In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

I have noted that many people that are in favor of removing Element 1
from the tests are also in favor of this removal of safety questions, or
whatever gets those tests down to an elementary school level.

They're already at that level, aren't they? I got my ham license while in
elementary school...

This is
despite protestations from some that they would NEVER support reductions
like that.

The real kicker isn't the easier entry-level exam. That can be justified. It's
the free upgrades.

My disappointment is immense that I trusted them and that
they were inaccurate in their dealings with me. Whatever, I'm sure that
means nothing to them.

Yet when it was pointed out that the same arguments used against the code test
could be used against the written test.....

Drawing from that experience, I can safely conclude that they are
willing to chip away at any part of the test that they can, and that no
level of simplicity is too simple for them.

And they have no intention of stopping there.

D'Zat work?

That sums it up quite nicely, Mike.

And consider this: If FCC accepts the signed statement of a newcomer about Part
97, why test for it at all at any class of license?

We're talking about requiring some knowledge that might prevent the
person
from hurting himself or others. Why are we so anxious to avoid them..?!?!

Knowledge is BAD!

Here's another possibility:

Portraying something as difficult can have a dramatic effect on how difficult
it is perceived to be. For example, a major part of marathon training is
learning to believe that you can, indeed, do the distance. That sort of thing
does not replace training runs, but it is a part of the training. You have to
believe you can do it.

In the same fashion, portraying the exam tests (written or code!) as
"difficult" can have a similar effect.

73 de Jim, N2EY