"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

That's your point, Carl, not my point.

OK ... but it's still my (valid) point.

The original story told how, back in 1978, the whole class of CG folks
went down to FCC and became Extras, while today none of them did.

My point was simply that there are significant differences between the
1978 and 2003 situations, such as:

- the 1978 class was 'required' to take the test, and means provided
to do so (do you think they went on their own time? used their own
transportation? paid any fees?).

- the 1978 class had already learned all they needed to know to pass
the 1978 tests.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.

You can't change that situation anyway.

Agreed ... but I reitterate "If someone already has the knowledge to
pass the tests, fine."


There is no "value added" in "making them work for it"

Who said there was?

LOTS of folks here have promoted the "everyone should have
to WORK for their license "to prove their dedication, etc.""
(I'm not saying YOU said that, but lots of folks have voiced
that view ...)

The point is that the 1978 class had a completely
different situation from the 2003 class.

... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period.

So would you agree with Kim that anyone who can pass the required
tests should be allowed into the ARS?

Yes, unless they have some other disqualifying factor that would
render them unsuitable to be an FCC licensee (past history of
violations, etc.), but that's the FCC's call ...

(and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

Maybe so, but it's not the FCC's business to determine how much
someone "values" a ham license ... only to determine if they meet
the minimum qualifications established. Besides, just because someone
did the work of learning BEFORE they decided to become a ham
doesn't mean they didn't still "do the work." Why should that (previously
accomplished) work be "devalued" as some suggest???

73,
Carl - wk3c