wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

...

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add.

I disagree. My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.


Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. I would advocate
two licenses: a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate.

Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine these
two. Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how
best to present the combined material. At this point in time, there are no
combined manuals that already address the material for both license classes.
In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was
available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and
Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person could
study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will be
to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of the
box.

As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level" license.

Dee, N8UZE

On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

...

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add.

I disagree. My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.

Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. I would advocate
two licenses: a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate.

I disagree. The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.

Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine these
two. Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how
best to present the combined material. At this point in time, there are no
combined manuals that already address the material for both license classes.
In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was
available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and
Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person could
study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will be
to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of the
box.

As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level" license.

Why not?

As I suspected, and Len asserted, "It's all about Morse Code" with
some of you's guys.

On Mar 4, 10:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 4, 9:00 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
On Mar 3, 11:30 pm, "
wrote:
SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE CODELESS "REVOLUTION"

Based solely onwww.hamdata.compublishedstatisticsfrom
22 February to 3 March 2007, there doesn't seem to be the
kind of "revolution" nor the influx of CB hordes expected
by the long-timers. Specifically, the table below uses the
small block of daily statistics that appears to the left of
the license class totals. Since the data of the data
is derived from FCC database files, the numberic values
represent daily quantities from FCC actions the day befo

NEW EXPIRED UPDATES CALL CHG. CLASS CHG
=== ======= ======= ========= =========
22 Feb, Thu. 174 172 894 49 88
23 Feb, Fri. 78 83 432 5 44
24 Feb, Sat. 190 127 494 47 121
25 Feb, Sun. 1 95 195 20 13
26 Feb, Mon. 0 0 58 0 0
27 Feb, Tue. 144 2 700 13 347
28 Feb, Wed. 99 168 846 44 89
1 Mar, Thu. 138 203 783 13 369
2 Mar, Fri. 87 204 729 12 346
3 Mar, Sat. 85 168 724 83 270

NEW = Never before licensed or retest after long absence
EXPIRED = Past the two-year grace period
UPDATES = Renewals, address changes, adminstrative
changes, not 'upgrades' to another class
CALL CHG = Changed call sign of existing license
CLASS CHG = Changed class of license (mostly 'upgrades')

Numbers for 25 and 26 Feb idicate the weekend off for FCC;
Expirations would probably be automatic as a result of
computer check of pre-determined grace period end. The
Updates column may be a result of more automation from
renewals received and thus might be due to just computer
activity automatically changing the licensing dates.

Tuesday the 27th probably indicates the beginning of the
"deluge" of VEC input that arrived on the Monday before.
The sudden jump in Class Changes is no doubt from existing
"lower" class Techs or Tech Plusses moving up to General.
What is interesting is that there don't seem to be ANY
significant change of NEW licensees' daily numbers. Those
have overwhelmingly come from unlicensed entering the Tech
class and have been at a constant increase since Tech was
created in 1991. The totals of Technician class HAVE
started to drop since the 23rd of February and continue
to decrease slowly; it is very certain that class'
licensees have upgraded to General or Extra now that there
is no code test requirement.

Whatever, it seems clear at a week after 06-178 became
legal that there isn't much of any influx of newcomers.

In the last 12 monthswww.hamdata.comreportsthat22,609
NEW licensees entered. In the same period, 29,096 licenses
EXPIRED. Licensee grand total dropped by 6,487 in that
past period. A good thing or bad one?



Eventually, they'll all be Extras and my wish for a one class amateur
radio service will be fulfilled. We should change the name of that
license to: Amateur.

While I agree that a significant percentage will go on to Extra, I also
think that there will be a noticeable percentage who will stay at
General.
Unless you are into contesting or DXing, there is not a lot of advantage
to
getting an Extra.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee, as a Technician (from Novice), I enjoyed DXing and Contesting on
10M SSB. Lots of fun.

Yup, 10 meters is a fun band. However as a Tech, you only get part of it.

However, as a Tech, I wasn't greedy.

While there can certainly be a lot of DX in the Tech portion, I've seen it
full from top to bottom with DX during a contest if the band is open. You
could have even more fun if you upgrade.

And so I did. Today I have all of 10 Meters.

When the band has been really open, I've enjoyed working up at the top end
where FM is allowed.

I've never bothered with FM on 10.

However, my comment was addressing the avid, heavy duty DXer/contester.

So if the amateur radio service was comprised of only 10 meteres,
there could be no avid, heavy duty DXing and Contesting?

I think there could be.

For
the casual operator, the General usually conveys a wide enough range of
spectrum.

Dee

All of amateur radio is fine for the casual operator.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

...

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license
with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might
add.

I disagree. My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.

Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. I would
advocate
two licenses: a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam.
The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic
enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra
is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out
rate.

I disagree. The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.

Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine
these
two. Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how
best to present the combined material. At this point in time, there are
no
combined manuals that already address the material for both license
classes.
In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was
available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and
Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person
could
study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will
be
to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of
the
box.

As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level"
license.

Why not?

As I suspected, and Len asserted, "It's all about Morse Code" with
some of you's guys.


Not at all. There is such a wide range of enjoyable activities available
that I want people to be able to explore them. For the same reason
(expanding one's range of activities and knowledge base), I've dragged Extra
class licensees over to the VHF station at Field day to show them what can
be achieved on those frequencies. While there are many Extras familiar with
the VHF/UHF possibilities, for some reason the Extras in the club I belong
to it have not really explored them.

With the dropping of the code test requirement, the difference between the
Tech license material and the General license material is just not that
great. In the exam sessions, we actively encourage a person to try the
General when they pass the Tech exam. Those applicants that have chosen to
develop an understanding of the Tech material (i.e. learn the antenna
equation and how to use it rather than memorizing the lengths for the
questions that might occur on the test) usually come within a couple of
points of passing the General. Some would have passed the General if they
had simply known to also memorize the General frequency priviliges along
with the material they already knew.

The material on the Tech and General is straight forward enough that it can
be grasped by just about anyone with a moderate amount of study. If one
looks at it in terms of return (license & range of privileges) versus
investment (study), the General is perfectly reasonable as a first license
step.

On the other hand, let's look at an "entry level" license and exam. You
have got to cover rules, safety (including RF radiation safety), and good
operating practices as a bare minimum. By the time you do this, you've
already got a significant portion of what you would need for a General class
license. Your return (license & privileges) versus investment (study) for
an entry level license, is just not that worthwhile.

Those countries that have folded their two license classes into one class
often had a written test that was equivalent to our Extra not our General
for both and the only differentiating item was the code test. Thus they
really had no "entry" license. They had VHF/UHF licenses and full licenses.
The US has been somewhat unusual in that there is a license (General) that
has a significant range of privileges on all bands with a moderate level
level of testing.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 4, 10:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:

[snip]


All of amateur radio is fine for the casual operator.


Ok then, let's do the same as some typical European countries. Only one
license class and every one takes the equivalent of the Extra class written
exam. Prior to the no code change, they did not have entry level licenses.
All licenses took the same written (basically equivalent to our Extra
written) and those who passed code got everything while those who didn't
were VHF/UHF only. When the code was dropped, they folded the two groups
into one. No need to haul out the many variations that existed. While some
countries did have an entry license with a simpler written there were others
who didn't. In some countries, you had to take formal classes and you were
not allowed to take the test if you had just studied on your own.

Dee, N8UZE

On Mar 4, 7:54�am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add.

[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

I disagree. *My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." *However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. *Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.

Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. *I would advocate
two licenses: *a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. *The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. *Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. *It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate.

I disagree. *The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.

An ENTRY level license NAME loaded with denigrating
adjectives is not a good way to attract anyone. Using
"novice" or "beginner" or "apprentice" or "tyro" or "newbie"
MIGHT attract a younger teener but is a turn-off to most
anyone over 18. "Limited" might be an "accurate"
adjective but it is still emotionally-loaded as a descriptor.

Even a "tyro" marketing person would have tossed the
"Novice" name in the trash long ago. :-(

If anything, just call the entry class for Entry class...


Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine these
two. *Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how
best to present the combined material. *At this point in time, there are no
combined manuals that already address the material for both license classes.
In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was
available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and
Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person could
study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will be
to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of the
box.

As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level" license.

Why not?

Once upon a time in hamland there was NO "entry level"
by name. One simply jumped in and did it, "learning"
the (oh so) PROPER procedure as they went along.

As I suspected, and Len asserted, "It's all about Morse Code" with
some of you's guys.

Morsemanship skills could have used an on-air learning
period for many. It was never an intellectual skill but a
psychomotor thing that some had trouble with despite
some saying "oh, no trouble at all for 'me'." :-(

If any ham club wants to have specialized classes on
morsemanship skills, that's fine with me. Those interested
in that can do the classroom thing all they want, then try
it out for real with their radios later. That's the SAME
way one learns theory in classroom environments, then
tries it out on real radio hardware later.

Trying to combine classroom with on-air training by
frequency-restricted, limited privilege license classes
(and the attendant class-distinction) was never a good
thing in my mind.

73, LA

On Mar 4, 6:00�am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message


Eventually, they'll all be Extras and my wish for a one class amateur
radio service will be fulfilled. *We should change the name of that
license to: *Amateur.

While I agree that a significant percentage will go on to Extra, I also
think that there will be a noticeable percentage who will stay at General.
Unless you are into contesting or DXing, there is not a lot of advantage to
getting an Extra.

Sorry, but I disagree totally with the "not a lot of advantage
to getting an Extra." Sum it up with the two words: CLASS
DISTINCTION...or perhaps just one word: STATUS.

"Status" in a hobby activity? Do you want the "Slow Code"
military obediance of "saluting Extras" by all "lesser"
classes? To have the "lesser" classes sit on the floor at
meetings to "put them in their place?" Sorry, but that is
NOT the way to any "happiness" and "good fellowship"
in a hobby activity done for personal pleasure.

The military is IN the business of DESTRUCTION at the
very real fact of part of the military being destroyed in
the process of doing "defense." There is NO real
counterpart in amateur radio, never was. So I would
strongly urge that ALL classes and "leadership"
refrain from putting newbies, tyros, novices, etc.
constantly "in their place" and just guiding or showing
them how it is done. Most just starting out in radio
are PEOPLE, even the teeners, and they will not like
being "put in their place" by some officious type who
have (essentially) elevated themselves to positions of
what they think are "important."

73, LA

On Mar 4, 9:10�am, "Dee Flint" wrote:

My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level license
system but I think they will be General and Extra. *The step from Tech to
General is not that difficult and the licensee will have access to all
modes, power levels and bands. *Unless you are into DXing, contesting or
being a VE, the additional privileges that Extra licensees have are not that
much of an advantage.

I, for one, encourage all those studying for Technician to go ahead and get
the General study guide and go for it either at the first sitting or as soon
as possible thereafter. *The Technician will be basically turn into a very
temporary way station on their climb up the ladder.

My fiftieth of a dollar:

There are really two issues here.

The first is "what's the best possible license
structure?" and the second is "what can we
realistically put in place in US amateur radio?"

The first step in answering either question is
to define what should be on the tests for a
license that gives *all* US amateur radio
privileges. Some think the testing for the current
full-privileges US amateur radio license isn't
near as comprehensive as it should be, others
think it covers too much, etc.

The answer is almost certainly going to be a
compromise between all those opinions.

The second step is to determine whether
it's a good idea to require a new amateur
to pass that test just to get started in amateur
radio, or whether it's better to have license
classes that require less knowledge in return
for fewer privileges.

Then decide how many steps are needed from
"not a ham" to "full privileges".

While doing this, it is important to remember
that what appears easy to someone with
significant radio/electronics/engineering/math
background may not appear easy to someone
who does not have that same background.

Then there's the whole question of what FCC can
be induced to do. In recent R&Os and other
writings, FCC has repeatedly said they consider
the optimum number of license classes to be
three.

So it seems the way to go is:

- an "entry level" license that is easy to get
and gives limited privileges

- a "middle level" license that requires more
knowledge, but not everything

- a "full privileges" license that has comprehensive
knowledge requirements for full privileges

That's close to what we have now, but there are
improvements that can be made. First is the
extreme unbalance in the privileges of the
Technician license. That may be a hard
sell to FCC.

---

It should be remembered that the old Novice class
was extremely successful in getting new hams
started in amateur radio, at least for the first 30-40
or so years of its existence. The main feature of
the old Novice that worked so well was that it
required minimal testing, so that newcomers could
get on the air and see if amateur radio was really
for them.

There was never any requirement for newcomers
to start with the Novice, yet for decades most new
hams did just that.

What's needed now is a "Novice license for the
21st Century", IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Mar 4, 11:38 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

...

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license
with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might
add.

I disagree. My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.

Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. I would
advocate
two licenses: a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam.
The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic
enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra
is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out
rate.

I disagree. The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.

Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine
these
two. Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how
best to present the combined material. At this point in time, there are
no
combined manuals that already address the material for both license
classes.
In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was
available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and
Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person
could
study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will
be
to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of
the
box.

As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level"
license.

Why not?

As I suspected, and Len asserted, "It's all about Morse Code" with
some of you's guys.

Not at all. There is such a wide range of enjoyable activities available
that I want people to be able to explore them. For the same reason
(expanding one's range of activities and knowledge base), I've dragged Extra
class licensees over to the VHF station at Field day to show them what can
be achieved on those frequencies. While there are many Extras familiar with
the VHF/UHF possibilities, for some reason the Extras in the club I belong
to it have not really explored them.

I was referrign to Code Testing.

With the dropping of the code test requirement, the difference between the
Tech license material and the General license material is just not that
great.

I want you to always remember that you said that. Always.

First, if there is so little difference between the Technician Exam
and the General Exam (sans Morse Code), then you make my point that
the Technician exam is just too advanced for an entry level exam. It
must be simplified.

Second, it was the General Exam that once conveyed ALL AMATEUR
PRIVELEGES. Now you are saying that it is the defacto starting point
because there is no Morse Exam to accompany it? That just smacks of
Code Tested Extra elitism.

Third, the Advanced and Extra Exams have been combined, thereby
dumbing down the Extra, bringing it closer to the present General
Exam, not pushing it toward an MSEE like some of you would like to
think. So if there is so little difference between the Technician and
General Exams, and the Extra has been dumbed down to Advanced level,
why do we still have people wanting more superfluous license classes
that are growing closer together in difficulty allatime?

And in the end, it's still allabout Morse Code with you.

In the exam sessions, we actively encourage a person to try the
General when they pass the Tech exam. Those applicants that have chosen to
develop an understanding of the Tech material (i.e. learn the antenna
equation and how to use it rather than memorizing the lengths for the
questions that might occur on the test) usually come within a couple of
points of passing the General. Some would have passed the General if they
had simply known to also memorize the General frequency priviliges along
with the material they already knew.

Did you say memorize? Wouldn't you rather they understood the
frequency privileges?

The material on the Tech and General is straight forward enough that it can
be grasped by just about anyone with a moderate amount of study. If one
looks at it in terms of return (license & range of privileges) versus
investment (study), the General is perfectly reasonable as a first license
step.

All government testing should be straight forward.

On the other hand, let's look at an "entry level" license and exam. You
have got to cover rules, safety (including RF radiation safety), and good
operating practices as a bare minimum. By the time you do this, you've
already got a significant portion of what you would need for a General class
license. Your return (license & privileges) versus investment (study) for
an entry level license, is just not that worthwhile.

If you remove the RF Safety, and change the power levels below that
required for an RFEA, then you have the makings of a simplified
amateur class.

Those countries that have folded their two license classes into one class
often had a written test that was equivalent to our Extra not our General
for both and the only differentiating item was the code test. Thus they
really had no "entry" license.

I wasn't allowed to talk about Japan. You shouldn't be allowed to
talk about anonymous countries.

They had VHF/UHF licenses and full licenses.
The US has been somewhat unusual in that there is a license (General) that
has a significant range of privileges on all bands with a moderate level
level of testing.

Dee, N8UZE-

The General once conveyed ALL AMATEUR PRIVILEGES.

Sheesh!

On Mar 4, 1:10 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:54?am, wrote:

On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add.

[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

Rip Van Deignan... overslept.

I disagree. ?My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." ?However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. ?Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.

Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. ?I would advocate
two licenses: ?a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. ?The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. ?Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. ?It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate.

I disagree. ?The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.

An ENTRY level license NAME loaded with denigrating
adjectives is not a good way to attract anyone. Using
"novice" or "beginner" or "apprentice" or "tyro" or "newbie"
MIGHT attract a younger teener but is a turn-off to most
anyone over 18. "Limited" might be an "accurate"
adjective but it is still emotionally-loaded as a descriptor.

Even a "tyro" marketing person would have tossed the
"Novice" name in the trash long ago. :-(

If anything, just call the entry class for Entry class...

We could go French and call it the enfante' class.

Or Airman First Class, Airman Second Class, Airman Third Class...

Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine these
two. ?Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how
best to present the combined material. ?At this point in time, there are no
combined manuals that already address the material for both license classes.
In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was
available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and
Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person could
study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will be
to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of the
box.

As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level" license.

Why not?

Once upon a time in hamland there was NO "entry level"
by name. One simply jumped in and did it, "learning"
the (oh so) PROPER procedure as they went along.

Jumped in and did it as in NO TESTING.

As I suspected, and Len asserted, "It's all about Morse Code" with
some of you's guys.

Morsemanship skills could have used an on-air learning
period for many. It was never an intellectual skill but a
psychomotor thing that some had trouble with despite
some saying "oh, no trouble at all for 'me'." :-(

"If I can do it anyone can. And if they can't then they're not
special like me and don't belong..."

If any ham club wants to have specialized classes on
morsemanship skills, that's fine with me. Those interested
in that can do the classroom thing all they want, then try
it out for real with their radios later. That's the SAME
way one learns theory in classroom environments, then
tries it out on real radio hardware later.

Sounds real good to me.

Trying to combine classroom with on-air training by
frequency-restricted, limited privilege license classes
(and the attendant class-distinction) was never a good
thing in my mind.

73, LA- Hide quoted text -

bb