Howard Lester wrote:
Reading all the back and forth discussion of Steve's upcoming classes and
his concerns... I'm getting really confused. When I was a teenager playing
with CB, I didn't know nuthin' from nuthin' about radio, antennas, you name
it. Once I became determined to become a ham, I eagerly learned all about it
in order to pass my Novice, and then the General, and.... and at points when
I saw the need (such as "gee, what is this 'swr' business?"), I learned
more. So Steve, if you're so concerned about how these "students" are going
to respond to your technical talks and related licensing materials, why are
they even invited? Are they really interested in becoming hams? Or (at an
extreme), are you recruiting potential hams like "Psssst! Hey kid - come
'eah - you wanna get a ham license?"

If they're going to whine about "Why do I have to learn this stuff??" then
*I* don't think they deserve the privilege of a license.

Let me try to address your questions and comments from Jim. I
understand what you are both saying, and agree with much of it. But we
have some basic disagreements.

Let's remind ourselves of the five purposes of the amateur radio service
from Part 97:

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to
the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur’s proven ability to
contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules
which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and
technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur’s unique ability to
enhance international goodwill.

Items b, c, and d require technical knowledge of radio. Items a and e
do not.

There are two reasons why I do not expect the students in my entry-level
class to develop a detailed understanding of electronics.

First, this knowledge is not necessary in today's hobby. Sure, it's
desirable, and it's necessary if you want to actually get involved in
certain aspects of the hobby, like building your own equipment. But it
is perfectly possible to participate in emergency communications, or to
enhance international goodwill, and not know an ohm from an amp.

Second, most people today simply do not have any desire to learn radio
theory. Does that mean that these individuals should be excluded from
the ham radio hobby? I do not think so. It's certainly your prerogative
to believe differently. Related to this, I know that most of these
folks are "learning" this material simply so that they can pass the test
and that within a couple of weeks they'll retain none of it. If that
bothered me, I wouldn't teach the class.

In short, my goal is to get some new hams licensed. At worst, they can
fulfill two of the five stated goals of the service. At best, they will
discover the wonders of the hobby and get involved, and in that process
they'll learn a lot more because they want to. I hope that I can help
them get involved, but they'll never get involved if they don't pass
that first exam.

I have about 18 hours of one-on-many time with these folks. I have to
figure out how to "best" use this time. "Best" is really what we're
talking about in this subthread. I'd love to give them a good
electronics background, but that's simply not possible in 18 hours. My
primary goal is to get them through the exam, and that factors into my
definition of "best use of time".

I don't think that my standards are too low. I would rather give these
folks an opportunity to be productive members of the ham radio
fraternity than to insist on a burning desire from the beginning to
learn about radio fundamentals.