MEANINGFUL ENTRY-LEVEL LICENSE PRIVILEGES

Lets think about this, what is Amateur Radio? It was on our technician class exam, Maybe I remember because I am just starting in ham radio. Here is the answer, in case you have forgotten.

The Amateur Service increases the number of trained radio operators and electronics experts, and improves international goodwill.

So far out of these posts I do not see very much goodwill, just a bunch of guys trashing each other for their individual beliefs and viewpoints.

We all have at least one thing in common, the enjoyment of radio; otherwise we would not be talking about this subject so much. We should all profit from each other’s experiences and viewpoints.

With all the responses with the “No Code” proposal, I do not see what the big deal is. I feel that it should be left for the Extra Class license holders as they are suppose to be the elite of the amateur license, but what about the people who have tried to learn CW and cannot learn it, but have passed the General Element 3?

Albert Einstein could not pas a grade school math class but was revered as a mathematical genius for his mathematical equations.

Apples and oranges, maybe but they are of the same category.
73’s
Bob

 

k4jf - sir I could not agree with you more ,good post there , every what happens here all hams must come togather and stand as one for the sake of ham Radio ,I am there now this stuff dose not up set me in the least, But what the fcc said they was going to doI am for it 100%But if they dont ok thats fine two ,I will go on as tho nothing happen , I know as a technician I am Branded By some, But I do not worry about that for every one that will not talk to me there are others that will ,and as for as getting Rid of the code no I am not for that at all ,and I am on your side on that,as for the name calling well that dose no good at all , that only makes things worse , 73 good luck Bill

 

kc0ttk-So far out of these posts I do not see very much goodwill, just a bunch of guys trashing each other for their individual beliefs and viewpoints.

We all have at least one thing in common, the enjoyment of radio; otherwise we would not be talking about this subject so much. We should all profit from each other’s experiences and viewpoints.
kc0ttk - this is the way I see it to good post ,73 Bill

 

Show me one documented case that a person has actually applied themselves to the task of learning morse code and could not. I'll bet money that they are exceedingly rare. If a person has an IQ in the "normal" range, ie., 90-130 range, and that person can learn electronic theory, I'll show you a person who isn't applying themselves to learning morse. Henry Ford said that "think you can, think you can't, either way you're right". And that is actually what's going on. This learning disability came about after 1991, a result of lowered or no code requirement. It will happen with the written test as well. Its all a smoke screen for a desire for something for nothing. I'm an elitist in that if it were left up to me there would be no entry into amateur radio for that faction. Amateur radio isn't dying, its numbers were "swelled" with many who never would have become licensed were it not for reduced requirements. Now that that hurdle has been jumped, and the numbers of them are starting to diminish there is a cry that amateur radio is dying as the numbers fall back towards the hard core that are the rightful heirs to the service. The only thing now that can increase the numbers will be outright giveaway. Personally I don't care if amateur radio dies, if it means surrendering it to the same forces that ruined CB.

 

Hi Bob,
Welcome to ham radio,--
Your statement,--"the amateur service increases the
number of trained radio operators and electronics
experts and improves international goodwill", most
of us OT`s(old-timers) remember quite well.

That USED to be true years ago as a "rule" when all
prospective hams came up through the "ranks",
as a novice, general, advanced, and finally "extra"
when there was a credible exam system requiring
both a "good" cw and written test.

In the last 15 to 20 years,--things have changed
dramatically,(in many of the older hams opinion) in
that the requirements to get a ticket have been
"watered down" or "diluted", and as such THIS is
what has created this division,IMO and many others.
AS such many of us OT`s do not feel ham radio is
what it used to be years ago.

The CW requirement of 13 and 20 wpm was accepted
as just that,--a "requirement",--not an "unjust
imposition" as it is by many in today`s world.

                            73, Rene, K1MVP

P.S, Hope this helps explain these differences.

 

No matter what anybody thinks, the Tech class license IS the entry level license, and the FCC has no intention of changing this. They also abolished testing for the novice class license because they expected to eliminate the code requirement. I, personally see no reason to change the present license structure, because it WORKS. And if some hams perceive that the difficulty level of the Tech license seperates the serious applicants from the CB types who want a free ride into ham radio, then so be it. A famous author once stated" there is no such thing as a 'free lunch' ". He also stated that "Anything you have is only worth what you paid for it". Over the years, Amateur Radio has been a worthy endeavor, attempted by those who wanted a special hobby, and wished to help their fellow man. We saw the impact that ham radio can have by the public service provided during the Katrina diasaster. The radios that we use are not "toys" as some of the CB's in use today.Some CBer's are quite serious about their hobby, and do provide a great public service to their community. No one can deny that. But when a CBer wants to move up to a greater "hobby", we owe them the knowledge and experience that all of us OT's have accumulated over the years. "Dumbing down" the exam structure does these people a great disservice, as does some club "exam mills" that teach them only enough to pass the existing exams. Each applicant to Amateur Radio must know the theory behind the questions, and why the rules and regulations exist as defined by the FCC. If we do not teach our new hams these things, we are doing them a great disservice, possibly exposing them to great danger to life and limb, and lessening their enjoyment of our great endeavor. I've seen some new hams give up prematurely because they do not understand what is required of them as ham operators, they are really joining an exclusive fraternity. And if they do not act and practise the ways we all do, they are shunned, or made fun of. Each new ham should have an "Elmer" appointed for them to guide them into this new strange world. Lord knows, I've elmered many good hams after they earned their first license, just so they would enjoy the hobby I've enjoyed for 25 years. Elmering is fun, and rewarding in itelf, if you have never done so, I advise you to try it. At least you will have the knowledge that you may have fostered a ham that will be in the hobby for life. And that, my friends, is a much better thing than embarassing a newcomer just to bolster your flatulent ego! "CW forever"? Only if you want to. "No lids, no kids, and no space cadets"? That is a good way to be talking to yourself on a constant basis (its shameful, you are), because if I hear a CQ call including that phrase, I'm not going to reply to your crappy attitude. To sum things up, all of us need to take a greater intrest in the newcomers to the hobby, as we could be making new friends, AND making great ham operators. We owe it to them, just as our Elmers owed it to us as we came to be ham operators.   73, Fred.

 

The Amateur structure was never broken, why try to fix it? It worked very well in the 50's. A Novice Class for beginners, with an incentive to upgrade, since it was non-renewable and valid only for one year. I got a Novice license in 1951at 15 years of age and Conditional class within that year by using 80 meter cw to bring my speed up to the required 13 wpm using home built transmitter. Real Ham Radio then! Not store bought, plug-it-in CB Radio type hams then. If you wanted to be a Ham, you worked for it. There was an 11 Meter Novice band then, but it was taken away and given to to the CB'ers. (26.96-27.23 Mc.) Ham Radio has deteriorated since then to little more than CB radio, thanks to the greed of the ARRL (Non-profit?) and their desire for more readers and advertisers in QST and therefore more money. Now all they do is try to increase the number of Hams with all the proposals they make. We need more quality, not more quantity. Worthwhile objectives should be earned, not bought, and will be more respected and cherished. Al, W5TJZ, ex WN5TJZ.

 

I was in a training session the other day with a room full of engineers.  In a bit of free time between lessons we got to chat and one person brought up a quirky coworker that happened to be a ham.  I made a joking remark that I too was a ham and therefore had similar quirks, such as the desire to construct large antennas.  That brought us to the how and why of becoming a ham.  They all agreed that the Morse code requirement seemed rather silly given our current state of technology.

What struck me most about the conversation that followed was this.  I mentioned that hams write the tests for future hams.  One engineer thought that could bring about corruption.  I didn't know how to respond.  He had a point.  If the tests are too easy, as many seem to claim, we have no one to blame but ourselves.  We decide who gets a license.  The FCC creates guidelines for us to follow but we have very wide powers on determining the qualities in a future ham since we control what ultimately goes on the tests.

If the quality of hams has dropped through the years it has been our fault, not that of the FCC. We write the tests, we administer the tests, we police our own frequencies, etc. under the guidelines that we (as hams and/or citizens) have asked the FCC to impose.

What amuses me the most about all the bitching and moaning that goes on by those that want to keep the Morse code testing is this.  The claim is that anyone can learn Morse code.  An example is given of someone like a dyslexic deaf 6th grader with ADD that was able to learn Morse code so anyone should be able to.  Another claim, usually made in the same breath as the first, is that we need Morse code to keep out those "unworthy" of becoming a ham.  So, if Morse code is so easy to learn how does it keep out the undesirables?  You can't have it both ways.  To test for the elite it should be something that only the elite can do.  If the test is something that anyone can pass then the test is worthless.

The game is over, Morse code testing is gone. The fans went home and the players left the field. Only the cheerleaders and referees remain to watch the clock run out. It's too late to change the score. Hoot and holler at an empty stadium if you wish, no one is listening... except the drunken hecklers on the other side of the field.

This thread was supposed to be about the possible creation of a new entry level license for after the Morse code testing is gone. Instead it turned into another flame war between the pro-coders and the no-coders. That game has been played, it's time to look at the next one.

The next time any of you want to complain about the current state of Amateur radio, good or bad, look in the mirror first at who brought us to this point and think about who you see before spitting out more vitriol.

 

Sorry, Fred.  By no imagination can the Tech be considered an entry level license.  It is basically the same as General.  After the code is gone, there is no upgrade to General, as the two are the same level.

There are now only two Amateur Radio license levels available: Technician/General, and Extra. (Yes, the Novice and Advanced licenses are still there but not available to earn.)

Many people enter through the Tech license but is it not an entry-level license.  The Novice was, and should be reinstated, IMO.

And, if the present license structure works, then why the roaring controversy?  Obviously because it DOES NOT.

 

I'd be interested to know how you arrived at your conclusion on this issue.  

The last time I checked, the Technician exam was a 35 question test based on Element 2, and the General exam was also a 35 question test, but it is based on Element 3.  What's more, the material contained in the question pools for each element are quite different.

Now, granted, years ago (MANY years ago!) the Technician and General written material was the same. Which is probably why currently licensed Technicians who were licensed before March 21, 1987 are given full credit for both Element 2 and Element 3 at a VE test session.

And, while I concur that the current Technician license was never intended to be an entry-level license for HF operation, it HAS become (if for no other reason than by the sheer numbers of newcomers who take and pass it) the entry-level license of choice in the USA.

73,

Keith
VA3KSF / KB1SF

 

"If the tests are too easy we have no one to blame but ourselves"--"not the FCC`s fault",--Oh really?

The FCC turned the testing over to the ARRL and NCVEC,
about 20 years ago.
Prior to that period the FCC itself was the primary agency
that conducted and graded the exams.
 
The other thing you seem to "miss",--is that there were
NO published questions pools, which actually "taught"
the answers as is now the case.
The ARRL used to publish "license guides" with similar
questions,--and one had to be able to understand the
"concepts" in order to pass.
The actual exam questions WERE NOT available to
the public, when the FCC administered the exams.

                          73, K1MVP
P.S., and why do you suppose the FCC did turn testing
      over to the ham community?
      Three guess`es,--the first two don`t count.

 

I didn't say they had the same questions. They have not for a few years now. But they DO, and have always, had questions of the same LEVEL - that is, level of difficulty. They are the same level of license. Always have been.

Yes, the Technician license is the means many use to enter the ARS. Many have used it to enter, but that does not make it an entry-level license. What I believe we need is an entry level license to compare with the old Novice. AND two years non-renewable. A real entry-level. Something one can get into - with very limited privileges, to see if he/she really wants to be, and wants to put forth the effort, to be a ham. Presently we expect them to go to full-fledged to start. That is like starting kids out with a full-fledged driver's license, rather than a learner's permit, with safeguards.

The UK and Australia have it right - they call it, for some reason, a "foundation" license.

 

I didn't say they had the same questions.  They have not for a few years now.  But they DO, and have always, had questions of the same LEVEL - that is, level of difficulty.  They are the same level of license.  Always have been.[/QUOTE]
OK...now I think I see where you're coming from.

The two ACHIEVEMENT tests are at the same "level of difficulty".

73,

Keith
VA3KSF / KB1SF

 

OK...now I think I see where you're coming from.

The two ACHIEVEMENT tests are at the same "level of difficulty".

73,

Keith
VA3KSF / KB1SF[/quote]
Correct.  And the two resulting licenses the same level.  One primarily on VHF and up, one primarily HF.  And when the FCC assigned callsigns reflecting the class of license, the Technician and General were assigned the same (1x3).

 

You seem to try to contradict me but are instead proving my point.  The FCC handed the authority over the tests to the Amateur radio community, if the tests have gotten easier in that time then it's because the Amateur radio community made it so.  The FCC washed its hands of the question pool, they cannot be blamed for the content of the exams.

If the FCC didn't hand the question pool over to the QPC for public consumption then the Freedom of Information Act or the memorizing of the tests by some (finicially) motivated people would have placed the tests in readily available texts in some fashion.

Many people deride the open question pool because the questions and answers are given.  The claim is that people can just memorize the correct answers to the questions.  But is not all learning a form of memorizing?  So what, people memorize the answers.  They have learned.  The questions can be written to make memorization without learning the concepts more difficult.  One example I recall someone pointing out is that there were three questions that the correct answer was "one time constant" in which case a person could answer correctly and not understand the concept.  To me that is not a fault of an open question pool, I think it is the result of a poorly written question pool.

If the quality of the question pool has diminished in the past 20 years it was not the fault of the FCC.

One thing I was trying to point out is that there is a lot of criticism going around here but very little of it is constructive.

If you are proposing to close the question pool I will say it just won't happen.  The logistics of securing the question pool would be nearly impossible.  I don't know how many people get tested every year but it must be on the order of thousands.  All it would take to invalidate the question pool is one misplaced copy.  What do you do then?  Force retests of all people that passed after the one copy was lost?  Throw out the entire question pool and start over?

This also does not address the Freedom of Information Act rights of people to review the question pool.  People have a right to know what they will be tested on to get a license.  Another thing is that a large part of the testing is over rules of safety and operating regulations.  Those rules and regulations are already published.  Putting them in a Q and A format for a study guide would be trivial and helpful to study from.  Some one will pay for such a study guide.

I could go on but I hope I've made my point.  The question pool will never be closed again.

Oh, I should answer your question directly.  Why did the FCC turn the testing over to the ham community?  Money.  I remember hearing that if you must ask why the answer is money nine times out of ten.  I imagine the testing was quite expensive.  The government had to pay people to conduct the tests and find space to hold the sessions.  Handing that responsibility over to volunteers had to be a tremendous cost savings for them.  I don't know what answer you are looking for but that is the one I'm sticking to.

I guess that leads to the question of whether the handing of the question pools to the ham community was a wise choice.  I think it was.  I've already mentioned the difficulty in securing the question pool.  The cost savings for doing such must have been enormous.  Also the best people to write the tests are those experienced in the topic being tested, hams writing the tests for hams.

Is this system prone to corruption as the one engineer pointed out to me the other day?  Perhaps.  The currently licensed hams could collectively decide to make the testing so difficult that no one could possibly pass it.  The opposite could also be true where the hams could make the test so easy that anyone could pass it.  I think the two groups will be kept in balance by each other and the oversight of the FCC and any concerned citizens, licensed or not.

There are two things that will never happen again in Amateur radio, Morse code testing, and closed exams performed by FCC staff.  Hopefully there will be fewer people suggesting such after people read this.  I have little faith in that actually happening since this is, after all, QRZ.com.  The old days are gone.  Stop staring in the rear view mirror it doesn't help in finding the path forward.  It's OK to look back once in a while to see what worked and what did not, but most of the time needs to be spent looking ahead.  Closed tests did not work (because people memorized the Q's and A's) and will not work (because of the FOIA).  Morse code testing... I'll leave that one alone since too many words have been said on that already.