View Single Post
  #6   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 04:20 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
Steve Bonine Steve Bonine is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 169
Default Feb 23 is the No-code date

wrote:

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know
the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited
space.


The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.

How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.

If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
remaining knowledge for most people.

On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
radio.

When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.


But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods.
Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in
fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true today.
I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's
pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years ago.

In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a
piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law?

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?


The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah,
maybe they do.

When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week
for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license. Then
I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus learning
enough theory to pass the General exam.

In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

So you walk this tightrope of trying to keep the barriers to entry high
enough so that there is some