wrote:

So let's assume for discussion that the current requirements
for Extra remain the same. Is it reasonable to ask *all* new
hams to learn all that material to get a license? I say it's not.

Which is *EXACTLY* the argument NTI (No-Test International) Members are
going to start to use now to start the push to make the theory examinations
'easier'.


73
kh6hz

KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:

So let's assume for discussion that the current requirements
for Extra remain the same. Is it reasonable to ask *all* new
hams to learn all that material to get a license? I say it's not.

Which is *EXACTLY* the argument NTI (No-Test International) Members are
going to start to use now to start the push to make the theory examinations
'easier'.


73
kh6hz



Well, I wouldn't worry about that too much. Unless they can make a
legitimate argument that the questions are
unnecessary/irrelevant/illogical or are "self-protectionist" and simply
meant to make the test over-difficult so as to control numbers or who
can enter amateur radio, what would give them a leg to stand on?

Perhaps they could also make the argument that the tests are
"obsfucated", deliberately misleading or "entangled with deliberate
complexity" in an effort to confuse and mislead. However, that would be
quite apparent to the avg educated joe who is familiar with
radio/electronics.

No, unless they would have a legitimate argument, they would most likely
be dismissed along with any of their false claims.

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

"John Smith I" wrote:

Well, I wouldn't worry about that too much. Unless they can make a
legitimate argument that the questions are
unnecessary/irrelevant/illogical or are "self-protectionist" and simply
meant to make the test over-difficult so as to control numbers or who can
enter amateur radio, what would give them a leg to stand on?

Isn't this what they claimed the code test did?


Perhaps they could also make the argument that the tests are "obsfucated",
deliberately misleading or "entangled with deliberate complexity" in an
effort to confuse and mislead.

Clearly, this is a fully 100% accurate statement, since 3 of the 4 options
presented as answers for each multiple-choice question is incorrect.


No, unless they would have a legitimate argument, they would most likely
be dismissed along with any of their false claims.

I believe others made similar comments regarding elimination of the code
requirement 20+ years ago.


The trend in amateur radio licensing is to make things "easier".

KH6HZ wrote:

...
Isn't this what they claimed the code test did?

Well yes, and not only what that argument correct, that argument was
acted upon by the FCC and morse was eliminated. However, those making
false claims as to CW's viability, and relevancy still attempt to
justify past practices of using it as a barrier to new licensees, they
eventually will give up this insanity as they find this has lost them
all their credibility.


Clearly, this is a fully 100% accurate statement, since 3 of the 4 options
presented as answers for each multiple-choice question is incorrect.

Interesting view. However, since this is accepted practice and used by
most elementary schools, high schools, colleges, state and federal
institutions it is the preferred method of testing. However, the
context of these questions need to examined closely as those with
self-serving interests can attempt to manipulate these questions for an
outcome they wish--on BOTH sides!


I believe others made similar comments regarding elimination of the code
requirement 20+ years ago.

Yes. The insanity of requiring morse testing did become the "elephant
in the china closet" which was over-looked. Seemingly, this was a type
of "mass hysteria" or "mass insanity" as you see in vigilante groups, or
other self-protectionist groups. Although it speaks ill of the power of
the FCC to present itself as a logical and relevant governing agency,
most of those problems have been eliminated or are in the process of
being so ...


The trend in amateur radio licensing is to make things "easier".

Well, as people become more and more educated on the whole, all of
education just seems easier. When you basic understanding out of high
school these days equals the education you only used to get from jr.
colleges in past years, that happens. A good many of the old wives
tales, misconceptions and ignorance is fading away in a better educated
world. I mean your avg seventh or eight grader is highly computer savvy
these days and his/her access to the internet gives them unlimited
access to any knowledge in mans archives.

The ability of motivated individuals is truly unlimited when they have
access to all mankinds accumulated stores of knowledge. An advantage
those of yesteryear never had and will never be able to make up for ...

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

"John Smith I" wrote:


However, those making false claims as to CW's viability, and relevancy
still attempt to justify past practices of using it as a barrier to new
licensees, they eventually will give up this insanity as they find this
has lost them all their credibility.

CW's relevancy and viability, and its continued usage as a skills test in
the ARS, are two separate issues as I see it.

I see CW, still, as a very viable and very relevant mode of operation in the
ARS. The last time I recall somewhere around 50% of hams polled indicate
they use CW. That makes it very relevant to the ARS today.

Now, whether or not it should remain a test element is a different argument
altogether. For a very long time, I have been a proponent of eliminating the
code test, and instead strengthening the written examinations.

Others have suggested retaining CW as a skills test, and while I understand
that line of thought, I disagree with it today. I'm not sure there is one
'skills' test for the ARS which is really suitable.

Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who
become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them to
learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the
theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the
licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations
wrong -- that says something is seriously broken.


Well, as people become more and more educated on the whole, all of
education just seems easier. When you basic understanding out of high
school these days equals the education you only used to get from jr.
colleges in past years, that happens.

Perhaps, but this is simply not the case today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec6.html

From my daily interaction with recent US high school graduates, I can
definitely see that the vast majority are lacking basic math and english
skills, compared to their foreign counterparts. Virtually all the US-based
students I work with need some form of remedial or "basic" english and math
classes, whereas their foreign counterparts are beyond the "entry level"
freshman math and science classes from the get-go.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:50:31 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:


"Dee Flint" wrote in message
m...

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. 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 agree that this is the way it seems to be heading. However, I think
ARRL
members should pressure the organization to lobby the FCC for another,
coded
class who could exclusively operate on certain sections of the OOK morse
sub
bands.

why do you hate the ARRL and wish them to suffer another bllody nose

I think it would be good for society if we could preserve the mode
for the future, given that there a certain albiet isolated occaisions when
its use can be extremely beneficial to society.

meaning you are convinced that Code can't survive without a stick
aprouch
well then so be it let it die if it is that ill

I don't think morse code use is in that much danger, although we as
Hams would I feel be bettr off if it did die and soon

First, who is the "WE" you refer to and second "WE" Hams feel the same about
you and your ilk




http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 5, 11:13 am, "Dean M" wrote:
wrote in message

...


I don't think morse code use is in that much danger, although we as
Hams would I feel be bettr off if it did die and soon

First, who is the "WE" you refer to...........

ham real ones that care about the future

....... and second "WE" Hams feel the same about
you and your ilk

well unlike I care about the future of the ARS

wrote:

Which is *EXACTLY* the argument NTI (No-Test International) Members are
going to start to use now to start the push to make the theory
examinations
'easier'.

mber like yourself I take it

Nope, I'm an ARRL Life Member, and I used to be a member of No-Code
International, until Carl Stevenson had me kicked out because he didn't like
me.

wrote:

Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who
become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them
to
learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the
theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the
licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations
wrong -- that says something is seriously broken.
how does it say that?

You don't see an issue with a testing system where an applicant can get
every question wrong dealing with rules and regulations, yet still manage to
get licensed because they got the math right?

Or, let's put this another way...

Should someone who has a BSEE automatically be given a ham radio license, if
they ask for one?

After all, there is little doubt someone with a BSEE would have the
requisite knowledge to "pass" the Tech/General/Extra theory examinations
(exception noted next paragraph) with little to no effort.

About the only questions such an applicant would get wrong would be the
questions on amateur rules and regulations (which obviously they wouldn't
know from their BSEE studies).

However, since the current structure of the theory examinations allows an
applicant to fail each and every rules/regulations question, and still
"pass" the examination -- well, why wouldn't we just give such an applicant
a license anyway, right?


and what do you porpose

I still hold the opinion that a modification to the licensing system as I
proposed in my Y2K restructuring comments are appropriate.

In summary:

1. Require an applicant to pass each "subelement" with a score of 70% or
better.
2. Require an overall score of 85% or better

The actual %age in #2 could be a point of discussion. I wouldn't be opposed
to likewise lowering it to an overall 70% score as well, although I do think
an overall higher score would be better.


someone flamed me in the 90 for sugesting a license test system where
had several elements such (not coplete or etched in stone
[...]
etc each a seperate test with CSSE's to allow you break it down

In principal, you agree with my stance then.

I'm not sure I would agree with the CSCE for each sub-element aspect,
though. That could get even more complicated (i.e. requires VEs to maintain
separate tests for each sub-element, you can go test for individual
sub-elements, etc.) compared to simply one test, say, 100 multiple-choice
questions on 10 sub-elements w/ a 70% passing score required in each
sub-element and an overall 70% passing grade.

On Mar 5, 2:54 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who
become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them
to
learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the
theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the
licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations
wrong -- that says something is seriously broken.
how does it say that?

You don't see an issue with a testing system where an applicant can get
every question wrong dealing with rules and regulations, yet still manage to
get licensed because they got the math right?

wrong I did not say that