Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
No, the new generation of hams will make it obsolete and history!

Like AM?
--

The invention of the motorcycle did not make the bicycle obsolete. The
invention of the car did not make walking obsolete. Power boats did not
make all sailboats obsolete, although many sailboats were replaced by
power boats.

People still *run* marathons, even though they'd go a lot faster with a
lot less effort if roller skates were used.

AM did not become obsolete when SSB was invented. Morse Code did not
become obsolete when voice and RTTY were invented.

There will still be people who CHOOSE to use Morse if it's presented to
them
as fun and they're allowed to make the choice without intimidation (and
without berating them)

And if there's available spectrum and other Morse Code operators.

And if there isn't it will be because not enough people are interested in
using that mode.
(I'm not trying to encourage its demise, just stating the evolutionary
reality.)

That's simply a restating of what I meant by "other Morse Code
operators".

But that's not the only thing needed. Regulations can be written that
make it harder to
use some well-established modes.

For example, look what happened to plain old AM 'phone. Before the
1983-84 power rules change, hams could run up to 1000 watts input on
AM. With a plate- or collector-modulated Class C legal-limit final,
that meant up to 750 watts or so of carrier output. With advanced
modes, even higher outputs could be obtained at 1000 watts input.

But then the rules changed from 1000W DC input to 1500W peak output.
Which effectively lowered the AM power limit by 50% or more. AM'ers
asked that there be the option of using either system - 1000 W DC input
*or* 1500 W peak output - but FCC said no.

Except for a few people who learned Morse Code elsewhere, most would-be
hams don't have any prior Morse Code skill.

True ...

The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer,

Absurd ...

Not at all.

ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at
some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less.

IMHO, that's a rather shortsighted view. Consider this statement:

ALL that a written test does is indicate that you can pick out
at least the minimum required number of correct multiple-choice
answers in a test where all of
the questions and answers are freely available beforehand.
Nothing more, nothing less.

The focus on the nature of the test (multiple choice) and memorization
is specious and contrived to depricate the test.

You're missing the point.

The statement you made about the code test and the statement I made
about the written tests are essentially identical. That's the point I
was making.

The US amateur written exams have been exclusively multiple-choice for
over 40 years. That's not going to change.

I'm beginning study
for a private pilot's license ... and the written test for that is multiple
choice, too.

Does the FAA publish all of the questions and answers that can appear
on the tests, complete with the correct answers pointed out? Can you
take practice exams online for free? What score is needed to pass?

Do you see experienced aviation folks saying the pilot's license exams
are too technical, and need to be simplified?

In the aviation field there doesn't seem to be a group
of old-timers who bemoan the nature of the current test and denigrate
newbies - in fact, I see AOPA and everyone I've encountered doing
their best to encourage newcomers because they recognize that the
future of general aviation depends on it.

There is a big difference between pointing out deficiencies in license
tests and methods
and denigrating newcomers. I do the former, not the latter.

Aviation is quite a bit different from amateur radio in many ways. For
one thing, it's a lot
more expensive, and potentially dangerous. A lot more judgement is
needed for aviation,
and what appears to be a minor error can turn into a disaster very
easily. (Just look what
happened to JFK Jr. because of an error in judgement).

"There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old,
bold pilots"

In addition, as long as you don't cheat, FCC does not care how you
get the right answers, nor which questions you get right or wrong.
They don't care if you memorized, or if you guessed, or if you
really understand the material. They also don't care if you have a Ph.D
in EE, etc. - you get the same test.

Yea ... what else did you expect.

The point is that passing the written exams does not mean the person
understands
the material.

Minimum entry requirements are just
that. Doesn't matter where you start from. As long as you can pass
the minimum requirements you get in. Hopefully you continue to learn
and grow.

Agreed - but what should those minimum requirements be? Does the
current 35 question Technician written *really* test what a ham should
know in order to operate 1500 watt output transmitters at (to use your
excellent phrase) "meat cooking frequencies"?

[snip to related material]

The point I was making is that *passing the written tests* is/was a
very
different thing from passing the Morse Code tests, particularly if
someone
had some background in electricity or electronics. Which is much more
likely today than someone having background in Morse Code.

So???


That only goes to support the fact that Morse is essentially
unimportant in today's real world. (not to say you can't still find it
fun or that you shouldn't use it)

Isn't amateur radio part of "today's real world"? Morse Code is part of
amateur radio -
a big part.

I was talking night before last with Ed Hare - remember the 3 page study
guide that he had for his novice test and compare that, as he does, to
the
200+ pages of "Now You're Talking" - there has been NO "dumbing down"
for
entry into ham radio. How anyone could assert with honesty and a
straight
face that 200+ pages of material is "dumbed down" compared to 3 pages is
something that simply is unfathomable.

I have debunked W1RFI's "200 page" myth several times - including in
person. I wish you'd been there for that one, Carl.

Despite your assertions, I don't believe that Ed's assertions can be
legitimately debunked.

They can if someone has an open mind to look at the facts.

[more snip for brevity]

The "equalizer" idea is simply to point out that almost all hams who
try to learn it
start at the same place. That's not true of the written exams.

Again - SO???

So some people don't like the idea of learning skills. And some people
don't like the idea of learning something for amateur radio alone.

Testing for licensure is not about "making folks work for it" or the liberal
Democrat idea of "equalizing outcomes" (as opposed to equal OPPORTUNITY).

There has always been equal opportunity to get a ham license. Show up,
pass the tests,
get the license.

The equal opportunity is the opportunity to take the prescribed test - no
matter WHERE
you started from - and, if you pass the test, get a license.

Testing should not be some sort of "social enginneering" exercise, but
should ONLY
involve the required demonstration of meeting the established minimum
requirements
for licensure.

Any test is composed of at leasst two components: the material and the
method.
How well a test indicates the qualifications of the person tested
depends on both.

IMHO, the material of today's tests is roughly equivalent to that of
the old tests,
updated for changes in the rules and commonly-used technologies. But
the
*methods* used today are not comparable to the old methods.

Which do you think is a better test of how well a person knows
technical material:

Method A: The general areas of the test are announced by means of
typical
problems, shown in a manner different from the actual test format.

or

Method B: The exact questions and answers that may appear on the test
are shown in a manner identical to the actual test format.

73 de Jim, N2EY