Slow Code wrote:
james wrote in
:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:52:24 -0400, "Fred G."
wrote:

+++Neither the Code NOR Theory tests will weed out the bad radio
operator any +++more than a driving test will weed out the DUIs - OR -
the Physical agility, +++legal and other exams will weed out bad cops.

No test will weed out 100% of the "bad apples". That does not mean
tests have no effect.

Would you rather that we not have driving tests, since the they
obviously don't weed out all the bad drivers?

Those tests are only tests of +++"Proficiency" in the subject matter -
NOT - "Mentality". Those tests won't +++stop the trash.

See above.

+++But those who choose to not learn code will continue to bitch about
why they +++shouldn't. OK, DROP the code........Next you'll want the
"Theory" taken away +++too. Want to bet?
+++
+++Fred G.
*******************

Fred

No need to bet.

There have already been proposals to reduce the written exams below
what they are now. Fortunately, they have been rejected by FCC - so
far.

The theory questions even the extra exam is not that difficult. A
decent electronics tech with an AA degree can master that test.

The youngest Extra I know of earned that license at the age of seven.
You don't need any sort of degree to pass the exams - nor should you.

In
fact the tests are so dummied down that just about anyone that has the
ability read and comprehend can pass them with the minimal of
coaching. So if you think so highly your "Theory" tests then I hate to
burst your bubble.

How would you change that?

Why should proficiency in one means of communication hender operation
in another?

"hender"?

I tend to think that those that are very proficient with
morse code tend to spend more of their time with that mode of
communication. Why should there be a limitation on other modes that do
not wish to use that mode?

Because it's part of being a qualified operator.

Most hams learn morse code and then forget
it.

Well, some do. I don't know about "most".

How many hams learn the theory and then forget it?

I have no issue with showing proficiency in a means of
communication to get priviledges. I have no issues with showing a
proficiency with "theory" as a means of priviledges.

The argument seems to be this:

"Why should someone have to learn Morse Code in order to use other
modes? Let those who want to use it, learn it, and the rest not"

If you accept that argument, how do you oppose the following:

"Why should someone have to learn theory in order to use a manufactured
rig?"

"Why should someone who only wants to operate HF have to learn about
VHF and UHF?"

"Why should someone who only wants to operate QRP have to learn about
RF exposure?"

"Why should someone who only wants to use vacuum tube equipment have to
learn about solid-state?"

Etc.

In other words, why should anyone have to learn anything they don't
intend to use?

The thing here is usage of the airwaves is a priviledge and not a
right. So what ever the government cares to do in this avenue is fine
with me. I will take advantage of what ever they offer me.

You raise some good points Jim. That's why I've always proposed the
following licensing changes:

1: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and
pass all elements required for their license class.

Why?

And who will do all the testing? There are over 650,000 US hams now. We
get a couple of thousand new hams per month - that works out to about
2,000 exams per month.

If 10% of those 650,000 have to retest each year, that's 65,000 per
year. Which is more than 5,400 additional exams per month.

Are *you* volunteering to do all those exams?

2: The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

Sell it to FCC.

3: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

Sell it to FCC.

4: Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.

Why? Does a person forget that much in a year?

And who will do all the additional testing?