wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote
But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....
Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.
It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others.
In other words, that is your opinion based
on your view of certain actions of others but
you have NO example where anyone has
said the requirements are too high. So the
reality is that we have NOT been told by
anyone that the requirements are too high.
First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code
waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute-
solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and
look at the writtens:
1) there's the official publication of the written exams.
Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition
for the test questions to be published?
Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by
FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence
of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them
secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled
the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it
when the VEs ran the testing?
2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time.
Your point?
In the bad old days, all the elements for a particular license had
to be passed at the same test session. For example, getting an
Extra meant that you had to pass both code and theory at the
same time. That's a tougher requirement than being able to
take them separately.
But again, that wasn't asked for by amateurs or any amateur
organization.
And again, who lobbied for that change?
I don't recall if anyone did.
Exactly!
3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements
so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written.
4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover
more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions
from the 1976 exams?
One could argue that is making the test
more difficult...depending on the individual.
It's the difference between knowing a little bit of the basics
of a wide variety of subjects vs. an in-depth
knowledge of fewer subjects. Most people find
the latter to be more challenging.
Amd you know this to be true based on what scientific
study/analysis?
And again, who asked for that or drove that change?
5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over
as long as time and the wallet hold out.
Hasn't that been recently changed?
I don't think so. It was proposed but
AFAIK not acted upon.
Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows
retesting on the smae test at the same test session.
My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee.
Do they allow the taking of the exact same test?
I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here
in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the
exact same test a second time on that same session
regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also
is that the VEs running the session have no desire to
allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's
money runs out.
In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and
the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes.
And yet NCVEC says we need another license class
because the current Tech is "too hard".
Hasn't the ARRL said the same thing by proposing a
new beginners license?
(SNIP
Have they really proposed a new license?
Or (just) different privileges for the existing one?
In another reply to your question,
Len stated the ARRL has filed both proposals.
I'll take his word on that.
As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:
1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.
Cheers
Bill K2UNK