VECs PROPOSE NEW ENTRY LEVEL COMMUNICATOR LICENCE

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W9GRN @ April 23 2004,14:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow Mark, what do you think seperates us from the other services on the bands that we enjoy?It's because we took the time and effort to study so amateur radio can coexist among people who desire to use it.As far as C.B. is concern, how can you have enforcement if there no rules to abide by? That's why I got out of C.B. in the first place because it went down the toilet.That's why I want to see standards in amateur radio stay high.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think you will find the rules and regulations for CB radio in part 95, but they are not enforced. The premise was that CB was a valuable service at one time. If I am correct and there never was any testing, then the CB service was valuable without testing. The fact that you don't need a license, and that the part 95 rules are not enforced gives us the anarchy that is the CB service. My main point is that testing in and of itself is not a guarantor of a good amateur radio service. There must also be a commitment to enforcement of the rules.

While in the Air Force, I had many hours of training on test and measurement. The FCC tests (all of them, not just amateur radio) are far from being a valid gauge of a candidate’s fitness for a license in the intended service.

That is not to say that testing should be eliminated from amateur radio, but it is folly to say that revisions in testing are "dumbing down". Perhaps a better term would be "increasing validity".

73,

Mark N5RFX

 

UZR:
>No, They are not my standards or his standards, or Joe Blows.  It's the standards of amature radio.<
Amateur Radio is not a living, breathing entity.  It's made up of people whose technical skills hopefully evolve.  You cannot give "Amateur Radio" in and of itself more of a vote than amateurs themselves.

>Now take this in consideration for instance...If all of a sudden the FCC revoked everyone's license's except the people that held their ticket since the middle 40's or early 50's.  And they decided to make the test requirements and questions identical to the way it was in those years. I mean everything. Like you went back into time and all of a sudden, you were in 1950.<
Which helps prove my point.  Technology is now light years ahead of the 40's and 50's.  Would a ham from that era know what to do with simple transistors, diodes, bridge rectifiers?  I doubt it.  But those are the "tools" of radio today.  Ham radio is not a museum piece from the 40's and 50's.

>And they eliminated the VE's doing the testing, and you had to go to the FCC field office and take it with the FCC official himself. And the test, there is no memorizing. And everyone had to draw schematic diagrams of a transmitter or something.
How many people would pass??<
Again, helps prove my point.  The FCC is not in the "preservation of tradition" business.  When they instituted the VECs, they did so because they saw that the Amateur Service had EVOLVED to the point where direct government testing was no longer necessary.

>And you say there is no "Dumbing Down"??<
I say you don't have a grasp of what the phrase means, because you equate "dumb" with "modern," like you do in your next paragraph:

>I admit that there is different technology in equipment now compared to then, but, a lot of people like tubes, and the old technology. And actually I think that it should be a goal of most hams to build their own transmitter and receiver and operate on 40m or 20m with it. This is what Real ham radio is about as far as I'm concerned.
All I see now is amature radio going to h*!! in a hand basket... <
How about a goal of building an EME station?  Or a 10GHz station?  Or voice-over-laser?
As far as you're concerned, Amateur Radio should still be where it was 50 years ago.  Well, OK. At least I know where you stand.

 

Yah,,I guess that's right. Because I can't see trying to build a radio just like they make now. Unless you can get all the chips and the rest of the parts. So if you want to build a radio, then it will resemble ones like in the 50's or 60's

And I was talking about the test requirements in the 40's and 50's. Not the radios themselves. If they made the test like then,,Who would pass if the FCC made everyone test again?

Yah, I think if the way things were even at least in the late 60's and early 70's would be better than they are now. And for sure,,,the way that they are going to be if this assinine proposal goes through.

I think if a guy isn't willing to work for something and put forth some effort and discipline, then he doesn't belong on ham radio....

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb0uzr @ April 24 2004,00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I was talking about the test requirements in the 40's and 50's. Not the radios themselves. If they made the test like then,,Who would pass if the FCC made everyone test again?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That is an interesting point. I don't have any examples of tests from an earlier era only what I have heard. I would bet the scope of the tests would be much narrower than they are today and would actually be easier to study for, but I cannot prove that. I know for me, memorizing drawings and formulae is much easier than "off the wall" questions.

I have heard that you had to draw circuits for the examiner. How hard is that? How many ways are there to draw a Colpitts Oscillator, or a common tetrode RF power amp with grid leak bias. I am sure there were study guides even in the "good ole days" and hams back then MEMORIZED drawing required circuits. I am sure the FCC did not ask the candidate to draw a new design that could be patented. Exactly what does being able to draw a circuit prove anyway? It proves that you can draw a circuit. Don't inflate your egos too much!

I can respect the opinion of those who say "if a guy isn't willing to work for something and put forth some effort and discipline, then he doesn't belong on ham radio", but how does one measure that, and who decides how much effort is enough? Each generation looks back on the previous generation and laments "how are they ever going to make it?". Its been going on for centuries and will continue. In my opinion each generation gets smarter than the next. My kids are definitely smarter and more technically advanced that I was at their age. The same comparison holds true for my father and I, and my grandfather and father. Life experience is different for each generation. But for some, the next generation will never be a smart as the previous generation. That is sad.

I look at those who enter the hobby and learn something as the successes in amateur radio. I don't see how testing measures whether a candidate will succeed or fail in the hobby.

Maybe there needs to be a new thread, "What are the valid objectives of testing in Amateur radio"? There are certainly valid reasons, but for many the objective is to limit access by making the tests unreasonably difficult and that is not a valid reason.


73

Mark N5RFX

 

If it were possible to make a written test for a candidate for an Amateur license in the same manner as was done years ago, except using state-of-the-art tech references, I think I'd be for it.  I see nothing wrong with using a tried-and-true method.  But it'd never happen.  The reason any testing went to multiple choice over the years is litigation.  A fill in the blanks test is open to interpretation by the scorer (even if you're looking for one specific word, another word may be also correct) so fill-ins gave way to avoid the tester getting sued.  (I know Ham tests probably wouldn't get sued, but I'm talking about testing in general.)  The science of testing, just like ham radio, has advanced in the last several years.  Simply calling it "Dumb" fails to take these advances into consideration.
RFX is correct on his assessment of the circuit portion of the test.  I started reading the test books way back, and the circuits were very simple with no refinements at all, what we would call "basic electronics" now.  The questions concerned things we'd think of as dinosaurs, too.
The entire testing controversy fails to take modernization into consideration.  You cannot expect new operators to function in a 2004 environment properly when the test you give is 1970's or 80's (or earlier) based.  
Let's face it: the main issue is really keeping CW as a test element.  Many people are so emotional over this issue (as shown by the response in this thread - 58 pages) that they'd rather give up their license than talk to a "no-code" General.  There's nothing I or anyone else can say to these people that will make them comfortable with a new license structure.  I recognize that.  All I can say is that, at the age of 50, with 44 years of experience with electronics and radio behind me, I think I love radio as much as anybody, and if that's not good enough, there isn't anything else I can do.

 

The arrl sold us all out-----refarming, restructuring is good to a degree---give folks a few more hf bands---keep this simple--------but leave the testing alone----keep the lids out----Chris

 

GOOD GRIEF!!!! I haven't looked at this forum in 2 weeks, and it's the same old rerun. These post's haven't changed since the 1980's. What are you people doing? Copy and paste of your old post's?

For cryin' out loud. IT'S A HOBBY!!!!!! Not the end of civilization. Go out and take a walk. Get some fresh air. Mow the lawn. Go to the beach and breath in the air. Wash the car. Look up and thank God you're alive. Spend time with your family...........In other words, get a life and enjoy it. This is stupid. Hams arguing with hams over CW testing. What the hell is wrong with you guys? Sheesh!!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3DAV @ April 27 2004,23:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GOOD GRIEF!!!!  I haven't looked at this forum in 2 weeks, and it's the same old rerun.  These post's haven't changed since the 1980's.  What are you people doing?  Copy and paste of your old post's?

For cryin' out loud.  IT'S A HOBBY!!!!!! Not the end of civilization.  Go out and take a walk.  Get some fresh air.  Mow the lawn.  Go to the beach and breath in the air.  Wash the car.  Look up and thank God you're alive.  Spend time with your family...........In other words, get a life and enjoy it.  This is stupid.  Hams arguing with hams over CW testing.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?  Sheesh!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately, it is an issue that is very close to the hearts of many individuals. It also reflects what standards we expect or fear are being relaxed under the guise of "growth", and other buzz words. There is very real concern and unless individuals stop just skimming the surface, the issues are noticeable. I think it is more then "I did it this way and so should you" as many uninformed individuals rant.

Testing standards need to be appropriate for our hobby, if we are to expect anything from it and the others in it with us. Relaxing those standards takes away from the attractiveness of what we have to offer.

It may be the same old "rantings", but they are very valid indeed!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GOOD GRIEF!!!! I haven't looked at this forum in 2 weeks, and it's the same old rerun. These post's haven't changed since the 1980's. What are you people doing? Copy and paste of your old post's?

For cryin' out loud. IT'S A HOBBY!!!!!! Not the end of civilization. Go out and take a walk. Get some fresh air. Mow the lawn. Go to the beach and breath in the air. Wash the car. Look up and thank God you're alive. Spend time with your family...........In other words, get a life and enjoy it. This is stupid. Hams arguing with hams over CW testing. What the hell is wrong with you guys? Sheesh!!

--------------
David
>K3DAV<[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Na, Na,Na,,,

It's important that we make as much stink about this assinine proposal as possible.   We don't want this thing to go thorugh!!

The requrements have to stay the way they are now for the sake of ham radio.  The quality of ham radio is at stake!!

Help PRESERVE ham radio by making as much stink as possible about this stupid proposal...

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W0LC @ April 28 2004,09:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unfortunately, it is an issue that is very close to the hearts of many individuals.  It also reflects what standards we expect or fear are being relaxed under the guise of "growth", and other buzz words.  There is very real concern and unless individuals stop just skimming the surface, the issues are noticeable.  I think it is more then "I did it this way and so should you" as many uninformed individuals rant.

Testing standards need to be appropriate for our hobby, if we are to expect anything from it and the others in it with us.  Relaxing those standards takes away from the attractiveness of what we have to offer.

It may be the same old "rantings", but they are very valid indeed![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
well said---the proposals are bad---the arrl sold us out----it is clear and simple----Chris

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke6irp @ April 28 2004,10:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W0LC @ April 28 2004,09:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unfortunately, it is an issue that is very close to the hearts of many individuals.  It also reflects what standards we expect or fear are being relaxed under the guise of "growth", and other buzz words.  There is very real concern and unless individuals stop just skimming the surface, the issues are noticeable.  I think it is more then "I did it this way and so should you" as many uninformed individuals rant.

Testing standards need to be appropriate for our hobby, if we are to expect anything from it and the others in it with us.  Relaxing those standards takes away from the attractiveness of what we have to offer.

It may be the same old "rantings", but they are very valid indeed![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
well said---the proposals are bad---the arrl sold us out----it is clear and simple----Chris[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't doubt it Chris.  

I have seen the ARRL push forward proposals in the past, creating the No-Code Tech license, which at the time, seemed reasonable.  It was to promote activity on VHF and above frequencies.  Then came the Tech plus and now another version of the Novice, which I disagree with how it is being structured.  25 questions?  Access to HF? Come on.  We don't need more operators, which the ARRL is touting as a need for "young blood", "Growth", etc.  If the hobby has its attractions, it will attract the technically minded and technically interested.

All this growth stuff is hooey to me.  

Years back, when it was Novice-Tech-General-Advanced-Extra, it made sense.  A stair step upgrade  structure with something added at each level.  The novice gained experience with amateur radio.  Progressing to Tech gave them some VHF voice experience that would be easily carried over only HF voice.  Then came more technical skill demonstration at the General level, and then the harder Advanced level.  The Extra was the "catch all" with little extra icing.

Nothing was wrong with that, we had growth, we had interest, we had housewives getting licensed, old timers, youngsters, etc.  

Now suddenly, in the past 10 years or so, everyone suddenly got "stupid" and found this or that "too difficult", "obstacles", and god forbid, effort required.  So what was done to amateur radio to make ti attractive, to promote it?  Nothing.  Lower the testing requirements by either selling actual answers, making licensing exams something questionable by the likes of W5YI, reduce code speed.  

Not enough?  Okay, let's drop teh code test.  Let's make a quick 25 question exam and give you the bag of stuff to use on the air.  Don't worry about technical abilities, skill, proficiency, etc.  Let's just round up more "membership".

Yeah.  I too read the sell out loud and clear.  And to think I am a life member.  Had I seen this coming I would have hung on to that money I sure could use now! Hi.

In the end, the proposals will go through in some form or another, we will end up with yet, another restructuring that won't improve anything and shortly thereafter, more proposals will come forward to yet again, make it easier since it is so "hard" now to become licensed.

And yes, I have been around in this hobby for a bit to see that these restructures haven't worked to achieve the goal of growth in the past, and they won't now either. the ARRL is missing the major issue of amateur radio and tries to rehash old methodologies that didn't work then and don't now.
Call me an old fart, an elitest, etc. I have never tried to keep anyone out of the hobby, filter anyone out, etc. All I ever expected froom individuals that expressed a desire to become licensed was to do what I did. Buy a study manual, code tape, etc., spend time learning, reading and asking questions and then getting into the hobby.

Before long, look for a testless license.

 

Same old tired arguments to "keep things the way they were in the old days." I haven't heard a single logical reason for not modernizing the testing process.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W0LC @ April 28 2004,11:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I think it is more then "I did it this way and so should you" as many uninformed individuals rant.

Testing standards need to be appropriate for our hobby, if we are to expect anything from it and the others in it with us.  Relaxing those standards takes away from the attractiveness of what we have to offer.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm sorry Chris, but I disagree. It DOES boil down to "I had to do it, so should you". It is clear in the tone of so many replies in this thread and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that......and so on....

The only thing that, "takes away from the attractiveness of what we have to offer" is this constant arguing with license class egos. I have talked to many potential hams that have read this stupidity here on QRZ, and decided NOT to become a ham. Their decision was that they didn't want to go through the TROUBLE of getting a license just to find a bunch of bruised egos, sounding like CB'ers, that are complaining about ham becomming like CB. They said that they had a real interest in ham, but if the post's on QRZ are any example of ham's, then they wouldn't waste their time.

The concern about the ARRL is a point well taken. But you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. You are pushing your version of what the outcome might be, too far. And it is pushing away potential hams. If I were just considering becoming a ham, and read this garbage in here, I wouldn't want to join a fraternity of what appears to be a bunch of snobs. I'm not saying anyone is a snob, it just looks that way to potential hams who don't know better.

This is all wrong, and should end. The FCC has already commented on how it likes the ARRL proposal in thier newsletter. The proposal WILL be adopted. This continued ego busting will just give us all a bad name. (If it hasn't already).

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3DAV @ April 28 2004,23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W0LC @ April 28 2004,11:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I think it is more then "I did it this way and so should you" as many uninformed individuals rant.

Testing standards need to be appropriate for our hobby, if we are to expect anything from it and the others in it with us.  Relaxing those standards takes away from the attractiveness of what we have to offer.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm sorry Chris, but I disagree.  It DOES boil down to "I had to do it, so should you".  It is clear in the tone of so many replies in this thread and the one before that,  and the one before that,  and the one before that......and so on....

The only thing that, "takes away from the attractiveness of what we have to offer" is this constant arguing with license class egos.  I have talked to many potential hams that have read this stupidity here on QRZ, and decided NOT to become a ham.  Their decision was that they didn't want to go through the TROUBLE of getting a license just to find a bunch of bruised egos, sounding like CB'ers, that are complaining about ham becomming like CB.  They said that they had a real interest in ham, but if the post's on QRZ are any example of ham's, then they wouldn't waste their time.

The concern about the ARRL is a point well taken.  But you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill.  You are pushing your version of what the outcome might be, too far.  And it is pushing away potential hams.  If I were just considering becoming a ham, and read this garbage in here, I wouldn't want to join a fraternity of what appears to be a bunch of snobs.  I'm not saying anyone is a snob, it just looks that way to potential hams who don't know better.

This is all wrong, and should end.  The FCC has already commented on how it likes the ARRL proposal in thier newsletter.  The proposal WILL be adopted.  This continued ego busting will just give us all a bad name.  (If it hasn't already).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yes dave you Have it righgood post that,s the way it is the fcc dont care what these post say they know how it has always Been they will do what they wont to , and i dont care eather , i know i have 2.300 dollers to spend if they make the right choise,and i will join the arrl so Bring it on, and no way would i ask any one to join Ham Radio with this kind of Hate they havefor the no-code tec ,take care david talk to you later, Bill kd4mxe

 

Testing standards, indeed! Standards promulgated in the 50's are appropriate? Let's face it, the whole thing boils down to whether CW is a "test" or a "mode." I'd almost bet some of you would do away with any written test just to save the CW one.