio regulations] Does everyone have to
be "dedicated" to something? Or can't they just go and
enjoy the hobby without meeting someone else's idea of
"standards?"

There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

I differ on that. Requirements EVOLVE as I see them.
They evolve to fit many, many things but, foremost, I
think is that they should fit the present-day and the
immediate future.

There was nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 nor
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that mandated amateur
radio to preserve and protect the old ways of amateur
radio. Nothing about preservation of "tradition." The
agency granting all amateur radio licenses in the US
exists solely to regulate all US civil radio...it is NOT
a "club," NOT some agency beholden to anyone specific
or any organization.

The FCC should be responsive to ALL US citizens, on ANY
radio service it regulates. For the most part I think
they are just that. The FCC and its ham radio license
testing doesn't exist to provide emotional sustenance
to the olde-tyme ham radio lifestylers who wish to
preserve the environment as it was when they were
first licensed. That's not evolution, just stagnation
in favor of a small minority. That is FAR from
"serving the nation," just ordinary selfishness.

Steve Bonine wrote in
m:

wrote:

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too
much on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much
has to really be learned to pass those tests, rather than
understanding basic radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have
a license yet not know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF
antenna in a limited space.

The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how
to pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead
of learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific
questions/answers on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They
might be able to tell you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm
resistor with 2 amps of current was 4 volts, but if you asked them why
that was the case or what it meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or
care.

How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to
do.

If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so
that they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same
thing that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of
useful remaining knowledge for most people.


Up for a challenge? Memorize the Extra test, all 800 some questions
in the pool. Then let's take a test. I'll give you the test question
number, and you give me the letter answer. Since memorization presumably
has nothing to do with the knowledge, this should be easy as the new
applicants have in taking the so called dumbed down tests




On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge
of radio.

A lot of Technicians I know used the "Now You're Talking" books.
Lots of stuff in there that prepares you for radio operations.


When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.

But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods.
Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in
fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true
today.

Where did you get that?


I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's
pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years
ago.

In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on
a piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But
Ohm's law?

Do you think that most new hams get their license, then hire people
to put their stations together after they buy their "Yaecomwood"
boxes?

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician
in a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the
new hams who get their licenses that way really have the background
needed?

The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah,
maybe they do.

I'll bet those stupid Novices used to bother the good Hams too....
;^)

When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week
for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license.
Then I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus
learning enough theory to pass the General exam.

I spent 6 months learning Morse code to 5 wpm, failing my first test.
Aced the other tests.


In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

I respectfully disagree. Since we started a new program to recruit
and test new hams (and upgrade old ones) we've been doing at least one a
month. We're working well above attrition and the actuarial tables.
That's hardly vanishingly small interest.

That's just the start. We have a station for the new guys and gals
to use, with a control Op if need be (usually me) to sit with 'em as
they get their feet wet.

Wanna know the best way to turn off new hams? Be grumpy and
superior. Know for sure that you had a much harder time to earn your
stripes than they did. Don't talk to them at club meetings. Make sure
they know you're superior, so don't miss a chance to tell em that. With
that sort of attitude you'll have a self fulfilling prophecy. Ham radio
will die - all around you, wherever you go.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.


Considering that the FCC lets us build or modify our transmitters, we at
least should pass a test to demonstrate that we are at least aware of
the responsibilities of not spewing RF trash all over the radio
frequency spectrum, messing up the bands for other users.

I'm finding myself agreeing with you about this. It seems that a lot
of folks are "memorizing" the test questions and not mastering the
material. There are a lot of places where one can go take "practice"
testing that uses the exact question pool for any test you want to
take. Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not impossible to
memorize just the questions and not know the concepts.

I'd argue that this is very short sighted so one wonders what the
solution here is... I suppose we could increase the question pool by 10
fold or so and make it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?

-= bob =-


space.The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.

How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.

If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
remaining knowledge for most people.

wrote in
ups.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this
year and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will
no longer be required for ANY class license it seems after that
date.

Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the
Federal Register before January 24?

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again.
Not just the code test, either.

Hi Jim,

Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's
were
higher than thay are now?

I think they were higher then, yes.

As a person who took all the tests during the recent past -
Technician 1999, General and Extra 2001 and couppled with my research
into the issue, I respectfully disagree.



Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco
study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?

It's not about "difficulty" but about how much relevant info a person
had to know and understand to pass the tests.

I'm not sure that this isn't changing the criteria in mid stream, but
assuming it isn't, I would then say that the tests are indeed relevent
today as well as apparently during that time.

The Ameco guide you refer to - what license class was it for?

Novice and General.

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1953, 1962, and
1971. They contained the study guides provided by FCC, but *not* the
actual Q&A used on the tests.

Having read all of them cover-to-cover, I can say I think the
standards were higher then.

In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that
little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first,
and answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the
book! All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question
pool...

Those sample questions were *not* the actual questions used on the
test. They were simply made up by Ameco.

After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?

Lots of ways:

For example, which of the following requires more knowledge:

Question 1:

The length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz is about:

a) 100 feet long
b) 50 feet long
c) 67 feet long
d) 40 feet long


Question 2:

Determine the length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz, using
the appropriate formula. Show all work.

That's just one question.

Okay, you show two separate and related questions. But that isn't
the scope of the questions that I extracted from the study guide. Almost
all the questions were in the form of your question 1.


Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few
sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not*
be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would
cover the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc.
So the typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards,
forwards and sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test.

Frankly, that is what I did for my Extra exam. That was much easier that
trying to memorize the pool.


But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able
to solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the
correct answer out of the four supplied.

I am so weary of that chestnut. I suppose real engineers don't
consult design manuals for hints and ideas.

In any field these days where it is necessary to prove that the
worker has been exposed to a particular bit of knowledge, there will be
a question pool. I've seen it for fields where a mistake can cost lives,
such as study guides with question pools for electrical code work. I can
get you the name of the book if you are skeptical. Its just how it is.
And I can remember what I studied for on my tests - I believe that the
pool does no harm, and a de facto pool has existed for many years.


In looking at the old study guides vs. the new, it seems to me that
the old exams focused on a relatively few number of subjects, but
covered those subjects in some depth. The new
tests seem to me to cover a wide range of subjects, but in very little
depth.

Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

Always am.



I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially
from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams
regarding how much better a vetting process the old old system was is
going to be a greater threat to the ARS than any code test
elimination ever was.

I think the old process was a better process in some ways and a worse
process in other ways.

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not
know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a
limited space.

My own thoughts on how Amateur radio should be organized are that
the higher classes of license should be earned by time in grade, so to
speak. I don't think that an extra should not know how to erect a HF
antenna, or have no experience with operations in general - and the
present system allows that.

Of course, it is possible for the person to wait out the period of
time before upgrading, but two things work against that - attrition due
to lack of interest, and the likelyhood that a person who does simply
wait it out without actually doing anything before upgrading is just
going to be some sort of statistic.


When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.

Related story:

I wanted to "build a Heathkit". Not wanting to get one of the rare
unbuilt ones and destroy it's value, I found an SB-200 at Dayton. I
bought it and completely dissassembled it. I cleaned everything,
replaced any parts that needed replaced, and some that didn't- like the
many modes the previous owners had done. I got a copy of the assembly
manual, and proceeded to put it back together. GReat gobs of fun, I'll
tell ya!

I would agree with your point. In this day of 100 percent appliance
stations, Amateurs should build as much as they can.

I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
gathering.

Well, that was when our tax dollars were going to other things.


The result was that there was testing available all over the place,
but the Q&A weren't available publicly.

I still am convinced that it essentially was available. Perhaps not in
verbatim form, but close enough.

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background
needed?

I think that the old novice test could have been taught in a day
also. Much of what is on the Technician test is common sense.

As for needed background, I think that getting licensed, getting on
the air and being elmered is what produces good hams.

Too much of what I have heard from a lot of old time hams is
disdain for newcomers - even now before the "great unwashed" come into
the hobby. Fortunately nickle Extras such as myself will be there to
help, not belittle or chase away.

I think I'm going to go heat up the Garage and get to work on that
mobile antenna I am building. Fun chat, Jim.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -