Revamping Testing Prodecures

[K1VSK]

Now that the standards for licensing have been changed to eliminate all morse code requirements while continuing to provide all written test questions and answers,in advance, is it time to rethink what direction we are going?

Clearly, without the prerequisite of learning morse code, the standards of achievement for licensing amateur radio operators has diminished (again). It hasn't been that many years ago when license applicants were tested based upon understanding of the technical, administrative and legal requirments. Although some might argue this is still true, providing a pre-determined question/answer pool in advance, in point of fact, serves only to test one's short-term memorization skills. Is this the standard to which we should be expected to strive?

To my question - someone much smarter than me proposes to petition the FCC to eliminate the publically-available question pool and in it's place, require all new applicants to demonstrate their knowledge by passing a true written test evidencing their actual understanding on basic electronics theory, circuitry, technical skill and administrative requirements.

How do you feel about a more comprehensive testing program intended to foster learning and technical ability among new or upgrading licensees?

[KD5SHW]

I think the idea that publishing the questions leads to simple memorization ignores the size of the question pool. It is much easier to memorize the theory behind the questions than it is to memorize the questions and the right answer. That's just for the theory questions. For the rest of the questions what the test is trying to check is your memorization of information. Questions like what are the limits of the 80 meter band can be nothing more than memorization. For questions like that, memorization is the goal.

We have to ask ourselves what the goal of testing is. Is the goal to make an amateur radio license hard to get so some OF's can feel better about themselves because they hold a Holy Class license? Is it make sure someone has the basic information they need in order to operate a radio without causing interference to other users of the RF spectrum? I would go with the second choice.

So what does it take to make sure that someone can operate their radio without causing interference? I think a test designed for that should ask questions about:

the bandwidth of the more popular modes cw,ssb,fm and how to avoid interference to other users by spacing your signal far enough away from them
the limits of different amateur bands
different propagation methods
operating procedures that are good practice

The only addition to the current test you might be able to argue for is a practical test. Give them a modern transceiver and the manual that comes with it and tell them to tune it to certain frequencies and modes. If they can figure it out then they have proven they can operate the radio correctly and they deserve a license.

I think a lot of people get confused about the purpose of amateur radio. The purpose of amateur radio isn't for people who already know electronics to get on the air and talk about their medical conditions. The purpose of amateur radio is for a person to get on the air and learn. I learn more about HF propagation in one field day than I did by reading books about it. I learned more about antenna tuning and the affects of nearby objects on impedance by trying to tune an indoor antenna than I did by reading the antenna book. Surely you have similar stories.

[K1VSK]

from the above, it would seem like one vote for appliance operator training

[KA2P]

Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. The probability of increasing the difficulty of any licensing scheme is very low no matter what. Once you make the decision to lower the standards there is incredible pressure to continue dropping the standards.

Somebody may give me hope and prove me wrong, but I think we are headed towards a greatly simplified license structure and test. Probably an online test and one license class or maybe something like the motorcycle/hunting safety course.

We'll never see a practical exam.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]I think a lot of people get confused about the purpose of amateur radio. The purpose of amateur radio isn't for people who already know electronics to get on the air and talk about their medical conditions. The purpose of amateur radio is for a person to get on the air and learn
No, the purpose of Ham Radio as espoused by the FCC in the part 97 rules is to provide the country with a pool of trained operators and to advance the radio art.

The question pools and answers should never have been allowed in the public domain. If you think people can't memorize 300 questions and answers you're sorely mistaken. I know several people who passed the tests who can't tell you the formula for Ohm's law or for a half wave dipole.

Maybe it's time for another FCC petition.
This time to remove the questions and answers from the public domain.

[N4AUD]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 27 2007,17:51)]Quote[/b] ]I think a lot of people get confused about the purpose of amateur radio. The purpose of amateur radio isn't for people who already know electronics to get on the air and talk about their medical conditions. The purpose of amateur radio is for a person to get on the air and learn
No, the purpose of Ham Radio as espoused by the FCC in the part 97 rules is to provide the country with a pool of trained operators and to advance the radio art.

The question pools and answers should never have been allowed in the public domain. If you think people can't memorize 300 questions and answers you're sorely mistaken. I know several people who passed the tests who can't tell you the formula for Ohm's law or for a half wave dipole.

Maybe it's time for another FCC petition.
This time to remove the questions and answers from the public domain.
I can't imagine memorizing the entire General or Extra test, but I suppose it's possible.
As far as math formulas go, you DO have to memorize those, don't you? I've always had difficulty memorizing math formulas, but I do know where to look if I need them, so I guess I did LEARN the test materials.
I wish I could have taken actual sit-down classes to get into amateur radio but there were none available so I had to study and learn on my own. After I got on the air there were people to ask but there was (and is) a lot of bad information out there from people who SHOULD know stuff.
I look at the amateur licenses as licenses to learn. There are lots of things that you may understand in theory but you don't REALLY understand or know until you actually do them.
But I don't see the FCC making our tests harder, really. I don't think the FCC gives a flying flip about amateur radio.

[KE5FRF]

OK, it looks like this subject is going to take the place of the code-no code arguements, we've predicted as much.

I'm coining the new label for these threads "Test vs No-Test".
In other words, this subject is starting to deserve the "Beating the Dead Horse" pictures we so often see.

Can anyone post such a pic? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Anyway, the one realm of reason that still remains in amateur radio is the written testing. First, we must establish that the FCC does NOT make things harder or increase bureaucratic burdens...the trend is always to lessen or maintain. We won't ever see the tests get harder. We won't EVER see nonpublished question pools as long as there is a Volunteer Examiner program. The risk is too great for abuse when the question pools are unpublished, because undoubtedly many of the VE's who have access to the pools will publish or SELL them anyway. Thus, an unfair mess is the result. Publishing the question pools for everyone to see is the only way to establish fair testing with a volunteer program such as we have.
Bottom line, if you want harder tests, you'll have to convince the FCC to resume ownership of testing, and that will NEVER happen. Bank on it. They'd sooner dismantle the service than add another layer of beuraucracy.

The one thing we all must accept is that as much as we take ownership in this hobby, and pride in our license, we don't make the rules and have very little to do with making them. All we can do is voice our opinion, and hope that the Question Pool Committees hear our concerns and design the tests within the legal framework they MUST follow as constructively as possible.

Now, having said that, I am of the opinion that the Technician Test is just about right. It shouldn't be that hard to get an introductory ham radio license. The basic information that should be expected of the introductory licensee, IMHO:
Bandplans for their privelages
Regulatory laws that are applicable to their license class
RF safety
Basic operating rules and courtesies
Block understanding of the basic station equipment
Modes that they have privelages to use
Basic RF theory...basic concepts of alternating current and antenna resonance, for example.

The test should be easy enough for the average high school or middle school kid to pass, and even easy enough for really sharp preteens. After all, it is our present "novice" license.

And as far as I'm concerned, the present test pretty much does just that.

Now, the General class license should likewise be relatively easy to obtain, but obviously a little more difficult than the Tech. Again, it should basically be an operational test, yes, an "appliance test"...but it should cover the operating privelages of the General class operator, which are more liberal than the new HF Technican. I disagree that we somehow need to make the test harder because CW was dropped. This is the "filter" concept, and it just won't fly legally. You and I may indeed hope to keep the undeserving off the bands, but we can't test people with that kind of reasoning. We have to test with pertenant questions that satisfy ITU treaties as well as FCC regulations. There isn't justification for requiring the General licensee to know how to design a mixer or oscillator circuit. Regulations only require him to operate his station legally and without harmful interference.

So yes, the appliance operator is what we are legally bound to test for, nothing more.

I do think it is approprate to test the General class license holder for some relatively more advanced theory concepts. I think a General class ham ought to know how power supplies rectify AC, how AC current is generated, what resistors do and how to calculate E,I, and R in a circuit with Ohm's law. I also think the concept of series/parallel circuits ought to be introduced. But that is about as far as I think the average person ought to be tested..,Again, I don't think these are concepts that even a high school kid would have trouble with, and I think the General license ought to be obtainable by an average high school kid. The General license affords a pretty good command of the spectrum as far as privelages go, and if one is only interested in being an appliance operator, most would be happy with ending their license journey right there.

Again, I feel the current test does a pretty good job of covering the very basics in a way that an average person can understand.

Now, the Extra class license is the pinnacle as far as FCC law is concerned. The truth of the matter is that my eyes are open to the reality that many people have expressed here on QRZ that the Extra class is a doomed operating class. It will be the next to go. The General and Extra will everntually be made one class (along with all Advanced being absorbed)...I do not see how the FCC will be able to defend having a license for a service that isn't professional in nature be so (relatively) difficult to obtain. While I am the first to say I think it is a GOOD thing to have goals in amateur radio, and I will always maintain that it is a good thing to test people on advanced theory as is done with the Extra license, I also aknowledge the Politically Correct climate of the day and I know that it is very hard to justify the top tier of license class. It will eventually be combined with the General. Our license system will eventually look very similar to the Canadian and European systems.

Now, as long as it still remains, I believe, again, that the current Extra license test is pretty good. I think it is just hard enough to require effort for the average person. I think it forces someone to read and understand concepts. It forces someone to push their mind a little. Well, it pushed THE AVERAGE PERSON to do so, anyway. And again, the FCC, if it can legally justify its existance, it still has to keep the test reasonably obtainable by the ABOVE average high school kid. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

So, I think we need to focus on maintaining the status quo. If we beat the drums of change to hard, my friend, we will soon find the tests even EASIER than they are now. Do we want them EASIER? NO, I don't think so. Trust me, I think we need to keep this conversation to a minimum.

[W3MIV]

Foolish topic. Waste of bandwidth. Ain't gonna happen no matter how many petitions are foisted on the FCC nor who writes 'em.

Get over it.

[K6UEY]

I agree with Albert "It aint gonna happen".
Besides if the test was harder you would discriminate against that Cadre of unlicensed Hams who have all the answers how to change Amateur Radio and make advances to the state of the Art, #but are held back because they are not smart enough, or are too lazy to learn code at 5 WPM. # # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[k2gsp]

Actually, the easier solution would be to increase the size of the question pool and make it impossible to memorize.

[W5IEI]

Now that they have the standards low enough for them to get in,they want to toughen the easy part?

The horse is out of the barn.

[wb4old]

The written test will not be made more difficult.
Written testing will go the way of code testing. Every reason for elimination of the code test can and will be used against the written test. The last undue burden will be lifted from the otherwise qualified.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (wb4old @ Jan. 27 2007,18:58)]The written test will not be made more difficult.
Written testing will go the way of code testing. Every reason for elimination of the code test can and will be used against the written test. The last undue burden will be lifted from the otherwise qualified.
Quote[/b] ]The last undue burden will be lifted from the otherwise qualified.

As much as I hate to say this:

Otherwise Qualifed="breathing"

[K6UEY]

KI4SXC,
The problem with increasing the size of the pool,they would memorize only half of it and what are the odds that all the questions used would be in the other half. If that becomes the case they would petition to have the passing score lowered.

You can lead a smart ass to school but you can't make him learn !!

[N2RJ]

Just to ad to "It aint gonna happen."

You're gonna have a bunch of folks screaming "it's just a hobby!" and some others saying it's keeping them back and that the test should be dumbed down to just regulations and safety.

Remember when NCI had on their webpage their response to the no-code proposals. One of them was to beef up the written test.

They vehemently shouted it down.

This whole "code vs no code" thing was a smokescreen.

Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.

[wb4old]

Now you want to start a "breathing" test ? They will never stand for adding another requirement

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,19:02)]Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.
It wasn't too hard. I just didn't have the interest, so I didn't get on HF. It never was a real big deal to me not to get on HF.

Now, I'll take advantage of the fact that the code test is gone.

[KD5SHW]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 27 2007,16:51)]Quote[/b] ]I think a lot of people get confused about the purpose of amateur radio. The purpose of amateur radio isn't for people who already know electronics to get on the air and talk about their medical conditions. The purpose of amateur radio is for a person to get on the air and learn.
No, the purpose of Ham Radio as espoused by the FCC in the part 97 rules is to provide the country with a pool of trained operators and to advance the radio art.
This is another common fault. People are equating the amateur radio service with the amateur radio license exam.

The purpose of the exam: to make sure a person has the knowledge to run an amateur radio station safely and without causing interference.

Almost all you need to know to run a station is memorization. Sure you could look at your transmitter schematic and calculate how wide your ssb signal is, but why when you can just memorize the number?

The purpose of the amateur radio service: to give part of the rf spectrum to the public with rules that allow experimenting and self-learning.

If you want amateur radio to contribute to the art of radio then get to work experimenting. Create something new and post the results on the internet for others to learn from. If you want to contribute to the pool of trained operators then get on the air.

If you want to reduce experimenting then call everyone who asks how to build a dipole an appliance operator. If you want to reduce the pool of trained operators, be sure to discourage everyone who didn't pass the same code test you did that they're a NCT, Extra Lite, etc.

The quality of amateur radio is up to you. It really has little to do with the FCC or the difficulty of a test. I know it is easier to see something you don't like and blame it on someone else, but the reality is our fate is in our own hands. I don't buy into the "amateur radio is dying" viewpoint anyway, but if you do then get to work fixing it.

Quote[/b] ][quote=AB2MH,Jan. 27 2007,19:02]Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.

Learning the code is outdated and irrelevant to anyone who does not wish to operate the mode. It is not an indicator of moral quality or a person's intelligence. The ability to read morse code does not translate to operator skill, only one's ability to read morse code. I'm not the only one who believes this. The FCC has looked at the issue and seen the same.

So how does your second statement apply to me? It seems there is an error in there somewhere. Why did I learn the code? I had a summer with nothing to do, so I used the time to learn code. I can see how someone who has a job, obligations, and a life wouldn't have the time to learn code.

It easy to call a person who doesn't want to learn a skill they'll never use lazy, but it is only a sad attempt to hide the fact that there is no rational argument for keeping it. Don't you remember that was the original reason for the international treaty? The idea was that everyone would be able to receive an SOS message. With the availability of modern technology, if your plan is to get on a boat where your only means of communications is a CW only transceiver, I think I'll stay behind. Enjoy your cruise.

[K0HWY]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Jan. 27 2007,15:33)]... is it time to rethink what direction we are going?
We should have rethought the direction before we took it.

As I've said before, lowering the bar is much easier than raising it. The FCC has clearly shown the direction it wants to take and making the testing process harder isn't in the cards. From here on out, the tests will be progressively easier (if that's possible) until eventually someone realizes that the tests have become an "unnecessary burden." Another poster in here (can't recall the call) said he figured that by 2010, amateur radio testing would be history. Personally, I don't look for it that soon but you can bet it's in the works.

At this point, trying to revive the prestige associated with being involved in amateur radio is hopeless. We're left to accept things as they are or leave the service. It's that simple. I don't like it any better than you do, but that's the way it is.

Perhaps the future won't be as bleak as some predict. There are all kinds of possibilities. Time will tell. Amateur radio as we once knew it is dying fast. However, there'll still be some fun and educational things to do with what's left.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ Jan. 27 2007,20:21)]The quality of amateur radio is up to you. #It really has little to do with the FCC or the difficulty of a test. #I know it is easier to see something you don't like and blame it on someone else, but the reality is our fate is in Your own hands. #I don't buy into the "amateur radio is dying" viewpoint anyway, but if you do then get to work fixing it.
Or find something else to do.

[K1VSK]

Again, i had not intended this to be a discussion on #prestige, morse code or elitism - it was intended to focus on the deterioration about standards and the goals we set for ourselves.
If you truely feel it's too late or there is nothing that can be done about it, that's an attitude I will hopefully never share.
One last thing - if you choose to respond, please do so with the mentality that it is not impossible to change this and assume for the monent there is a chance - would you choose to revamp the written testing process?>

[K0HWY]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Jan. 27 2007,19:39)]Again, i had not intended this to be a discussion on #prestige, morse code or elitism - it was intended to focus on the deterioration about standards and the goals we set for ourselves.
If you truely feel it's too late or there is nothing that can be done about it, that's an attitude I will hopefully never share
That's good because I never mentioned Morse code or elitism. And prestige was mentioned because it goes hand in hand with the standards.

If you feel there is something that can be done about it, go do it. Complaining about it in this forum isn't going to bring about a change. The FCC has spoken. It's up to you if you want to challenge their authority. Personally, I think it would be a waste of time, based on the big picture. But what do I know? Just another opinion.

Your idea is good and well intended. Good luck in your pursuit.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Jan. 27 2007,19:39)]Again, i had not intended this to be a discussion on prestige, morse code or elitism - it was intended to focus on the deterioration about standards and the goals we set for ourselves.
If you truely feel it's too late or there is nothing that can be done about it, that's an attitude I will hopefully never share
I'm with you OM!

I want the standards to be high.
But I also know what's going on. I know why it's happening. Lawyers rule the world, my friend, and the trend in society is to make everything easy to get, something for nothing. Short of preventing people from being a danger to themselves or others, the government can't prevent people from having access to public resources. So, the government tests drivers, as a for instance, on the rules of the road, and they test them on operating a vehicle legally and safely. That is all the government can do. They can't make you take a test on the theory of the internal combustion engine to get a driver's license. They can't make you draw a schematic of your car's wiring harness or your brake system. They can't give a test where you demonstrate how to change a flat tire. All they can do is make you drive some prearranged course, with prearranged conditions and traffic variables. And all they can do is require you to answer some basic questions about traffic laws.

It's the same thing with amateur radio. The people who make laws in this country can't be worried about our hobby. They aren't in the business of caring that the radio spectrum is populated by smart people. They can't legally operate a country club. Therefore, they have to test us based on the regulatory standards that international threaty force upon them.

As of now, those standards are still somewhat high, so the FCC has leeway. Believe me, I don't think the FCC desires any more K1MANs on the bands than they already have. But the trend is definately moving toward easing the requirements, not beefening them.

[K6UEY]

I agree we have crossed over the point of no return, The basic reason for getting into Ham Radio has changed.

Many of us joined because we had an honest interest and wanted to learn how Radio Communications really worked.
It was not as it is today, having time on our hands,and wanting some form of social behavior to occupy our time.

As a matter of fact for most of us time was a rationed quantity, with job responsibilities and a family to raise, a house to maintain, we really had to jockey our schedules to fit in Amateur Radio. But our desire to learn allowed us to find the time!!

For many the knowledge that was forth coming aided our vocation.The fraternal bond helped us work as a team in our individual work relations. All that is no more, the technical interest is no longer there, all the traditions have been trashed, the fraternal bond has been replaced by the " ME, ME, ME, " generation. Reminds me of the take off on the Boy Scout Pledge " On my honor I will do my best, to help my self and cheat the rest ".

No #Amateur Radio can never be rebuilt, the KEY ingredients are no longer available .

This is the 21st Century, things are done differently !!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[N0WVA]

If we eliminated the multiple choice and kept the same technical level in the questions, then I believe we could be sure that the new ham would have at least some usable knowledge about the basics of ham radio.

Just flat out answer the question by written answer...no a,b,c,or d junk. Of course the VE's would probably whine about it taking more time grade the tests, and the VE would actually have to posess some understanding himself to know when the applicant is giving the correct answer even though its not exactly like the official one.

[k2gsp]

Quote[/b] (N0WVA @ Jan. 26 2007,19:23)]If we eliminated the multiple choice and kept the same technical level in the questions, then I believe we could be sure that the new ham would have at least some usable knowledge about the basics of ham radio.

Just flat out answer the question by written answer...no a,b,c,or d junk. Of course the VE's would probably whine about it taking more time grade the tests, and the VE would actually have to posess some understanding himself to know when the applicant is giving the correct answer even though its not exactly like the official one.
Hey don't bust on the VE's. I appreciate the work they do. The ones I have dealt with have been great.

[KA4DPO]

I think the FCC impregnated the pup when they dropped element one without revamping the testing at the same time. I don't know if it will ever change at this point but it was surely a mistake..

[KC0OFZ]

Just eliminate all testing, combine Part 95 with Part 97 and everyone will go away happy. We will have this HUGE influx of all these superior persons, we will advance our cause by at least 75 years.
There is no reason that someone should be held back by those unfair, outdated, and HARD written tests.
We MUST move now to eliminate them, our salvation depends on these "no test" hams

[KC7ATO]

Notice to all hams: GET OVER IT! In the very near future ALL testing will be abolished and it will be the same as getting a hunting or fishing license. You want to use Morse..you buy a Morse Stamp endorsement. Like RTTY or HF get the appropriate stamp. The FCC just haven't realized what a "money machine" licensing can be. "USER FEES" are the new wave of the future.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,16:02)]Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.
I would be a lot more impressed with the people whining about dumbing down if more of them had graduate degrees in electronics rather than thinking that the formula for cutting a dipole is 'electronics theory.'

[wb4old]

Would Georgia Tech work? AYellow Jacket will mess up a Dog

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 27 2007,22:07)]I would be a lot more impressed with the people whining about dumbing down if more of them had graduate degrees in electronics rather than thinking that the formula for cutting a dipole is 'electronics theory.'
While I can understand your point, and agree with it a certain extent, I'll also point out that there a lot of folks who can build a usable transmitter and receiver out of a Radio Shack store... and they don't have degrees in electronics. Hell, some of 'em don't have a degree of any kind. And I'm sure there are even a few that don't even have a high school diploma.

A pretty piece of paper from an institute of putatively higher learning doesn't mean that one is better than others who don't possess that piece of paper. It also doesn't mean they actually know anything.

So let's not get on that "I have a graduate degree in electronics" schtick...

The simple fact is that it would be good to have a bunch of folks in the US who actually could build a transmitter from scratch... and yes, I know that it is unlikely in the extreme that there would be a situation where all the existing transceivers were suddenly rendered inoperative.

But why shouldn't Extra be the best of them? The folks who actually can McGyver a transceiver? What's wrong with rewarding those who go that extra mile to learn how these things work at the lowest levels with a bit of extra spectrum for their use only?

The simple fact is that all of the question pools have been dumbed down. And I think that's a bad thing.

[wb4old]

The written test will not be made more difficult.
Written testing will go the way of code testing. Every reason for elimination of the code test can and will be used against the written test. The last undue burden will be lifted from the otherwise qualified.

It is not a bad thing. The Elitist that held that those who can not or will not pass code a test are lazy and will bring the demise of ham radio are wrong!
Those that hold people should pass any written test are wrong. They are elitist. It will not bring the demise the of Ham radio.
It was said the code test would be always be, the elitists were wrong
It is said the written test will and should always be. The Elitist will be wrong.
The written test should not keep anyone otherwise qualified from being on HF. The test will be something to be proud of passing as long as EVERYONE can pass it and if they can not. They pass anyway.(see pro code)
To the NoCode Licensees that would stop ANYONE from operating HF you are the ELITE .

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 27 2007,22:07)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,16:02)]Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.
I would be a lot more impressed with the people whining about dumbing down if more of them had graduate degrees in electronics rather than thinking that the formula for cutting a dipole is 'electronics theory.'
You have to get a graduate degree to understand electronics theory? Funny, I can read a manufacturer's data sheet for semiconductors and integrated circuits, understand atomic and electron flow theory, calculate PCB component values, trace digital logic states when various input conditions are met, use test equipment like scopes, frequency counters, and function generators, and read and draw schematics without setting foot in the first graduate level class. It took a lot of training and self discipline, but I do believe have a grasp of electronics theory without a formal education.

Marty, let go of that idea that only degreed people are capable. It isn't true.

But I do agree with you. I for one admit that antenna theory is a hole in my knowledge, but I don't think that knowing the formula for a resonant dipole is electronics theory's most challenging topic.

[wb4old]

Requiring knowledge you are elitist. You are who is making ham radio a dying just a hobby.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 27 2007,22:07)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,16:02)]Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.
I would be a lot more impressed with the people whining about dumbing down if more of them had graduate degrees in electronics rather than thinking that the formula for cutting a dipole is 'electronics theory.'
Who cares about what you think.

Right now a bachelor's degree (in EE) is sufficient for me, although I do plan to do a masters' sometime. Hopefully I'll start before I'm 30.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 28 2007,00:02)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 27 2007,22:07)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,16:02)]Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.
I would be a lot more impressed with the people whining about dumbing down if more of them had graduate degrees in electronics rather than thinking that the formula for cutting a dipole is 'electronics theory.'
You have to get a graduate degree to understand electronics theory? Funny, I can read a manufacturer's data sheet for semiconductors and integrated circuits, understand atomic and electron flow theory, calculate PCB component values, trace digital logic states when various input conditions are met, use test equipment like scopes, frequency counters, and function generators, and read and draw schematics without setting foot in the first graduate level class. It took a lot of training and self discipline, but I do believe have a grasp of electronics theory without a formal education.

Marty, let go of that idea that only degreed people are capable. It isn't true.

But I do agree with you. I for one admit that antenna theory is a hole in my knowledge, but I don't think that knowing the formula for a resonant dipole is electronics theory's most challenging topic.
Marty isn't just requiring a degree, he wants a graduate degree, so us folks with just bachelor's degrees are inferior, eh?

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,22:26)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 27 2007,22:07)]I would be a lot more impressed with the people whining about dumbing down if more of them had graduate degrees in electronics rather than thinking that the formula for cutting a dipole is 'electronics theory.'
While I can understand your point, and agree with it a certain extent, I'll also point out that there a lot of folks who can build a usable transmitter and receiver out of a Radio Shack store... and they don't have degrees in electronics. Hell, some of 'em don't have a degree of any kind. And I'm sure there are even a few that don't even have a high school diploma.

A pretty piece of paper from an institute of putatively higher learning doesn't mean that one is better than others who don't possess that piece of paper. It also doesn't mean they actually know anything.

So let's not get on that "I have a graduate degree in electronics" schtick...

The simple fact is that it would be good to have a bunch of folks in the US who actually could build a transmitter from scratch... and yes, I know that it is unlikely in the extreme that there would be a situation where all the existing transceivers were suddenly rendered inoperative.

But why shouldn't Extra be the best of them? The folks who actually can McGyver a transceiver? What's wrong with rewarding those who go that extra mile to learn how these things work at the lowest levels with a bit of extra spectrum for their use only?

The simple fact is that all of the question pools have been dumbed down. And I think that's a bad thing.
But what you don't get is that i have a friggin' degree in electrical engineering.

Marty just put his foot in his mouth.

I've even taken a couple of graduate classes in my final year and the work wasn't that much harder.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 27 2007,21:02)]You have to get a graduate degree to understand electronics theory?

Marty, let go of that idea that only degreed people are capable. It isn't true.
I guess I didn't make my point clear.

(You have no idea how funny the concept of me thinking only degreed people are capable is.)

The whiners about 'dumbing down' demand that the hobby be a "challenge". Getting an amateur license in the US has never been a challenge, and dropping element 1 has changed that very little. People who whine about 'dumbing down' would be a lot more credible if they were more informed on the topic themselves. "had a graduate degree" was just a shorthand way of driving that point home.

(graduate degree was picked because it would them beyond my formal education level in the field, by the way.)

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,00:59)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 27 2007,21:02)]You have to get a graduate degree to understand electronics theory?

Marty, let go of that idea that only degreed people are capable. It isn't true.
I guess I didn't make my point clear.

(You have no idea how funny the concept of me thinking only degreed people are capable is.)

The whiners about 'dumbing down' demand that the hobby be a "challenge". Getting an amateur license in the US has never been a challenge, and dropping element 1 has changed that very little. People who whine about 'dumbing down' would be a lot more credible if they were more informed on the topic themselves. "had a graduate degree" was just a shorthand way of driving that point home.

(graduate degree was picked because it would them beyond my formal education level in the field, by the way.)
So if it was never a challenge, why was element 1 an insurmountable obstacle for many?

[kn4ds]

Education level is completely irrelevant to ham radio... what one actually knows and is competent with is not denoted by a piece of paper signed by the head moron at an alleged institute of higher learning.

I know that's contrary to the accepted way of thinking... college automatically grants someone respect/privileges/whatever.

Not here... don't go waving whatever sheepskin in my face. It impresses me not.

[N2RJ]

Dave, that has been the story of my life.

I started college late, but I excelled. However, I was doing just fine without the piece of paper. In fact, other than the fact that I don't have to explain why I didn't have education beyond a HS diploma on my resume, little has changed.

Well I shouldn't say that. I did learn a lot of different things in a completely different field (EE) versus my current field (information technology). The plan was (and probably still is) to move into an electronics career at some point. But I'm good where I am right now so I don't know if I'll do that.

99% of my career skills are what I picked up on my own. I don't think that's going to change, but to advance further I needed the piece of paper.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:02)]So if it was never a challenge, why was element 1 an insurmountable obstacle for many?
I've never met anyone for whom element 1 was an "insurmountable obstacle."

On the other hand, almost everyone I've met who was in favor of dropping element 1 had already passed it.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,21:54)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 27 2007,22:07)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,16:02)]Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.
I would be a lot more impressed with the people whining about dumbing down if more of them had graduate degrees in electronics rather than thinking that the formula for cutting a dipole is 'electronics theory.'
Who cares about what you think.

Right now a bachelor's degree (in EE) is sufficient for me, although I do plan to do a masters' sometime. Hopefully I'll start before I'm 30.
Well you obviously do.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:27)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:02)]So if it was never a challenge, why was element 1 an insurmountable obstacle for many?
I've never met anyone for whom element 1 was an "insurmountable obstacle."

On the other hand, almost everyone I've met who was in favor of dropping element 1 had already passed it.
Meet me... I'm Dave, KE4UWL... I was in favor of dropping Element 1, and I didn't pass it.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,22:05)]Education level is completely irrelevant to ham radio... what one actually knows and is competent with is not denoted by a piece of paper signed by the head moron at an alleged institute of higher learning.
And if you substitute "federal agency" for "alleged institute of higher learning"?

You're getting close to the point I was trying to make. Who cares if you had to take the bus 300 miles to send perfect 20wpm copy in front of an FCC examiner?

This whole business of 'extra lite' and 'no code general' is all a bunch of noise by people who think that the FCC exam is more valuable than the exams it takes to get that sheepskin.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,22:29)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:27)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:02)]So if it was never a challenge, why was element 1 an insurmountable obstacle for many?
I've never met anyone for whom element 1 was an "insurmountable obstacle."

On the other hand, almost everyone I've met who was in favor of dropping element 1 had already passed it.
Meet me... I'm Dave, KE4UWL... I was in favor of dropping Element 1, and I didn't pass it.
Pleased to meet you.

"Didn't pass" isn't the same as "insurmountable obstacle". Are you saying that you could never have passed 5wpm, or merely that you didn't?

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:27)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:02)]So if it was never a challenge, why was element 1 an insurmountable obstacle for many?
I've never met anyone for whom element 1 was an "insurmountable obstacle."

On the other hand, almost everyone I've met who was in favor of dropping element 1 had already passed it.
You're either lying or ignoring all of the NCT's right here on QRZ.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:29)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,21:54)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 27 2007,22:07)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,16:02)]Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.
I would be a lot more impressed with the people whining about dumbing down if more of them had graduate degrees in electronics rather than thinking that the formula for cutting a dipole is 'electronics theory.'
Who cares about what you think.

Right now a bachelor's degree (in EE) is sufficient for me, although I do plan to do a masters' sometime. Hopefully I'll start before I'm 30.
Well you obviously do.
Don't flatter yourself.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:34)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,22:05)]Education level is completely irrelevant to ham radio... what one actually knows and is competent with is not denoted by a piece of paper signed by the head moron at an alleged institute of higher learning.
And if you substitute "federal agency" for "alleged institute of higher learning"?

You're getting close to the point I was trying to make. Who cares if you had to take the bus 300 miles to send perfect 20wpm copy in front of an FCC examiner?

This whole business of 'extra lite' and 'no code general' is all a bunch of noise by people who think that the FCC exam is more valuable than the exams it takes to get that sheepskin.
The problem is one of signal to noise.

A minimum baseline helps to put more signal and less noise on the air.

A hard test isn't going to keep away every yo-yo that wants to make mischief, but making privileges harder to earn tends to make the average licensee at least think twice before doing something that would make him/her lose their privileges.

That, to me is the whole point of a technical test.

I know that you would just love for it to be (and have proposed that it be) dumbed down to regulations and safety, so it looks as though I am talking to a brick wall.

[K7JEM]

I really don't even understand why the test has to be "hard".

I would rather have newbies that were interested in radio, and wanted to work with radio, and had good attitudes, even if they didn't know squat about a dipole.

As someone already said, the worst thing we can do is equate the ham radio test with ham radio itself.

Joe

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:46)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:27)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:02)]So if it was never a challenge, why was element 1 an insurmountable obstacle for many?
I've never met anyone for whom element 1 was an "insurmountable obstacle."

On the other hand, almost everyone I've met who was in favor of dropping element 1 had already passed it.
You're either lying or ignoring all of the NCT's right here on QRZ.
Very few of the NCTs here have ever claimed that they couldn't pass element 1. Most of the opposition, despite your attempt to characterize it otherwise, has been from lack of desire to take element 1, not from lack of ability to pass it.

There may well be people for whom it was an insurmountable problem. I have never encountered one. (Well, maybe KE4UWL. We'll have to see how he responds to my questions.)

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:47)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:29)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,21:54)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 27 2007,22:07)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,16:02)]Those who were against retaining code only used the "it's outdated/irrelevant" thing as an excuse to not say "it's too hard"

The bar was too high for them so instead of working to reach it, it had to be lowered.
I would be a lot more impressed with the people whining about dumbing down if more of them had graduate degrees in electronics rather than thinking that the formula for cutting a dipole is 'electronics theory.'
Who cares about what you think.

Right now a bachelor's degree (in EE) is sufficient for me, although I do plan to do a masters' sometime. Hopefully I'll start before I'm 30.
Well you obviously do.
Don't flatter yourself.
I don't.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:55)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:46)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:27)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:02)]So if it was never a challenge, why was element 1 an insurmountable obstacle for many?
I've never met anyone for whom element 1 was an "insurmountable obstacle."

On the other hand, almost everyone I've met who was in favor of dropping element 1 had already passed it.
You're either lying or ignoring all of the NCT's right here on QRZ.
Very few of the NCTs here have ever claimed that they couldn't pass element 1. Most of the opposition, despite your attempt to characterize it otherwise, has been from lack of desire to take element 1, not from lack of ability to pass it.

There may well be people for whom it was an insurmountable problem. I have never encountered one. (Well, maybe KE4UWL. We'll have to see how he responds to my questions.)
No, you are wrong.

Many here have said that element 1 was too difficult to pass.

"don't wanna" for 15 years? Come on now, Marty, I wasn't born yesterday.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,23:50)]A hard test isn't going to keep away every yo-yo that wants to make mischief, but making privileges harder to earn tends to make the average licensee at least think twice before doing something that would make him/her lose their privileges.

That, to me is the whole point of a technical test.
You could do the same thing with any barrier.

Charge $500 for a license, and $100 a year to keep it.

That would weed out the riff-raff, only those truly devoted would bother getting a license.

Maybe a gold leafed certificate to hang on the wall.

Joe

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:50)]A minimum baseline helps to put more signal and less noise on the air.

A hard test isn't going to keep away every yo-yo that wants to make mischief, but making privileges harder to earn tends to make the average licensee at least think twice before doing something that would make him/her lose their privileges.

That, to me is the whole point of a technical test.

I know that you would just love for it to be (and have proposed that it be) dumbed down to regulations and safety, so it looks as though I am talking to a brick wall.
The minimum baseline for putting 'more signal' on the air is desire. People who want to do something are pretty self selecting.

All the technical test does is put a stumbling block in their way.

And no, I wouldn't "love" a "reduction." I think a realignment of test content to regulation only makes sense, and I've yet to hear a compelling argument to the contrary; but I certainly have no emotional investment in that outcome -- which is decades away at the earliest.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,01:53)]I really don't even understand why the test has to be "hard".

I would rather have newbies that were interested in radio, and wanted to work with radio, and had good attitudes, even if they didn't know squat about a dipole.

As someone already said, the worst thing we can do is equate the ham radio test with ham radio itself.

Joe
There has to be a minimum baseline or else people will just get on the air, set up their stations AKTTR and splatter garbage, much like 11 meters is today.

The test being hard ensures that people take an effort and appreciate their privileges more. While I'm sure you claim you don't see that, it is in fact true.

Something just given to someone is easily squandered. Something that someone earns is not.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,02:00)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:50)]A minimum baseline helps to put more signal and less noise on the air.

A hard test isn't going to keep away every yo-yo that wants to make mischief, but making privileges harder to earn tends to make the average licensee at least think twice before doing something that would make him/her lose their privileges.

That, to me is the whole point of a technical test.

I know that you would just love for it to be (and have proposed that it be) dumbed down to regulations and safety, so it looks as though I am talking to a brick wall.
The minimum baseline for putting 'more signal' on the air is desire. People who want to do something are pretty self selecting.

All the technical test does is put a stumbling block in their way.

And no, I wouldn't "love" a "reduction." I think a realignment of test content to regulation only makes sense, and I've yet to hear a compelling argument to the contrary; but I certainly have no emotional investment in that outcome -- which is decades away at the earliest.
Wrong.

11 meters is a perfect example of how people can be nuisances without necessarily being self selecting.

AKTTR, splatter splatter splatter, echo mike, roger beep, the full works.

No test required, nothing, yet no one is killing themselves (at least no significant number anyway) nor is the FCC decimating the numbers to any significant degree.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,01:58)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,23:50)]A hard test isn't going to keep away every yo-yo that wants to make mischief, but making privileges harder to earn tends to make the average licensee at least think twice before doing something that would make him/her lose their privileges.

That, to me is the whole point of a technical test.
You could do the same thing with any barrier.

Charge $500 for a license, and $100 a year to keep it.

That would weed out the riff-raff, only those truly devoted would bother getting a license.

Maybe a gold leafed certificate to hang on the wall.

Joe
I have zero problems with license fees and you know that.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:58)]No, you are wrong.

Many here have said that element 1 was too difficult to pass.

"don't wanna" for 15 years? Come on now, Marty, I wasn't born yesterday.
How many is "many"? I've seen a few make that claim, although I've yet to see any of them make it convincingly.

I didn't bother to get into amateur radio for over 30 years because I didn't want to bother with Morse code. Why is 15 hard to believe?

I'm pretty sure, given the kind of hazing they'd get from old timers, there are those for whom the hazing for claiming they couldn't would be less tedious than the hazing for admitting they wouldn't.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,02:06)]How many is "many"? I've seen a few make that claim, although I've yet to see any of them make it convincingly.
Many is a lot that you either don't see or deliberately ignore.

Quote[/b] ]
I didn't bother to get into amateur radio for over 30 years because I didn't want to bother with Morse code. Why is 15 hard to believe?

It isn't hard to believe at all, but why did you not want to bother with morse code?

Quote[/b] ]I'm pretty sure, given the kind of hazing they'd get from old timers, there are those for whom the hazing for claiming they couldn't would be less tedious than the hazing for admitting they wouldn't.

I've got nothing but welcoming with open arms from old timers. Where is this hazing you speak of? To me it seems like self manufactured persecution.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 28 2007,00:01)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,01:53)]I really don't even understand why the test has to be "hard".

I would rather have newbies that were interested in radio, and wanted to work with radio, and had good attitudes, even if they didn't know squat about a dipole.

As someone already said, the worst thing we can do is equate the ham radio test with ham radio itself.

Joe
There has to be a minimum baseline or else people will just get on the air, set up their stations AKTTR and splatter garbage, much like 11 meters is today.

The test being hard ensures that people take an effort and appreciate their privileges more. While I'm sure you claim you don't see that, it is in fact true.

Something just given to someone is easily squandered. Something that someone earns is not.
Commercial business band licenses are just handed out. There is no test, but people respect their privileges.

FM licenses are awarded to the highest bidder, TV and cellular too.

GMRS licenses are given to anyone with $85.

The fact is, people do just get their radios and get on the air. The ham radio test in no way prepares them for operational issues. A person who passes the technician test is probably no more capable to set up a station than someone who has not passed the test.

If people squander things they haven't "earned", then most hobbies should be filled with people who are lazy and don't care. Model rocketry enthusiasts don't have to get a federal license before they can launch. It would seem to me that these folks should be fouling up our airspace on a regular basis, but we don't hear too much about it, or worry about it. Same with model planes and robotics.

Gun enthusiasts don't usually need any kind of license, yet most of them seem like they respect their hobby. Yes, there are wackos, but they are in every endeavor.

The reason we license is because the government has always had control of radio frequencies. It is not necessarily to make the hobby any better.

Joe

[ky5u]

Geez guys, your position won! You don't have to make excuses for the slackers any more. Lets give them a chance to dazzle us as promised sans that mean old code test! LOL!

[W5IEI]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,00:23)]Geez guys, your position won! You don't have to make excuses for the slackers any more. Lets give them a chance to dazzle us as promised sans that mean old code test! LOL!
Don't forget,Marty says the NCT's never claimed they were going to save ham radio!!

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:36)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,22:29)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,01:27)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:02)]So if it was never a challenge, why was element 1 an insurmountable obstacle for many?
I've never met anyone for whom element 1 was an "insurmountable obstacle."

On the other hand, almost everyone I've met who was in favor of dropping element 1 had already passed it.
Meet me... I'm Dave, KE4UWL... I was in favor of dropping Element 1, and I didn't pass it.
Pleased to meet you.

"Didn't pass" isn't the same as "insurmountable obstacle". Are you saying that you could never have passed 5wpm, or merely that you didn't?
I was replying to your second paragraph, not the first, and I should've cut that. I left it in the quote, so my reply wasn't as clear as it could've been.

No, Element 1 wasn't insurmountable. I learned some of the characters long, long ago, and still know some of them.

I could have learned the code, could have passed it. I didn't. But it wasn't insurmountable.

I do think that a lot of folks are upset about the code test going away for a couple of reasons... one is prestige. There's always been a certain amount of that for those 20wpm Extras, and the 13wpm Generals. I don't mean to start an argument about whether this should have been the case, just stating the facts.

But mostly, I think they're upset that those of us who did not take and pass the code test are being given something they had to work (and for some, they worked very hard) for. I think there's a certain amount of justifiable resentment of that.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,02:23)]Geez guys, your position won! You don't have to make excuses for the slackers any more. Lets give them a chance to dazzle us as promised sans that mean old code test! LOL!
Don't look for any razzle dazzle from this station.

I do believe there'll be some that contribute significantly to "the advancement of the radio art" in the future, and they'll be no-coders. I don't know how they'll contribute, or what those contributions will be.

But it's silly to think that removal of the code is going to "save ham radio."

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] ]I do think that a lot of folks are upset about the code test going away for a couple of reasons... one is prestige. There's always been a certain amount of that for those 20wpm Extras, and the 13wpm Generals. I don't mean to start an argument about whether this should have been the case, just stating the facts.

But mostly, I think they're upset that those of us who did not take and pass the code test are being given something they had to work (and for some, they worked very hard) for. I think there's a certain amount of justifiable resentment of that.

There is a third reason that some of us don't like the code being eliminated as a requirement, and it has very little to do with US. It has to do with the new ham, the one who just hears about amateur radio in high school science class next year and thinks he might like to try it. He goes and gets his license, maybe even up to Extra class all in one sitting, and never has to think about learning the code...heck, maybe even never HEARS about the code. I'm afraid that without a requirement, he has no motivation to consider learning it and therefore will never make the attept. TO ME, this is sad because telegraphy is an ART long associated with ham radio. Like so many other forms of art or craft in this modern age, without passing the art down it eventually dies or is mastered by only the rare individual. We can talk about "Elmering" and encouraging CW use all day long, but the fact remains that truthfully learning CW has to be a personal decision and comes from within. As it stood as a carrot, there were at least a considerable number of hams who made the attempt and many of us discovered it was worthwhile and use the mode. Getting HF privelages was a good motivator. Now, that motivator is gone forever, and I fear so eventually will be a reasonable number of CW users.

Anyway, the point is moot, and I've accepted the change. But I did want to add that third less than selfish reason for not wanting element 1 dropped. It is bad for new hams and it is bad for a dying art. (which is far from dead YET by the way)

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]I've never met anyone for whom element 1 was an "insurmountable obstacle."
I can come up with 25 who claimed just that on QRZ.com.
That's usually the first sentence we saw in almost all of the posts made by NCT's on why they can't learn, or don't want to have to learn the code. Now the target has shifted to written testing.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 28 2007,00:03)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,02:00)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 27 2007,22:50)]A minimum baseline helps to put more signal and less noise on the air.

A hard test isn't going to keep away every yo-yo that wants to make mischief, but making privileges harder to earn tends to make the average licensee at least think twice before doing something that would make him/her lose their privileges.

That, to me is the whole point of a technical test.

I know that you would just love for it to be (and have proposed that it be) dumbed down to regulations and safety, so it looks as though I am talking to a brick wall.
The minimum baseline for putting 'more signal' on the air is desire. People who want to do something are pretty self selecting.

All the technical test does is put a stumbling block in their way.

And no, I wouldn't "love" a "reduction." I think a realignment of test content to regulation only makes sense, and I've yet to hear a compelling argument to the contrary; but I certainly have no emotional investment in that outcome -- which is decades away at the earliest.
Wrong.

11 meters is a perfect example of how people can be nuisances without necessarily being self selecting.

AKTTR, splatter splatter splatter, echo mike, roger beep, the full works.

No test required, nothing, yet no one is killing themselves (at least no significant number anyway) nor is the FCC decimating the numbers to any significant degree.
Besides irradiating themselves and their neighbors, perhaps.

Oh, and sticking a finger into a live amplifier probably changes their outlook.

But other than that, no harm no foul, I suppose.....

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,02:19)]Commercial business band licenses are just handed out. There is no test, but people respect their privileges.
These are handed out to corporations, whose business it is to make money.

It isn't "just a hobby" for them. They have more to lose than just their priviliges.

It is a non-issue for them because the bottom line is affected if they don't behave and the FCC takes away their license.

Quote[/b] ]
FM licenses are awarded to the highest bidder, TV and cellular too.

Broadcast and cellular are only supporting my position, Joe.

I know people who work in each of those industries. Very good friends of mine and some of them are ham radio operators too. They are degreed professionals and the companies they work for (Disney, Viacom, GE, Verizon) didn't just hire some yo-yo off the street.

And again, we're dealing with a corporate entity, not an individual who is engaged in a hobby. They have a lot more to lose than "just a hobby."


Quote[/b] ]GMRS licenses are given to anyone with $85.

And most people don't get a license because of sheer ignorance, or they are too cheap to spend the $85.

Quote[/b] ]The fact is, people do just get their radios and get on the air. The ham radio test in no way prepares them for operational issues. A person who passes the technician test is probably no more capable to set up a station than someone who has not passed the test.

That is true, but if you look at FRS, CB and 11 meters freeband, there is a lot of junk being spewed out. I put in the FRS/GMRS channels in my radio to scan and quite frequently some yo-yo is broadcasting music, swearing or otherwise breaking the rules.

11 meters and CB - no need to go there, pretty self explanatory.


Quote[/b] ]If people squander things they haven't "earned", then most hobbies should be filled with people who are lazy and don't care. Model rocketry enthusiasts don't have to get a federal license before they can launch. It would seem to me that these folks should be fouling up our airspace on a regular basis, but we don't hear too much about it, or worry about it. Same with model planes and robotics.

But pyrotechnicists and pyrotechnicians (I'm one of them) are strictly controlled by the Government. I can't just shoot off 1.3G in my back yard without Government authorization, at least not around here. I also have to obey minimum set-back and notify the fire department. I also had to undergo training and work with a pyrotechnics company and at least one person who puts on the show in a particular area has to obtain a license in the state.

Model rocket and model plane folks are also dealing with a very small scale. People who fly larger planes have to get a pilot's license, and people who launch larger rockets have to go through a whole bunch of red tape.

Quote[/b] ]Gun enthusiasts don't usually need any kind of license, yet most of them seem like they respect their hobby. Yes, there are wackos, but they are in every endeavor.

That one is a special case and is constitutionally protected in the USA and part of our culture. In many parts of the world, a license is required to own a gun.

However, even in the USA, in order to carry your gun in public, in many places you do need a license, and in many cases do need to complete a training course and spend some time at the range.

In fact concealed carry is extremely hard to get in some places.

Quote[/b] ]The reason we license is because the government has always had control of radio frequencies. It is not necessarily to make the hobby any better.

Wrong. The reason we license is to ensure that those using the airwaves comply with a minimum standard and are less likely to interfere with other services, and if they do, they know how to fix it or at least identify the problem.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 28 2007,08:56)]There is a third reason that some of us don't like the code being eliminated as a requirement, and it has very little to do with US. It has to do with the new ham, the one who just hears about amateur radio in high school science class next year and thinks he might like to try it. He goes and gets his license, maybe even up to Extra class all in one sitting, and never has to think about learning the code...heck, maybe even never HEARS about the code. I'm afraid that without a requirement, he has no motivation to consider learning it and therefore will never make the attept. TO ME, this is sad because telegraphy is an ART long associated with ham radio. Like so many other forms of art or craft in this modern age, without passing the art down it eventually dies or is mastered by only the rare individual. We can talk about "Elmering" and encouraging CW use all day long, but the fact remains that truthfully learning CW has to be a personal decision and comes from within. As it stood as a carrot, there were at least a considerable number of hams who made the attempt and many of us discovered it was worthwhile and use the mode. Getting HF privelages was a good motivator. Now, that motivator is gone forever, and I fear so eventually will be a reasonable number of CW users.
Any hobby or practice has things such as this. In guns, it could be said that black powder shooting is similar. Yet we don't make people that want to shoot a gun learn proper black powder operation. And we don't worry that black powder shooting will go away due to there not being a test about it.

It isn't the purpose of a federal test to maintain some tradition, or "lost art". It is up to the people in the hobby to maintain these traditions, which they do. If they don't, then that art will die out.

I would be very surprised if anyone could get to the level of extra and not know what code is, or become familiar with it. It is curiosity and interest that will cause someone to want to learn code, not a test. Just as those that have no interest in electronics soon forget the theory part of what they were tested on, so those that have no interest in code forget that part.

Certainly it can be argued that there will be fewer code ops due to the test removal. This stands to reason, but I don't know that it is totally true. How many code ops do we need? What is the magic number that will keep code alive? As long as there are DX stations using code, and as long as it is a good mode, superior in many ways to most others, then people will use it. It doesn't need the "affirmative action" of the code test to keep it going. It can compete well with other modes on it's own, it doesn't need to be propped up.

Joe

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 28 2007,09:23)]Quote[/b] ]If people squander things they haven't "earned", then most hobbies should be filled with people who are lazy and don't care. Model rocketry enthusiasts don't have to get a federal license before they can launch. It would seem to me that these folks should be fouling up our airspace on a regular basis, but we don't hear too much about it, or worry about it. Same with model planes and robotics.

But pyrotechnicists and pyrotechnicians (I'm one of them) are strictly controlled by the Government. I can't just shoot off 1.3G in my back yard without Government authorization, at least not around here. I also have to obey minimum set-back and notify the fire department. I also had to undergo training and work with a pyrotechnics company and at least one person who puts on the show in a particular area has to obtain a license in the state.

Model rocket and model plane folks are also dealing with a very small scale. People who fly larger planes have to get a pilot's license, and people who launch larger rockets have to go through a whole bunch of red tape.
But lets be honest here. The reason for regulating pyrotechnics and large rockets/airplanes has more to do with safety than anything else. You could kill someone or burn down a house by improper use of these things, in fact we read every year of people dying in these accidents. Ham radio doesn't have that safety issue.

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 28 2007,09:23)]
Quote[/b] ]Gun enthusiasts don't usually need any kind of license, yet most of them seem like they respect their hobby. Yes, there are wackos, but they are in every endeavor.

That one is a special case and is constitutionally protected in the USA and part of our culture. In many parts of the world, a license is required to own a gun.
That is true, and only proves the point that it is the government who makes the rules, based on what they want to "control". In the US we have had over 300 years of very loose gun controls, and people don't want that changed. We have only had a very few years, about 100 years ago, when ham radio, or radio of any sort was not controlled by the government. We don't know any different. We think the government has to control ham radio too.

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 28 2007,09:23)]
Quote[/b] ]The reason we license is because the government has always had control of radio frequencies. It is not necessarily to make the hobby any better.

Wrong. The reason we license is to ensure that those using the airwaves comply with a minimum standard and are less likely to interfere with other services, and if they do, they know how to fix it or at least identify the problem.

No, it's simply about control and regulation. If you had to put up a $10,000 bond, and pay $1000 a year for your license, and the FCC said "We'll be watching for violations, expect no leeway", then everyone would obey the rules, even if they had not been tested on them, or knew anything about radio. They would make the effort to keep their station "clean" , because of the consequences of not doing so. They would quickly learn the rules, not memorize some questions and answers. They would learn enough electronics to properly operate their station. And all with no test, but plenty of other motivation.

I am not suggesting we do this, just showing that there are other ways to gain compliance than a test. As you have mentioned, broadcasters already do this. They hire the best people to ensure that high standards are met. This is not a requirement of their broadcast license, it is a self imposed standard to assure a quality product, and to have people who will make their transmitters compliant with the technical rules.

Joe

[KA4DPO]

VE: Ok class please pay attention. Today you will be taking you examination for an FCC extra class amateur radio license. You there, yes you, please try no to drool on your paper. There are four true or false questions and one practical exercise so take your time and think about each one. Before we begin are there any questions?

Newbie: Yes I have a question. I never learned how to read cause it was too hard can you read these questions for me?

VE: Of course I can. Question one, To get on the air you need a radio?

Question two, You paid the VE for this exam?

Question three, You need a microphone to modulate the radio?

Question four, Signal is measured in Pounds?

OK, last part is a practical exercise. There are two dots on your paper, you must connect the dots. Any further questions?

Newbie: This is too hard, you're keeping a lot of good people out of ham radio by making me take this test. I'm gonna tell on you to the FCC.

VE: OK, OK, don't get upset, we can give you a pass cause we know how hard this is. Joe, give this guy a pass.

Joe: what about the others?

VE: Only if they complain.

[K1VSK]

One LAST attempt to keep this thread focused -

Please read: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CODE;
NOT ABOUT GUNS OR ROCKET or government intervention, SCIENTISTS OR INSULTING OTHERS' OPINIONS. And, if you think there is nothing that can be done to change it, that's analogous to quitting and I'd prefer to not hear from anyone who considers that an acceptable option.

I posted this topic to elicit discussion on the standards we want to set as goals, whether on not we should expect them to be eroded and if we should try to upgrade expections of ourselves and others as opposed to downgrading them by improving testing requirements.

In it's simplist form, the question is:
Do you agree or disagree with the concept of enhancing written testing for amateur radio?

[K7JEM]

DPO,

Aren't you the one that took a non-multiple choice test for your advanced in 1976?

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,12:15)]DPO,

Aren't you the one that took a non-multiple choice test for your advanced in 1976?
Yes, that's correct.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Jan. 28 2007,10:32)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,12:15)]DPO,

Aren't you the one that took a non-multiple choice test for your advanced in 1976?
Yes, that's correct.
I talked to several hams that took advanced in 1974-1976, none of them say they had to do anything other than multiple choice. I took the general written in 1974, and it was multiple choice, granted that is not the advanced test.

This thread has popped back up. Read the first few posts:

Linky (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=136393;)

Did the FCC have a special test for you, or are you mistaken about the test?

Joe

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ Jan. 28 2007,05:50)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,00:23)]Geez guys, your position won! You don't have to make excuses for the slackers any more. Lets give them a chance to dazzle us as promised sans that mean old code test! LOL!
Don't forget,Marty says the NCT's never claimed they were going to save ham radio!!
I never said that.

I said no one said that dropping element 1 was going to save ham radio.

I'm sure there are NCTs who have claimed they were going to save ham radio. Why should silly claims about the hobby be limited only to pro-coders?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Jan. 28 2007,09:05)]In it's simplist form, the question is:
Do you agree or disagree with the concept of enhancing written testing for amateur radio?
The US license structure is wrong for an incentive based testing system. All of the technical topics of interest to a ham are available to the lowest class license. The next class license grants access to spectrum, not technical skills areas. The highest class license expands the spectrum slightly.

The only thing it makes sense to test for on the general and extra exams is the extra priviliges those classes entail.

Most current US amateurs of all classes would fail a sufficiently rigorous technical test to test for the technical skills a technician is allowed to exercise. It makes no sense to test newcomers to the hobby for skills that are not possessed by current license holders.

If you think you would not fail such a test, here's a reasonable sample question. Amateurs are allowed to design antennas. It is not unreasonable to ask them antenna design questions. Given that so many seem interested in the length of a dipole:

Quote[/b] ]
Derive from the wave equations the formula for the frequency response of a dipole of length L in free space, compared to an point source.

[K6UEY]

AE6IP,
Marty I believe the modern day 21st Century answer to that question would be it is un-fair because they do not intend to use the antenna in free space !! There fore they are not required to answer!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Jan. 28 2007,13:13)]AE6IP,
Marty I believe the modern day 21st Century answer to that question would be it is un-fair because they do not intend to use the antenna in free space !! There fore they are not required to answer!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,12:38)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Jan. 28 2007,10:32)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,12:15)]DPO,

Aren't you the one that took a non-multiple choice test for your advanced in 1976?
Yes, that's correct.
I talked to several hams that took advanced in 1974-1976, none of them say they had to do anything other than multiple choice. I took the general written in 1974, and it was multiple choice, granted that is not the advanced test.

This thread has popped back up. Read the first few posts:

Linky (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=136393;)

Did the FCC have a special test for you, or are you mistaken about the test?

Joe
Since that was 30 years ago I doubt that I can recall the exact test. However, there were several questions involving calculation of impedance and no choices were given. #There were questions involving finding a conjugate match using a smith chart and no answeres were given. #There were several questions that required us to convert from polar to rectangular coordinates and no answeres were given. #There may have been some multiple choice for regulatory and a few others.

The bottom line is that the test was not 100% multiple choice. #Anyone telling you differently either has a poor memory or never took the test. #By the way, the General exam was not all multiple choice either and there were no published Q&A pools in that day so you had to know your stuff.

Bottom line is that it was way more difficult that it is today. What's your point?

[wb7dmx]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Jan. 28 2007,11:56)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,12:38)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Jan. 28 2007,10:32)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,12:15)]DPO,

Aren't you the one that took a non-multiple choice test for your advanced in 1976?
Yes, that's correct.
I talked to several hams that took advanced in 1974-1976, none of them say they had to do anything other than multiple choice. I took the general written in 1974, and it was multiple choice, granted that is not the advanced test.

This thread has popped back up. Read the first few posts:

Linky (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=136393;)

Did the FCC have a special test for you, or are you mistaken about the test?

Joe
Since that was 30 years ago I doubt that I can recall the exact test. However, there were several questions involving calculation of impedance and no choices were given. #There were questions involving finding a conjugate match using a smith chart and no answeres were given. #There were several questions that required us to convert from polar to rectangular coordinates and no answeres were given. #There may have been some multiple choice for regulatory and a few others.

The bottom line is that the test was not 100% multiple choice. #Anyone telling you differently either has a poor memory or never took the test. #By the way, the General exam was not all multiple choice either and there were no published Q&A pools in that day so you had to know your stuff.

Bottom line is that it was way more difficult that it is today. #What's your point?
I kinda disagree with you statement that there were no practice exams back in the early 70's.

I used the book on the FCC 2nd class radiotelephone study guide, I found that the questions were almost the same. except for some of the regulations.
heck it worked for me, I passed the general and the advanced at the same setting.

if it wern't for that study guide I probably could not have passed it.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ Jan. 28 2007,06:50)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,00:23)]Geez guys, your position won! You don't have to make excuses for the slackers any more. Lets give them a chance to dazzle us as promised sans that mean old code test! LOL!
Don't forget,Marty says the NCT's never claimed they were going to save ham radio!!
They say AR will be saved by no coders only indirectly. The theory presented is that AR will only survive with an infusion of new blood and young blood which will only happen if the code test is removed.

But my message wasn't about that, it was about being dazzled by our lower class licensees (soon to be equals). You can read QRZ and come up with a list of people who have presented their extraordinary qualifications that could be brought to bear on the Ham Bands if not for the evil code test. I have heard it in person from a hundred NCTs if I heard it from one.

The code test is gone. Good luck! We're waiting. Dazzle us.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Jan. 28 2007,11:56)]Since that was 30 years ago I doubt that I can recall the exact test. However, there were several questions involving calculation of impedance and no choices were given. There were questions involving finding a conjugate match using a smith chart and no answeres were given. There were several questions that required us to convert from polar to rectangular coordinates and no answeres were given. There may have been some multiple choice for regulatory and a few others.

The bottom line is that the test was not 100% multiple choice. Anyone telling you differently either has a poor memory or never took the test. By the way, the General exam was not all multiple choice either and there were no published Q&A pools in that day so you had to know your stuff.

Bottom line is that it was way more difficult that it is today. What's your point?
I don't remember the exact test I took in 1974, but I am pretty sure that it was all multiple choice, I think your's was too, regardless of what you seem to remember.

Two other people I spoke with remember the same thing. Apparently, so do Glenn and Walt. Not sure when Walt took his test, though.

The test may have been harder, but I don't think it was all that more difficult. I was 18 and passed the general written, don't remember that I spent too many sleepless nights worrying about the test.

The point is that many oldtimers have blown the testing way out of proportion. They make it sound like you had to be some sort of genius to pass the test, and that was never the case. The questions were not published, but study guides were, with sample questions. If you knew the material in the book, you could pass the test. If you had some math background, and some radio interest, you could master the study guide in a couple of weeks. Others may have taken somewhat longer, but it was still not insurmountable.

Joe

[wb7dmx]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,14:55)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Jan. 28 2007,11:56)]Since that was 30 years ago I doubt that I can recall the exact test. However, there were several questions involving calculation of impedance and no choices were given. #There were questions involving finding a conjugate match using a smith chart and no answeres were given. #There were several questions that required us to convert from polar to rectangular coordinates and no answeres were given. #There may have been some multiple choice for regulatory and a few others.

The bottom line is that the test was not 100% multiple choice. #Anyone telling you differently either has a poor memory or never took the test. #By the way, the General exam was not all multiple choice either and there were no published Q&A pools in that day so you had to know your stuff.

Bottom line is that it was way more difficult that it is today. #What's your point?
I don't remember the exact test I took in 1974, but I am pretty sure that it was all multiple choice, I think your's was too, regardless of what you seem to remember.

Two other people I spoke with remember the same thing. Apparently, so do Glenn and Walt. Not sure when Walt took his test, though.

The test may have been harder, but I don't think it was all that more difficult. I was 18 and passed the general written, don't remember that I spent too many sleepless nights worrying about the test.

The point is that many oldtimers have blown the testing way out of proportion. They make it sound like you had to be some sort of genius to pass the test, and that was never the case. The questions were not published, but study guides were, with sample questions. If you knew the material in the book, you could pass the test. If you had some math background, and some radio interest, you could master the study guide in a couple of weeks. Others may have taken somewhat longer, but it was still not insurmountable.

Joe
I agree with you 100%

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Jan. 28 2007,10:13)]AE6IP,
Marty I believe the modern day 21st Century answer to that question would be it is un-fair because they do not intend to use the antenna in free space !! There fore they are not required to answer!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
But can you answer the question?

[N0NB]

I think it would be interesting to compare the content of the USA exams to the exams from other countries in the world. I doubt that most DXers care about the technical ability of the operator working from some rare entity. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (KD5SHW @ Jan. 27 2007,21:23)]We have to ask ourselves what the goal of testing is. Is the goal to make an amateur radio license hard to get so some OF's can feel better about themselves because they hold a Holy Class license? Is it make sure someone has the basic information they need in order to operate a radio without causing interference to other users of the RF spectrum?
The radio spectrum is a limited resource. The purpose of licensing is to limit access to a scarce commodity, to those who will use it in the "public interest."

With broadcasting, licence to transmit is primarily limited by $$$$. Ever research the cost of setting up and licensing even a low powered FM station, local channel AM station or LPTV station?

With amateur radio, instead of limiting access to radio spectrum by requiring the $$$$ to jump through all the regulatory hoops leading to a licence grant, access is limited instead by requiring applicants to possess at least a minimal degree of knowledge and skills to allow them to use amateur spectrum according to the basis and purpose of the amateur service as defined in Sec. 97.1

Bottom line: The purpose of amateur radio licensing is to serve as a weeding out process.

[wb7dmx]

well, it did keep the cbers out for many years, now that may change as I see more cb type attitudes on here and on the air all the time.

and that does have me worried a bit.

[K0HWY]

I'm one of those with no degree (at all) who likes to bitch and gripe about the testing. Now that we have that impertinent bit of info out of the way...

Perhaps it never has been overly difficult to get an amateur license, especially when compared with getting a college degree. But it was obviously more challenging in the past when compared with today. And while there have been many advances in ham radio technology in the past 30+ years, the fundamentals haven't changed. We could just as well go back and reword some of the old test questions and have an effective and more challenging pool; if that's where the FCC wanted to go. Obviously it does not so the discussion is pointless.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 28 2007,20:41)]With broadcasting, licence to transmit is primarily limited by $$$$. Ever research the cost of setting up and licensing even a low powered FM station, local channel AM station or LPTV station?

Why yes, I have. in the early 1970s, I helped get KMSM-FM on the air. I can tell you a lot about how much it costs to get an FM station on the air, keep it running, and supply it with resources. Also about how to beg, borrow, or obtain through grants, the necessary.

Quote[/b] ]
Bottom line: The purpose of amateur radio licensing is to serve as a weeding out process.


The FCC has long said it serves no such purpose.

[wb7dmx]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,22:26)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 28 2007,20:41)]With broadcasting, licence to transmit is primarily limited by $$$$. #Ever research the cost of setting up and licensing even a low powered FM station, local channel AM station or LPTV station?

Why yes, I have. in the early 1970s, I helped get KMSM-FM on the air. I can tell you a lot about how much it costs to get an FM station on the air, keep it running, and supply it with resources. #Also about how to beg, borrow, or obtain through grants, the necessary.

Quote[/b] ]
Bottom line: The purpose of amateur radio licensing is to serve as a weeding out process.


The FCC has long said it serves no such purpose.
and the things you hear on the air today proves that point.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (wb7dmx @ Jan. 28 2007,22:29)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,22:26)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 28 2007,20:41)]With broadcasting, licence to transmit is primarily limited by $$$$. Ever research the cost of setting up and licensing even a low powered FM station, local channel AM station or LPTV station?

Why yes, I have. in the early 1970s, I helped get KMSM-FM on the air. I can tell you a lot about how much it costs to get an FM station on the air, keep it running, and supply it with resources. Also about how to beg, borrow, or obtain through grants, the necessary.

Quote[/b] ]
Bottom line: The purpose of amateur radio licensing is to serve as a weeding out process.


The FCC has long said it serves no such purpose.
and the things you hear on the air today proves that point.
It can't.

What's it weeding out? People that don't know ohm's law or how to build a dipole?

It would actually serve a purpose if it weeded out the lids or the mentally ill, or people that can't fit in. But it doesn't. So no matter what test you have, you will always have these types, because hams are people.

An easier test you have more people, and more lids. A harder test, and you have fewer of both. I don't think the ratio is going to change much.

An IQ test and a psychological profile would be the best test. Who cares if the people can build a dipole or know what a capacitor is used for. Some of them will, just like today. Others won't.

Joe

[wb7dmx]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 28 2007,22:47)]Quote[/b] (wb7dmx @ Jan. 28 2007,22:29)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,22:26)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 28 2007,20:41)]With broadcasting, licence to transmit is primarily limited by $$$$. #Ever research the cost of setting up and licensing even a low powered FM station, local channel AM station or LPTV station?

Why yes, I have. in the early 1970s, I helped get KMSM-FM on the air. I can tell you a lot about how much it costs to get an FM station on the air, keep it running, and supply it with resources. #Also about how to beg, borrow, or obtain through grants, the necessary.

Quote[/b] ]
Bottom line: The purpose of amateur radio licensing is to serve as a weeding out process.


The FCC has long said it serves no such purpose.
and the things you hear on the air today proves that point.
It can't.

What's it weeding out? People that don't know ohm's law or how to build a dipole?

It would actually serve a purpose if it weeded out the lids or the mentally ill, or people that can't fit in. But it doesn't. So no matter what test you have, you will always have these types, because hams are people.

An easier test you have more people, and more lids. A harder test, and you have fewer of both. I don't think the ratio is going to change much.

An IQ test and a psychological profile would be the best test. Who cares if the people can build a dipole or know what a capacitor is used for. Some of them will, just like today. Others won't.

Joe
thats the whole point, today it isnt.
40 years ago it did.

let me reword what I am trying to say.
the first 30 years of my working career, I was always able to have a ham station in the shop where I worked, everyone enjoyed hearing the hams talk it was fun.
today I don't even dare to have the volume turned up enough so that others can hear it, you never know when someone is going to start using foul language or start telling xxx rated jokes.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (wb7dmx @ Jan. 28 2007,22:52)]thats the whole point, today it isnt.
40 years ago it did.
There were lids 40 years ago. There were lids when TOM was around, he talked about them a lot.

If you read through old QSTs of the 30's, 40's, and 50's, you will see that there has always been controversy, lids, and "rotten QRM".

In the 50's it was SSB vs AM. The 60's brought incentive licenses. The 70's had repeater wars. 75M has been a cesspool for as long as anyone can remember. It's worse now, but so is society in general.

Ham radio is a reflection of society because hams are members of society. In the 50's, a certain type of behavior was expected in society and on ham radio. Today, that behavior is different in both areas. We can't live in 2007 and expect ham behavior to be 1950's style.

Joe

[wb7dmx]

now thats a real bummer

[W5IEI]

"75M has been a cesspool for as long as anyone can remember. It's worse now, but so is society in general."


How do you know that?
You're probably like the guys that constantly complain about 14.275 and just sit there mezmerized listening to it all day.

There are just as many good QSO's on 75 as anywhere.

[N0NB]

For the last time, the FCC does not set the test standards, we do through the VECs and Question Pool Committee. #The only thing codified in Part 97 is the number of questions each exam shall consist of and their makeup is entirely up to the VEC/QPC organizations. #If you want to effect change, those are the organizations to get involved in.

Quite simply, the FCC does not want to be in the exam business (even minimally) and that's not coming back. #Over the near past quarter century that the VEC program has been in effect, the FCC has ceded more control of the exam system to us hams. #You want tougher exams? #ARRL-VEC and W5YI-VEC are the two principal organizations to get in contact with. #Educating the newcomers is (and has been) squarely on our shoulders for a long time. #Are we meeting our obligation?

[K1VSK]

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ Jan. 29 2007,05:28)]For the last time, the FCC does not set the test standards, we do through the VECs and Question Pool Committee. #The only thing codified in Part 97 is the number of questions each exam shall consist of and their makeup is entirely up to the VEC/QPC organizations. #If you want to effect change, those are the organizations to get involved in.

Quite simply, the FCC does not want to be in the exam business (even minimally) and that's not coming back. #Over the near past quarter century that the VEC program has been in effect, the FCC has ceded more control of the exam system to us hams. #You want tougher exams? #ARRL-VEC and W5YI-VEC are the two principal organizations to get in contact with. #Educating the newcomers is (and has been) squarely on our shoulders for a long time. #Are we meeting our obligation?
I would have to disagree and point out that, in fact as well as in regulation, the FCC does set the standards - what is left to the Q Pool group and VEs is implementing the regulations which includes producing and administering the Q pool. They have done a fine job but are clearly limited by regulation what changes can be made.
By act of omission, the FCC has not (yet) precluded providing Q/A study guides which replicate the actual test; an action which can be changed only by the Commission.

In doing so, there would be no additional burden foisted on the Commission - what would change would be the additional burden on the VEs to administer an actual examination of an applicant's knowledge.

The question is therfore more appropriately - Could you meet that obligation?

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]By act of omission, the FCC has not (yet) precluded providing Q/A study guides which replicate the actual test; an action which can be changed only by the Commission.

In doing so, there would be no additional burden foisted on the Commission - what would change would be the additional burden on the VEs to administer an actual examination of an applicant's knowledge.

Exactly!
The only "burden" will be on those members of the NCVEC who make money off of selling "study materials". They all have representation on the QPC as well.