"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
news

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

But does the NCVEC petition, or the NCI petition address the writtens?
Not
at
all.

No, why should it? I have ALWAYS said the code was a
separate issue from writtens. I'm not opposed to revisiting
the writtens, but there's no need to wait for that before ending all
code testing.


Yes it should address writtens because by eliminating the code test
without
addressing the writtens, you are reducing the overall level of knowledge
required to earn the various levels of ham licenses. Until the
replacement
exams are ready, the old exams, including the code should remain intact.

Gee, when the states stopped requiring manual transmission knowledge
and/or use of hand signals while driving, what'd they replace
those elements with to keep the driving test at the same level of knowledge?

The point is that licensing should be about rational requirement
consistent with license privileges. It has NOTHING to do with maintaining
any set level of difficulty...as if that can even be measured in some
way.

Personally if the code is dropped, I would like to see the exams
restructured as follows:

A) Regulations element: One must pass this before being allowed to take
any
of the other elements.
A lengthy and separate exam covering the FCC rules and regulations in
depth.
Based on what I hear on the air and the statements on the internet from
any
hams, there's a real problem in this area. This one should require at
least
a score of 85% to pass.

B) Technician element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material and operating procedures material to keep the test pool about the
same size.

C) General element:
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and basic VE requirements material to keep
the test pool about the same size.

D) Extra element
Rewritten to move the regulations questions to A). Additional technical
material, operating procedures, and extensive VE requirements material to
keep the test pool about the same size.

I'd really like to see a rules test as a stand alone test that one must
pass
before even taking any of the other elements.

Not a bad approach... but not sure 85% should be expected passing
rate for A. In any case, such a change in approach would involve
considerable comment and discussion which should NOT stop
the immediate removal of Element 1 (code).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK