A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 4, 1:10 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:54?am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message
There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.
Tech, and Extra.
Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with
all
privileges.
Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add.
[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]
Rip Van Deignan... overslept.
I disagree. ?My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.
I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." ?However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. ?Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.
Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. ?I would advocate
two licenses: ?a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. ?The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. ?Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. ?It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate.
I disagree. ?The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.
An ENTRY level license NAME loaded with denigrating
adjectives is not a good way to attract anyone. Using
"novice" or "beginner" or "apprentice" or "tyro" or "newbie"
MIGHT attract a younger teener but is a turn-off to most
anyone over 18. "Limited" might be an "accurate"
adjective but it is still emotionally-loaded as a descriptor.
Even a "tyro" marketing person would have tossed the
"Novice" name in the trash long ago. :-(
If anything, just call the entry class for Entry class...
We could go French and call it the enfante' class.
Or Airman First Class, Airman Second Class, Airman Third Class...
Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine these
two. ?Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how
best to present the combined material. ?At this point in time, there are no
combined manuals that already address the material for both license classes.
In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was
available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and
Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person could
study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will be
to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of the
box.
As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level" license.
Why not?
Once upon a time in hamland there was NO "entry level"
by name. One simply jumped in and did it, "learning"
the (oh so) PROPER procedure as they went along.
Jumped in and did it as in NO TESTING.
As I suspected, and Len asserted, "It's all about Morse Code" with
some of you's guys.
Morsemanship skills could have used an on-air learning
period for many. It was never an intellectual skill but a
psychomotor thing that some had trouble with despite
some saying "oh, no trouble at all for 'me'." :-(
"If I can do it anyone can. And if they can't then they're not
special like me and don't belong..."
If any ham club wants to have specialized classes on
morsemanship skills, that's fine with me. Those interested
in that can do the classroom thing all they want, then try
it out for real with their radios later. That's the SAME
way one learns theory in classroom environments, then
tries it out on real radio hardware later.
Sounds real good to me.
Trying to combine classroom with on-air training by
frequency-restricted, limited privilege license classes
(and the attendant class-distinction) was never a good
thing in my mind.
73, LA- Hide quoted text -
bb
|