On Mar 5, 2:55?pm, "an_old_friend" wrote:
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

yes you did!

On Mar 5, 3:17 pm, "Dloyd Lavies" wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:55?pm, "an_old_friend" wrote:






wrong I did not say that

yes you did!-

2 things
one I did not say I asked a question
two if you have the right to insert yourself in exchange derected to
some other than you I have the sameright

On 4 Mar 2007 20:45:42 -0800, "
wrote:

From: on Sun, Mar 4 2007 6:41 pm

On Mar 4, 8:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 6:56 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

snip

Miccolis will NEVER admit he is wrong. :-(

"The bad machine doesn't know that he's a bad machine."

(quote from the movie "Midnight Express" - by the character Ahmet, one
of the nuts 'walking the wheel')....


snip

73, LA

73, Leo

"Thomas Horne" wrote in message
nk.net...
Dee Flint wrote:
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

Dee
Are you saying you see that last as a positive thing? It would certainly
be good for the technical education industry but does that make it a good
thing for amateur radio.

If a formal course were a requirement then I imagine that it would be
easier to find one. I'd love to find a formal class for the extra class
material. I'd even be happy with a referral to a respectable
correspondence or on line course. Anyone have any suggestions along those
lines.

The European approach with one "extra" license class and compulsory
classroom training is not such a bad idea for people who operate on HF. Can
you imagine that we are now allowing kb9rqz to operate a linear amp whose
plate voltage might be /= 3KV? Do you think kb9rqz is technically qualified
to open an AL80-B and change the 3-500Z tube? What if he forgets (or doesn't
know to) bleed the the DC bulk caps or even forgets to unplug it? When he
electrocutes himself we will have the dumbed-down general license exam to
blame. Perhaps linear amp usage should be restricted to extra class, or, we
should apply the above stated European approach.

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:

When he electrocutes himself we will have the dumbed-down general license
exam to blame.

Message volume in this newsgroup would drop by 99%.

So, is that a 'bad thing'?

On Mar 5, 2:08�pm, Leo wrote:
On 4 Mar 2007 20:45:42 -0800, "

wrote:
From: on Sun, Mar 4 2007 6:41 pm

On Mar 4, 8:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 6:56 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

snip

* Miccolis will NEVER admit he is wrong. *:-(

"The bad machine doesn't know that he's a bad machine."

(quote from the movie "Midnight Express" - by the character Ahmet, one
of the nuts 'walking the wheel')....

Now THAT is an interesting quotation...and apt...:-)

73, LA

From: John Smith I on Mon, Mar 5 2007 6:13
am
Subject: How Many License Classes?

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.

Errr, the FCC eliminated the morse code TEST.

Deignan keeps using the old false argument that the old
code test was "the same" as the writtens. He and others
have kept up that facade of "all or nothing" for a
decade. Obviously the two test types are DIFFERENT.

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.

"They" won't give up, JS. :-)

Deignan is just trying to revive a very dead horse so
he can beat on it some more.

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!

One of the MYTHS still prevalent is that "THE TEST," some
sort of awe-inspiring, feared thing, represents the SUM
TOTAL OF AMATEUR RADIO KNOWLEDGE! Nonsense, of course,
but the myth goes on...as does the beat...of the dead
horse by others. :-)

A 35- or a 50-question TEST can't possibly show EVERY BIT OF
knowledge as so many "olde-tymers" seem to imply. But, to
so many, they think the amateur TEST is some equivalent to
a college-level test of knowledge. Having taken both types,
far more at the college level, even the colleges-universities
do NOT consider their multiple-choice tests as representing
anything but a student's retention of knowledge UP TO THAT
PERIOD OF A COURSE. Those tests in schools are there to both
inform instructors of a student's capabilities and also to
show the student what they've gained or missed in a course.

Now, the FCC was NEVER chartered as an academic institution.
Not even its predecessor radio regulating agencies. A radio
amateur license test is ONLY for the purpose of the FCC in
determining whether the FCC thinks an applicant should be
granted a license in the amateur radio service. NO MORE.
The FCC decides. The FCC giveth and the FCC can taketh away.

The manual psychomotor skill of morse code cognition is far
from any intellectual-academic skill of knowledge of anything
more than morse code cognition. It cannot demonstrate any
memory retention of regulations, theory, or of accepted
practice in amateur radio EXCEPT for morse code use as it
is SUPPOSED to be in the amateur radio service.

The FCC has established the number of written test elements
for all the radio operator licenses the FCC grants. Since
privatization of radio operator testing of about two decades
ago, the FCC has yielded CONTENT of questions to the various
examiner groups. In itself, the arguments for or against
privatization is a very separate one from who has the
"right" to regulate. By law (of Congress, 1934 and 1996)
the FCC has the right to regulate. Period.

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.

I think you've left out the self-righteous, self-
proclaimed "experts in radio" that some olde-tymers
imply they are. :-(

The "handwriting on the wall" was there in radio four
decades ago. Radio services had already begun to down-
play USE of OOK CW modes for communications or the new
radio services simply didn't use those modes.

But, the EMOTIONAL aspect of amateur radio licensing
is hardly ever discussed. Olde-tymers are incessantly
touting the marvelous things They encountered when
young and inexperienced and want to keep those things
forever and ever, lest they suddenly realize that They
have become old like their beloved morse mode. Even
if they acknowledge the reality of age, they have
another emotional need to show they are "better than
others" in something, anything. High-rate morse code
cognition is a convenient "betterment." What is WRONG
is their wanting to transfer Their desires to all
others not in the amateur radio service that come
after them.


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 ...

I am OPPOSED 100% to that viewpoint. The FCC is required
to regulate ALL of USA civil radio services. That is a
very formidable task and, like it or not, amateur radio is
only a small part of that whole task. The FCC serves ALL
the citizenry of the USA, not just a minority group in a
radio hobby activity.

Having observed FCC Reports and Orders and other legalese
on radio regulations of many radio services, I find them
most logical in their public statements about their
decisions. For over 20 years of observations and over
many radio services. Those are clear and straightforward,
in rather plain English despite their abbreviations. That
they do NOT agree with certain groups or opinions is no
cause for blanket condemnation. Decisions have to made
and the FCC seems to me to do a credible job of that.

If you want to bring back the Chaos of the radio waves
that existed in the 1920s, then go for all the anarchy
you can stomach. I do NOT want that and even the aging
"flower children" of the 1960s are starting to realize
the Opposition to Everything won't get them anywhere.


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 ...

A couple of points he Deignan has not toned down his
combination of Cynical Chic attitude and general "I am
superior to you" coloring of his comments. The "knowledge
of computers" (how to use them, really) is generally
overblown by those INTO computers as it applies to this
modern age. Yes, the Internet is OPEN to all and at least
one out of five households in the USA has some form of
Internet access. But, on the Internet is a collection of
dreck, of bigotry, terribly one-sided crap, emotionally-
loaded opinions, all mixed in with public relations,
personal "look at me" sort of things AND intellectual
knowledge. It is much more convenient to use the Internet
to hunt for any of those things than to leave the house
and go running around for input different ways.

The Internet made many many things possible but the
increase of an individual's knowledge bank is an
entirely different subject. The Internet is such a
HUGE pot-pourri of different "stuff," so MUCH stuff
that it can't be evaluated properly.

73,

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 4, 8:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:

[snip]


You run the risk of simpler questions being selected for that 50
question exam. It is easier.


I said the material was combined. I did not say that the question pools
were combined verbatim. Instead, a new question pool is/was developed that
covers the combined material. The "simpler" versions of the questions
aren't used. For example, the Tech test might ask a question such as what
is the approximate length of a quarter wave vertical for the 10m band while
the General test would have a question that is much more specific like what
is the calculated length for a quarter wave vertical for 28.300. The
question on the Tech test would have choices that would be enough different
that you would not have to actually calculate the exact value. The question
on the General test would have at least two of choices close enough together
that you would have to calculate the value. Let us say they combined the
Tech and General. The approximate question would never be considered for
the new pool.

Therefore there is no risk of getting "simpler" questions when the material
is combined.

Dee, N8UZE

"Thomas Horne" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

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

Dee
If this comes across as quarrelsome then I apologize in advance.

Rest assured it does not come across as quarrelsome and presents some
interesting talking points.

The technician class license serves a useful purpose as a place for those
who are interested in local public service radio. I got two of my
Community Emergency Response Team members to take the weekend class to
prepare for the technician exam. Both of them passed and are now ready to
serve as Radio Telephone Operators (RTO) for there units. If training for
emergency communications service isn't a legitimate function of Amateur
Radio then nothing is. Not every one is interested in DX work. The
ability to talk across the area without depending on a rather complex and
brittle trunking or cellular system is attractive to some folks. The only
reason that I'm striking for the higher licenses is that I'd like to learn
more about radio and it's various modes of transmission.


Consider this though. Even though not interested in DX work, there may be
some need for long distance communications not just the ability to talk
across the local area. In Katrina, everything was down and upon occasion a
little bit more than just VHF/UHF was needed and used.

I favor keeping the three licenses but if we had to drop to two, my choice
would be General and Extra.

I believe that the present general is a little too light on the theory
however. I was able to prepare for the upgrade exam in only two weeks. I
was urged to take the element four exam when I turned in the element three
even if only to get an idea of what I was preparing for. It was very
humbling to take that element with no preparation but it did give me an
impression of the difficulty level of element four. From what I saw
something between the present general and the extra would be a good level
for the general test to be. A heavier emphasis on field measurement and
other aspects of Radio & Electric Safety would be one aspect to consider
making more demanding.
--
Tom Horne, KB3OPR/AG

Keep in mind though that as N2EY has said many people do not have all that
much background to build upon. I think the Tech and General writtens have
about the right amount of difficulty my self.

Dee, N8UZE

"Thomas Horne" wrote in message
nk.net...
Dee Flint wrote:
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

Dee
Are you saying you see that last as a positive thing? It would certainly
be good for the technical education industry but does that make it a good
thing for amateur radio.


Not necessarily. I was trying to make the point that people should be
careful what they wish for. It may come with unintended consequences. I'm
perfectly satisfied with the self study approach and the voluntary classes
that some groups sponsor.

If a formal course were a requirement then I imagine that it would be
easier to find one. I'd love to find a formal class for the extra class
material. I'd even be happy with a referral to a respectable
correspondence or on line course. Anyone have any suggestions along those
lines.
--

Too bad you are not in my area. The club just coaxed me into doing one
again this year for the Extra. I don't know of any correspondence or on
line classes.

Since you will probably be going the self study route if/when you choose to
upgrade, I have the following recommendations:
1. DON'T RUSH. There's a lot of material so if you rush through it, you'll
have a hard time remembering it as it will be in your short term memory
rather than your long term memory.
2. Periodically review the parts you've already studied. It's a long haul
and by the time you get to the end, you might forget what you learned in the
beginning.
3. For studying and learning the material use something that explains it in
detail like the ARRL extra class license manual.
4. Review use something with the questions, answers and brief explanations
like the W5YI question and answer manual
5. Don't hesitate at buying the two separate books. It's worth it. The
ARRL book has too many words and the W5YI is too brief. Using the former
for the initial study and reference and using the latter for review worked
well for my students.
6. Find someone (perhaps through your local club) who would be willing to
answer questions and clarify hard parts as you go along.

Dee, N8UZE