"N2EY" wrote in message
...

My point is simply this: When someone or some group challenges the
*written*
tests - particularly the parts beyond the regulations and safety - how are
we
going to defend them from a regulatory point of view? Particularly if they
use
the exact same arguments as used against the Morse test?

Simple ... the FCC has determined that the ARS is "primarily a technical
service." Additionally, the ITU Radio Regs require administrations to
determine the technical qualifications of applicants for amateur licenses
and there is an ITU-R Recommendation (M.1544) that outlines the
theoretical knowledge that amateurs should have ... yes it is not strictly
mandatory, but the US and most other administrations do generally
follow the guidance given by ITU Recommendations, even ones that
are not strictly mandatory.

You and I and many others will say "Those writen tests are relevant and
reasonable". But how can we *prove* it?

By citing the facts above ...

Before restructuring, it took 5 written tests totalling 190 questions to
get
full privileges. Now it takes 3 writtens totalling 120 questions. Did we
lose
anything by that change?

There was some consolidation of testing as a result of the smaller number
of classes. I don't see that as a big deal.

As Ed Hare said over dinner when he was down here last ... he remembers
the 3 page study guide he had to work from when he first got on the air.
Now "Now you're talking" is well over 200 pages of material for folks to
study and absorb ... how this is "dumbing down" is beyond me.

Can we put this one to bed now?

73,
Carl - wk3c