In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"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.

You sort of contradict it later on (see below)

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."

Sure.

But the claim was all about how the folks in '78 all got ham tickets and the
ones in 2003 did not. I'm simply pointing out that it's ana apples and oranges
comparison. Heck, the promise of a day's liberty and a free trip off-base in
exchange for an hour of taking a test that was far below the level of what you
did every day was a no-brainer.

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 ...)

Folks say all kinds of things. Point is, no matter what you make the
requirements, some will say they are too easy and others will say they're too
much of a burden.

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.),

Good point! And that's the sort-of contradiction I was talking about.

It's not just passing the test(s), but also not having certain disqualifying
factors.

but that's the FCC's call ...

And that's where we part company with Kim's ideas - as I understand them,
anyway. The whole "character" issue.

You see, the tests are pretty objective in their methods. While we may not be
crazy about multiple choice, it is 100% objective of method because there is
one defined right answer and all the others are wrong. With methods like essays
and fill-in-the-blank, a lot depends on the marker's judgement.

But the question of disqualifying factors is entirely subjective. ("Kid, have
you rehabilitated yourself?" - Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restauraunt"). Almost any
violation, including those unrelated to radio, can be a cause for FCC to deny a
license. That's why they want a TIN, as I understand it. Don't pay your taxes
or court-ordered child support? No ham license.

(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.

Sure.

The concern is, however, that making the licenses easier and easier to get may
result in some folks not valuing them enough even to bother following the
rules.

You've been a ham since 1975, Carl - how do you think the current level of
rules compliance (particularly in the area of operator on-air behavior, like
jamming, cussing, failure to ID, etc.) compares with that of 1975?

But what those qualifications should be is an endless debate. Even if the code
test disappears, the content of the writtens will be debated. Just watch, Carl
- there will be those who attack the Extra as "elitist" and "a barrier" and "an
unreasonable burden".

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???

For that matter, what about those for whom it wasn't that much "work" at all?
Some folks can pick up a copy of, say, "Now You're Talking", read it through,
and pass the test easily, even though they had no radio experience at all
beforehand. Other folks will struggle with the very same material.

73 de Jim, N2EY