Bill Sohl wrote:
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.

Here are some more examples:

- ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams. These
proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech Pluses getting
Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds getting Extras
with no additional testing. While they don't come right out and say
the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands
of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively
says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are
too high. Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements.

NCI agreed with the ARRL proposal on the free upgrades, btw.
But FCC disagreed and denied all proposals for free upgrades.
FCC cited the comments of certain people in that denial - see
footnote 142 in the NPRM. (ahem)

- NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is
full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly
for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed
the "21st Century" paper closely.

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?

Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because
the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down
to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference
from secret tests!

For example, in the old days we knew there would be Ohm's Law
problems on the exam, possibly including series and parallel resistors,
voltage dividers, power calculations and more. But we didn't know
exactly what the problems to be solved would look like, so we learned
to solve almost anything we could think up.

With open pools the exact form of the problem is known, and only
solutions for the problems which may be on the test need be learned.

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?

Observation of human beings for over half a century ;-)

A typical first grader knows a little bit about a lot of
things, but not that much about any one thing.

And again, who asked for that or drove that change?

It was driven by the QPC and NCVEC.

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?

No.

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.

Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory
30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the
test *really* prepared because coming back was not that
easy.

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.

He's hardly a reliable source.

ARRL proposed a new license class in 2004.
NCVEC has too, and some others. FCC denied them all.

The original 2004 ARRL proposal would have given all Techs and
Tech pluses a free upgrade to General. Advanceds would get a
free upgrade to Extra, too.

ARRL then proposed that the Technician then be replaced by a
new entry-level license that had a balance of HF and VHF/UHF
privileges, instead of the current Technician's all-VHF/UHF
setup.

That part of the 2004 ARRL proposal was denied by FCC.

Now, in comments on the current NPRM, ARRL has
recommended expanded privileges for all Technicians, rather
than a completely new license class. The claim is that
the all-VHF/UHF privileges of the Technician are not optimum
for the entry-class license, and that it would be expecting
too much for new hams to get a General just to get on
HF - *even without any code test for General*.

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

Will probably happen regardless of anything else.

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.

Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading
the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and
analyzing it a la AH0A.

It would not be possible to determine "never before" hams as
opposed to "retreads" without a lot of historic info.

Upgrades could be derived by comparing the current license class
of each license with the license class from the previous analysis.

3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do all
the analysis work?

It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes.

If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders
have an incentive to pass the tests.

But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the
requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how
things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a
few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL
got you a free upgrade?

Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back.

As an example, yesterday I was in BestBuy and took a look at
the HDTVs. All sorts of them on the market - and some of the
older ones were being sold at clearance prices.

But I decided not to get one now, because I think the prices
will come down. I don't "need" an HD set just yet, so why
pay the high price now?

73 de Jim, N2EY