jakdedert wrote:
whoever wrote:
jakdedert wrote:

IMHO, requiring a code test is like requiring someone to know how
to

I think it would be more like knowing how to change a tire to get a
drivers license!

NIMO...in an emergency, one might actually 'have' to change a tire.

Yet there's no test for it, and if the spare is flat you're out of
luck.

They'll
never HAVE to reupholster the seats. They might 'want' to, and learn
how,
but I can't imagine it ever being required.

How about requiring everyone to know how to drive stick shift, even if
they never intend to? In an emergency, a manual transmission vehicle
might be the only one available...

If one just learns enough code to pass the test, it's doubtful
they'll
remember enough to communicate a year later...even in an emergency.

Same is true of many subjects. How much of what was learned in high
school does the average person remember, outside of things that are in
their chosen field of work?

----

What's happening in Canada is simply this: A survey was done and then a
proposal. In both cases, there was clear majority support to end
*mandatory* code testing for a ham license.

But when such surveys and proposals are done here in the USA, there is
no clear majority to end the code test.

However, there's a big difference:

IIRC, the RAC would *raise* the written requirements, and allow a
prospective ham to skip the code test if they scored high enough on the
written.

That's a concept that hasn't been discussed much, if at all, outside of
Canada. Imagine such a system in the USA: Perhaps we could have it that
if you get a 90 or better on your General, you can skip Element 1. Or
maybe create a new written test that could be taken *instead of*
Element 1, and let the new ham decide which test to take - code, or the
additional written.

Could we all live with that?

73 de Jim, N2EY