KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
| difference is about impossible to quantify.
|

The degree of difficulty of tests written back in the 50's is immaterial
to todays situation.

Today the General exam requires passing two 35-question written
examinations, and the Technician requires passing only the simpler of
those two exams.

The ARRL proposal, which NCI directors seem hellbent to support, would
waive the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect giving away
"half-price" General licenses to a third of a million licensees.

I would suggest that "relevant" might be substituted for "harder",
Hans. While the giveaway goons whine about how hard the test is or
isn't, The fact is that the general test tests for knowledge that is
*relevant* to hf operation.

So in the great giveaway, people will be given access to HF without
some of the necessary knowledge.

Is that fair to them?


Fact: None of the tests are that hard. All it takes is some study.

Fact: the tests aren't necessarily supposed to be hard. They are to
show that a person is prepared to exercise the privileges gained by
passing the test.

Fact: the "one time adjustment" hams, now a majority of hams, will not
have been prepared properly for their HF access.

Opinion: It is one heck of a disservice we are doing for them.



They
attempt, with a straight face, to rationalize this away by how few pages
were in Ed Hare's study material for General 40 or more years ago!

I don't care about Ed's test.

This support, from people like Carl, who previously stood four-square
against any dillution of the technical requirements for amateur
licenses, is unfathomable even when masked by platitudes of his
"fiduciary duty", as though he were appointed to some "guardianship"
responsibility to the amateur service???

It's a heavy weight to bear.


- Mike KB3EIA -