|
A "Codeless Revolution?"
wrote
If the amateur radio licensing statistics posted on Speroni's web site are any indication, then code -wasn't- the barrier. if.... well you are wrong there Where is the 'influx' of new hams who wouldn't get licensed because of that nasty code test? as can be seen by the fury of upgrades What do upgrades have to do with a code test? Upgrades are hams already licensed obtaining higher privileges. sorry Mike we tech can't keep you old geezers from droping dead What's Lennie's excuse then? |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
"Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. I disagree. My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level license system but I think they will be General and Extra. The step from Tech to General is not that difficult and the licensee will have access to all modes, power levels and bands. Unless you are into DXing, contesting or being a VE, the additional privileges that Extra licensees have are not that much of an advantage. I agree that this is the way it seems to be heading. However, I think ARRL members should pressure the organization to lobby the FCC for another, coded class who could exclusively operate on certain sections of the OOK morse sub bands. I think it would be good for society if we could preserve the mode for the future, given that there a certain albiet isolated occaisions when its use can be extremely beneficial to society. |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 4, 8:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 4, 6:56 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message [snip] Also keep in mind that the General test of the past was much harder than today's General as they took a lot of that material and moved it to the new license classes. No, it wasn't. It is substantially more difficult today. And don't forget that half of the OLD General test is now called "Technician." There were several changes. There was the change to the incentive licensing where material was moved from the General to the Advanced and Extra. Completely impossible. Miccolis tells us that the additional license classes, Advanced, and Extra, were needed because the FCC wanted amateurs to be more knowledgeable, so moving General questions to Advanced and Extra would not serve that purpose. Unless Miccolis was wrong. That changed General test was the one that was the same for the Technician and the General. Then a decade later or so, the General test was split to a Tech written and General written. That is correct. Third, the Advanced and Extra Exams have been combined, thereby dumbing down the Extra, bringing it closer to the present General Exam, Combining material does not dumb down a category. It does when you combine it with material from a lesser class QP. Dumbing down requires removing material. Not always, and I've explained it to you too many times to go over it another time. You either get it or you don't. The material has not been removed. It has made the Extra harder because you cannot take the material in smaller chunks. You still have to learn all the same material but do it all at once. Suit yourself. So what do you get when you combine questions from a lower license class with that of a higher license class? You have REDUCED standards for that higher license. No you do not as no material was removed. It's actually more difficult because you have to do it all at once. See below. Imagine the old Novice Q pool being combined with the Extra Q pool for the Extra license... that should magnify my point so that even you can see it. Nope it does not make your point. Only if material is removed does it become easier. If you just combine material without removing any, you make it harder. You run the risk of simpler questions being selected for that 50 question exam. It is easier. The only "break" is that you end up taking one written test of 50 questions instead of two tests of 40 and 50 questions for a total of 90 questions. Today's Extra exam has an 800+ question pool to select from for that 50 question test. Miccolis has covered this... not pushing it toward an MSEE like some of you would like to think. I've never made that assertion nor implied it. That MSEE has to learn a whole lot more than was ever covered in the Amateur radio exams. Are you an MSEE? Nope but as part of my degree, I had to take basic electronics courses and they were more detailed than what is on the ham exams. I can't even begin to imagine that MSEE level. Do you mind if I point some other Extras in your direction when it appears appropriate? So if there is so little difference between the Technician and General Exams, and the Extra has been dumbed down to Advanced level, why do we still have people wanting more superfluous license classes that are growing closer together in difficulty allatime? That is not a valid conclusion. Sure it is. There was no material dropped so it was not dumbed down. Sure it was. I did not say there is so little difference between the Tech and General. I believe you did, but will accept that is not what you meant (unless you say it again). Merely that it is reasonable for a person to study to go to General either right at the beginning or shortly thereafter. That would be known as the "Old General." They were split in the Spring of 1987. I am talking about the General test as it exists since the changes in April of 2000. Nor has the Extra been dumbed down to the Advanced class. Sure it has. I've taught the material. It has not not been dumbed down. But you have them taking lower class questions for a higher class license. Either way, whether you took the two tests separately or took today's single test, the same quantity of material has to be learned. If it is learned. If you were to talk to any of the people who earned their Extra under the pre-2000 system, they will tell you that the Advanced class written test was the hardest of all the writtens. It was. I took and passed both. So the Extra was already dumbed down, and now it is combined with a lower class pool... Sounds really, really dumbed down now. See above. [snip] When the system was changed, all the material for both the Advanced and Extra went into the new Extra question pool Which is why it's dumbed down. Not when all the material was kept. When half of the material and questions previously earned a lower class license, it is dumbed down. And in the end, it's still allabout Morse Code with you. That conclusion is not based on any of the opinions I have expressed in this thread or any other. Dee, it's based upon all of the opinions that you express. If you choose to believe that, not my problem. I'm into encouraging people to explore the many facets of amateur radio. [snip] All government testing should be straight forward. All of the testing is straight forward. The Extra is merely difficult not convoluted. So all of the matierial is straight forward? Good. [snip] Why should anybody even bother with such a limited license? It would be so limited people would get bored and drop out or immediately upgrade. Not worth the investment of time. Not children, not scouts. I guess we don't want to attract newcomers for a lifetime of amateur radio, just the retirees. The children and the scouts seem to thrive on the challenges. It is the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, and 40 somethings that seem not to want challenges. [snip] Although the "incentive licensing" had major implementation issues, it did have the benefit of bringing people into the hobby since they could take the material in smaller bites instead of having to learn everything all at the same time. It achieved that goal. Smaller bites? That wasn't the purpose of Inventive Licensing. That was exactly the purpose of Incenting Licensing. Dee, N8UZE Miccolis would disagree. |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 4, 8:32 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote: Code -was- the barrier. If the amateur radio licensing statistics posted on Speroni's web site are any indication, then code -wasn't- the barrier. Feb 2007's licensing statistics clearly show the downward trend in amateur radio licensing continues unabated. Code has -long- been a barrier. And people are no longer interested... Too bad for amateur radio. |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 4, 8:36 pm, John Smith I wrote:
My BIGGEST turnoff? Pseudo-military, self-important-bags-of-hot-wind! JS The RF Commando? |
How Many License Classes?
On Mar 4, 7:36�pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message ps.com... On Mar 4, 9:10am, "DeeFlint" wrote: My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level license system but I think they will be General and Extra. The step from Tech to General is not that difficult and the licensee will have access to all modes, power levels and bands. Unless you are into DXing, contesting or being a VE, the additional privileges that Extra licensees have are not that much of an advantage. I, for one, encourage all those studying for Technician to go ahead and get the General study guide and go for it either at the first sitting or as soon as possible thereafter. The Technician will be basically turn into a very temporary way station on their climb up the ladder. My fiftieth of a dollar: There are really two issues here. The first is "what's the best possible license structure?" and the second is "what can we realistically put in place in US amateur radio?" Agreed. *These really are separate issues. *Usually practicality will outweigh other issues. The first step in answering either question is to define what should be on the tests for a license that gives *all* US amateur radio privileges. Some think the testing for the current full-privileges US amateur radio license isn't near as comprehensive as it should be, others think it covers too much, etc. Since people are split on this issue, my opinion is that we are probably at about the right level for the full privilege license. I disagree, but that just proves your point! So let's assume for discussion that the current requirements for Extra remain the same. Is it reasonable to ask *all* new hams to learn all that material to get a license? I say it's not. Of course if someone wants to, they can. The answer is almost certainly going to be a compromise between all those opinions. That may end up leaving it the same as it is now. I think we can do better. The second step is to determine whether it's a good idea to require a new amateur to pass that test just to get started in amateur radio, or whether it's better to have license classes that require less knowledge in return for fewer privileges. Personally I just can't see expecting the new amateur to do that much work just to be able to start exploring amateur radio. *History has shown that having a basic licensing option is helpful to the growth and health of amateur radio. Agreed. Then decide how many steps are needed from "not a ham" to "full privileges". Agreed. *Three steps has always seemed appropriate to me. *I would not find two objectionable. *However if we keep the full privilege license as is, then three really seems better. *The introductory license to try out amateur radio and then an intermediate license (like the General) that gives a wide range of privileges but does not require delving into the more exotic technical and mathematical areas. *Then the full privilege license. While doing this, it is important to remember that what appears easy to someone with significant radio/electronics/engineering/math background may not appear easy to someone who does not have that same background. That is why I favor three license levels but do encourage people to move up to General as quickly as they can study the material. *I've taught classes for Tech, General, and Extra to people who had no significant radio/electronics/engineering/math backgrounds. *So I'm quite familiar with this issue. With the exception of two who did not take the Extra test, all my students have passed the respective licenses for which they were studying. *The ironic part is the two who did not attempt the Extra class test had significant math/electronics/radio backgrounds. *A lady who was an administrative assistant (no significant background in math/technical/radio subjects) passed her Extra with flying colors. That's great! But remember that not all new hams take amateur radio classes. Not practical for a lot of folks. Then there's the whole question of what FCC can be induced to do. In recent R&Os and other writings, FCC has repeatedly said they consider the optimum number of license classes to be three. So it seems the way to go is: - an "entry level" license that is easy to get and gives limited privileges - a "middle level" license that requires more knowledge, but not everything - a "full privileges" license that has comprehensive knowledge requirements for full privileges That's close to what we have now, but there are improvements that can be made. First is the extreme unbalance in the privileges of the Technician license. That may be a hard sell to FCC. With the expansion of theNovice/Tech+ privileges in December and dropping of the code so all Techs have those privileges, much of that imbalance has now been alleviated. Not really. The defacto entry level license has all VHF/UHF, including full power at "meat cooking frequencies" (thanks to WK3C for that phrase). Which means a lot of testing details on that stuff. But they only have two modes on part of 10 meters, and one mode on parts of 80/40/15. We can do better than that for entry-level! --- It should be remembered that the oldNoviceclass was extremely successful in getting new hams started in amateur radio, at least for the first 30-40 or so years of its existence. The main feature of the oldNovicethat worked so well was that it required minimal testing, so that newcomers could get on the air and see if amateur radio was really for them. I wasn't into radio until 1992 and the codeless Tech was already rapidly becoming the entry point of choice. *So I can't really comment on this. What drove the change was the repeater boom of the late 1970s and 1980s. Splitting the old General/Tech written in half in 1987 pushed it more, and dropping Element 1 for Tech in 1991 sealed the deal. However my elmer/teacher strongly encouraged us to go for Tech+ right off the bat. *I'm glad I did. *However, it took so long for the license to come that I passed my General in the meantime and went on the air as a /AG the day that first license arrived. *So I did not experience operating as aNovice. I was a Novice for about 10 months (1967-68). Lot of fun, many contacts with incredibly simple gear. There was never any requirement for newcomers to start with theNovice, yet for decades most new hams did just that. When the codeless Technician came into being, it quickly became the entry point of choice and rapidly chipped away at theNovicelicensing approach. The change had begun years earlier, driven by the repeater boom. What's needed now is a "Novicelicense for the 21st Century", IMHO So just out of curiosity, what is your version of the 21st "novice" or entry license? Here's a whole license structure for ya, in ten points: 1) Three classes of license: Basic, Intermediate, Full (change the names if you don't like them - Third, Second, First, Novice, General, Extra, whatever) 2) HF/MF bands split into subbands by mode and split again by license class. Some bands (30 meters) may be split by mode only. 3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures, and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-50 watts on HF/MF and 25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level is below the point where RF exposure evaluation required). Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31, RTTY and many of the other common data modes like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or club trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum, including parts of all subbands-by-mode. Basic is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's still a reason to upgrade. 4) "Intermediate" license test is more complex 50-60 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Intermediates get 300-400 watts on all bands, all modes. Intermediates can be VEs after qualification (see below), control ops for repeaters, and club trustees. Intermediates get all VHF/UHF and about three quarters (or more) of HF/MF spectrum. 5) "Full" license test is quite complex 100-120 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Mostly technical, with some regs to cover expanded privs. Fulls get all privileges, modes, bands, etc. except that Fulls can be VEs only after qualification (see below). 6) All licenses are 10 year and fully renewable/modifiable. No age requirements or limits. 7) Basics have six-character calls, Intermediates have five- or six-character calls, and Fulls have four-, five-, or six-character calls. Nobody has to give up an existing callsign. 8) Separate 30-35 question test for VE qualification, open to Intermediates and Fulls, which allows them to be VEs. Existing VEs are grandfathered. 9) Existing Novices, Techs and Tech Pluses become Basics, existing Generals and Advanceds become Intermediates, and existing Extras become Fulls. Existing hams can continue to use their current privileges when they exceed privileges granted by the new system as long as they retain license documents showing their old license class. Existing Tech Pluses who can show proof of license before Mar 21, 1987 get Intermediates. 10) Change to new system is at least six months to one year after announcement to allow time for question pool reorganization and so existing hams can upgrade under present rules if they want. End result is a system that is easy to get into (Basic is envisioned as a 21st century version of the Novice) and has reasonable but meaningful steps to reach full privileges. Testing matches the privs granted. Power levels are set about one S-unit apart. Nobody loses any privileges. There are only three license classes and four written tests, so FCC doesn't have more work. 73 de Jim, N2EY ____ |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: "KH6HZ" wrote in message ... There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license. Tech, and Extra. Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with all privileges. Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add. I disagree. My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level license system but I think they will be General and Extra. I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license "system." However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple entry level license, and a full license. Whover said we needed more license classes ought to have his head examined. Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. I would advocate two licenses: a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. The material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined material. Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. It would certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate. Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine these two. Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how best to present the combined material. At this point in time, there are no combined manuals that already address the material for both license classes. In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person could study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will be to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of the box. As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level" license. Dee, N8UZE Dee If this comes across as quarrelsome then I apologize in advance. The technician class license serves a useful purpose as a place for those who are interested in local public service radio. I got two of my Community Emergency Response Team members to take the weekend class to prepare for the technician exam. Both of them passed and are now ready to serve as Radio Telephone Operators (RTO) for there units. If training for emergency communications service isn't a legitimate function of Amateur Radio then nothing is. Not every one is interested in DX work. The ability to talk across the area without depending on a rather complex and brittle trunking or cellular system is attractive to some folks. The only reason that I'm striking for the higher licenses is that I'd like to learn more about radio and it's various modes of transmission. I believe that the present general is a little too light on the theory however. I was able to prepare for the upgrade exam in only two weeks. I was urged to take the element four exam when I turned in the element three even if only to get an idea of what I was preparing for. It was very humbling to take that element with no preparation but it did give me an impression of the difficulty level of element four. From what I saw something between the present general and the extra would be a good level for the general test to be. A heavier emphasis on field measurement and other aspects of Radio & Electric Safety would be one aspect to consider making more demanding. -- Tom Horne, KB3OPR/AG |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
|
A "Codeless Revolution?"
From: on Sun, Mar 4 2007 6:41 pm
On Mar 4, 8:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message On Mar 4, 6:56 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message [snip] Also keep in mind that the General test of the past was much harder than today's General as they took a lot of that material and moved it to the new license classes. No, it wasn't. It is substantially more difficult today. And don't forget that half of the OLD General test is now called "Technician." There were several changes. There was the change to the incentive licensing where material was moved from the General to the Advanced and Extra. Completely impossible. Miccolis tells us that the additional license classes, Advanced, and Extra, were needed because the FCC wanted amateurs to be more knowledgeable, so moving General questions to Advanced and Extra would not serve that purpose. Unless Miccolis was wrong. Miccolis will NEVER admit he is wrong. :-( That changed General test was the one that was the same for the Technician and the General. Then a decade later or so, the General test was split to a Tech written and General written. That is correct. Why is ANY of that relevant?!? NOBODY passes amateur radio tests TODAY on OLD test questions or material. To get the up-to-date question pools go to www.ncvec.org. The material has not been removed. It has made the Extra harder because you cannot take the material in smaller chunks. You still have to learn all the same material but do it all at once. Suit yourself. Women with sewing machines can suit themselves... Nope it does not make your point. Only if material is removed does it become easier. If you just combine material without removing any, you make it harder. You run the risk of simpler questions being selected for that 50 question exam. It is easier. Like "what is the unit of resistance..." :-( "Who regulates the amateur radio service?" The Technician test is the Technician test. I wouldn't fault it in the present form. "Extra" grade it is NOT. I've never made that assertion nor implied it. That MSEE has to learn a whole lot more than was ever covered in the Amateur radio exams. Are you an MSEE? Nope but as part of my degree, I had to take basic electronics courses and they were more detailed than what is on the ham exams. I can't even begin to imagine that MSEE level. Do you mind if I point some other Extras in your direction when it appears appropriate? Heh heh heh heh heh... :-) Smaller bites? That wasn't the purpose of Inventive Licensing. That was exactly the purpose of Incenting Licensing. Miccolis would disagree. Miccolo Tesla would disagree about anything not involving morse code. The PUBLICLY-stated "purpose" of incentive licensing was to advance knowledge and experience. The REAL purpose of incentive license created a desired class distinction that the morsemen wanted, complete with status, rank, and more privileges for the morsemen. That is sooooo evident. Ah, but those who clawed their way up the incentive plan will run around saying ONLY the PUBLIC purpose. Typical hypocritcal BS on their "superior" posteriors. :-( "the times they are a-changin'" 73, LA |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 4, 10:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: [snip] All of amateur radio is fine for the casual operator. Ok then, let's do the same as some typical European countries. Only one license class and every one takes the equivalent of the Extra class written exam. Prior to the no code change, they did not have entry level licenses. All licenses took the same written (basically equivalent to our Extra written) and those who passed code got everything while those who didn't were VHF/UHF only. When the code was dropped, they folded the two groups into one. No need to haul out the many variations that existed. While some countries did have an entry license with a simpler written there were others who didn't. In some countries, you had to take formal classes and you were not allowed to take the test if you had just studied on your own. Dee, N8UZE Dee Are you saying you see that last as a positive thing? It would certainly be good for the technical education industry but does that make it a good thing for amateur radio. If a formal course were a requirement then I imagine that it would be easier to find one. I'd love to find a formal class for the extra class material. I'd even be happy with a referral to a respectable correspondence or on line course. Anyone have any suggestions along those lines. -- Tom Horne, KB3OPR/AG |
How Many License Classes?
wrote:
So let's assume for discussion that the current requirements for Extra remain the same. Is it reasonable to ask *all* new hams to learn all that material to get a license? I say it's not. Which is *EXACTLY* the argument NTI (No-Test International) Members are going to start to use now to start the push to make the theory examinations 'easier'. 73 kh6hz |
How Many License Classes?
KH6HZ wrote:
wrote: So let's assume for discussion that the current requirements for Extra remain the same. Is it reasonable to ask *all* new hams to learn all that material to get a license? I say it's not. Which is *EXACTLY* the argument NTI (No-Test International) Members are going to start to use now to start the push to make the theory examinations 'easier'. 73 kh6hz Well, I wouldn't worry about that too much. Unless they can make a legitimate argument that the questions are unnecessary/irrelevant/illogical or are "self-protectionist" and simply meant to make the test over-difficult so as to control numbers or who can enter amateur radio, what would give them a leg to stand on? Perhaps they could also make the argument that the tests are "obsfucated", deliberately misleading or "entangled with deliberate complexity" in an effort to confuse and mislead. However, that would be quite apparent to the avg educated joe who is familiar with radio/electronics. No, unless they would have a legitimate argument, they would most likely be dismissed along with any of their false claims. JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
How Many License Classes?
"John Smith I" wrote:
Well, I wouldn't worry about that too much. Unless they can make a legitimate argument that the questions are unnecessary/irrelevant/illogical or are "self-protectionist" and simply meant to make the test over-difficult so as to control numbers or who can enter amateur radio, what would give them a leg to stand on? Isn't this what they claimed the code test did? Perhaps they could also make the argument that the tests are "obsfucated", deliberately misleading or "entangled with deliberate complexity" in an effort to confuse and mislead. Clearly, this is a fully 100% accurate statement, since 3 of the 4 options presented as answers for each multiple-choice question is incorrect. No, unless they would have a legitimate argument, they would most likely be dismissed along with any of their false claims. I believe others made similar comments regarding elimination of the code requirement 20+ years ago. The trend in amateur radio licensing is to make things "easier". |
How Many License Classes?
KH6HZ wrote:
... Isn't this what they claimed the code test did? Well yes, and not only what that argument correct, that argument was acted upon by the FCC and morse was eliminated. However, those making false claims as to CW's viability, and relevancy still attempt to justify past practices of using it as a barrier to new licensees, they eventually will give up this insanity as they find this has lost them all their credibility. Clearly, this is a fully 100% accurate statement, since 3 of the 4 options presented as answers for each multiple-choice question is incorrect. Interesting view. However, since this is accepted practice and used by most elementary schools, high schools, colleges, state and federal institutions it is the preferred method of testing. However, the context of these questions need to examined closely as those with self-serving interests can attempt to manipulate these questions for an outcome they wish--on BOTH sides! I believe others made similar comments regarding elimination of the code requirement 20+ years ago. Yes. The insanity of requiring morse testing did become the "elephant in the china closet" which was over-looked. Seemingly, this was a type of "mass hysteria" or "mass insanity" as you see in vigilante groups, or other self-protectionist groups. Although it speaks ill of the power of the FCC to present itself as a logical and relevant governing agency, most of those problems have been eliminated or are in the process of being so ... The trend in amateur radio licensing is to make things "easier". Well, as people become more and more educated on the whole, all of education just seems easier. When you basic understanding out of high school these days equals the education you only used to get from jr. colleges in past years, that happens. A good many of the old wives tales, misconceptions and ignorance is fading away in a better educated world. I mean your avg seventh or eight grader is highly computer savvy these days and his/her access to the internet gives them unlimited access to any knowledge in mans archives. The ability of motivated individuals is truly unlimited when they have access to all mankinds accumulated stores of knowledge. An advantage those of yesteryear never had and will never be able to make up for ... JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
How Many License Classes?
"John Smith I" wrote:
However, those making false claims as to CW's viability, and relevancy still attempt to justify past practices of using it as a barrier to new licensees, they eventually will give up this insanity as they find this has lost them all their credibility. CW's relevancy and viability, and its continued usage as a skills test in the ARS, are two separate issues as I see it. I see CW, still, as a very viable and very relevant mode of operation in the ARS. The last time I recall somewhere around 50% of hams polled indicate they use CW. That makes it very relevant to the ARS today. Now, whether or not it should remain a test element is a different argument altogether. For a very long time, I have been a proponent of eliminating the code test, and instead strengthening the written examinations. Others have suggested retaining CW as a skills test, and while I understand that line of thought, I disagree with it today. I'm not sure there is one 'skills' test for the ARS which is really suitable. Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them to learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations wrong -- that says something is seriously broken. Well, as people become more and more educated on the whole, all of education just seems easier. When you basic understanding out of high school these days equals the education you only used to get from jr. colleges in past years, that happens. Perhaps, but this is simply not the case today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec6.html From my daily interaction with recent US high school graduates, I can definitely see that the vast majority are lacking basic math and english skills, compared to their foreign counterparts. Virtually all the US-based students I work with need some form of remedial or "basic" english and math classes, whereas their foreign counterparts are beyond the "entry level" freshman math and science classes from the get-go. |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:50:31 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote in message m... I disagree. My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level license system but I think they will be General and Extra. The step from Tech to General is not that difficult and the licensee will have access to all modes, power levels and bands. Unless you are into DXing, contesting or being a VE, the additional privileges that Extra licensees have are not that much of an advantage. I agree that this is the way it seems to be heading. However, I think ARRL members should pressure the organization to lobby the FCC for another, coded class who could exclusively operate on certain sections of the OOK morse sub bands. why do you hate the ARRL and wish them to suffer another bllody nose I think it would be good for society if we could preserve the mode for the future, given that there a certain albiet isolated occaisions when its use can be extremely beneficial to society. meaning you are convinced that Code can't survive without a stick aprouch well then so be it let it die if it is that ill I don't think morse code use is in that much danger, although we as Hams would I feel be bettr off if it did die and soon First, who is the "WE" you refer to and second "WE" Hams feel the same about you and your ilk http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 5, 11:13 am, "Dean M" wrote:
wrote in message ... I don't think morse code use is in that much danger, although we as Hams would I feel be bettr off if it did die and soon First, who is the "WE" you refer to........... ham real ones that care about the future ....... and second "WE" Hams feel the same about you and your ilk well unlike I care about the future of the ARS |
How Many License Classes?
wrote:
Which is *EXACTLY* the argument NTI (No-Test International) Members are going to start to use now to start the push to make the theory examinations 'easier'. mber like yourself I take it Nope, I'm an ARRL Life Member, and I used to be a member of No-Code International, until Carl Stevenson had me kicked out because he didn't like me. |
How Many License Classes?
wrote:
Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them to learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations wrong -- that says something is seriously broken. how does it say that? You don't see an issue with a testing system where an applicant can get every question wrong dealing with rules and regulations, yet still manage to get licensed because they got the math right? Or, let's put this another way... Should someone who has a BSEE automatically be given a ham radio license, if they ask for one? After all, there is little doubt someone with a BSEE would have the requisite knowledge to "pass" the Tech/General/Extra theory examinations (exception noted next paragraph) with little to no effort. About the only questions such an applicant would get wrong would be the questions on amateur rules and regulations (which obviously they wouldn't know from their BSEE studies). However, since the current structure of the theory examinations allows an applicant to fail each and every rules/regulations question, and still "pass" the examination -- well, why wouldn't we just give such an applicant a license anyway, right? and what do you porpose I still hold the opinion that a modification to the licensing system as I proposed in my Y2K restructuring comments are appropriate. In summary: 1. Require an applicant to pass each "subelement" with a score of 70% or better. 2. Require an overall score of 85% or better The actual %age in #2 could be a point of discussion. I wouldn't be opposed to likewise lowering it to an overall 70% score as well, although I do think an overall higher score would be better. someone flamed me in the 90 for sugesting a license test system where had several elements such (not coplete or etched in stone [...] etc each a seperate test with CSSE's to allow you break it down In principal, you agree with my stance then. I'm not sure I would agree with the CSCE for each sub-element aspect, though. That could get even more complicated (i.e. requires VEs to maintain separate tests for each sub-element, you can go test for individual sub-elements, etc.) compared to simply one test, say, 100 multiple-choice questions on 10 sub-elements w/ a 70% passing score required in each sub-element and an overall 70% passing grade. |
How Many License Classes?
On Mar 5, 2:54 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote: Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them to learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations wrong -- that says something is seriously broken. how does it say that? You don't see an issue with a testing system where an applicant can get every question wrong dealing with rules and regulations, yet still manage to get licensed because they got the math right? wrong I did not say that |
How Many License Classes?
On Mar 5, 2:55?pm, "an_old_friend" wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:54 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them to learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations wrong -- that says something is seriously broken. how does it say that? You don't see an issue with a testing system where an applicant can get every question wrong dealing with rules and regulations, yet still manage to get licensed because they got the math right? wrong I did not say that yes you did! |
How Many License Classes?
On Mar 5, 3:17 pm, "Dloyd Lavies" wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:55?pm, "an_old_friend" wrote: wrong I did not say that yes you did!- 2 things one I did not say I asked a question two if you have the right to insert yourself in exchange derected to some other than you I have the sameright |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On 4 Mar 2007 20:45:42 -0800, "
wrote: From: on Sun, Mar 4 2007 6:41 pm On Mar 4, 8:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message On Mar 4, 6:56 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message snip Miccolis will NEVER admit he is wrong. :-( "The bad machine doesn't know that he's a bad machine." (quote from the movie "Midnight Express" - by the character Ahmet, one of the nuts 'walking the wheel').... snip 73, LA 73, Leo |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
"Thomas Horne" wrote in message nk.net... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 4, 10:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: [snip] All of amateur radio is fine for the casual operator. Ok then, let's do the same as some typical European countries. Only one license class and every one takes the equivalent of the Extra class written exam. Prior to the no code change, they did not have entry level licenses. All licenses took the same written (basically equivalent to our Extra written) and those who passed code got everything while those who didn't were VHF/UHF only. When the code was dropped, they folded the two groups into one. No need to haul out the many variations that existed. While some countries did have an entry license with a simpler written there were others who didn't. In some countries, you had to take formal classes and you were not allowed to take the test if you had just studied on your own. Dee, N8UZE Dee Are you saying you see that last as a positive thing? It would certainly be good for the technical education industry but does that make it a good thing for amateur radio. If a formal course were a requirement then I imagine that it would be easier to find one. I'd love to find a formal class for the extra class material. I'd even be happy with a referral to a respectable correspondence or on line course. Anyone have any suggestions along those lines. The European approach with one "extra" license class and compulsory classroom training is not such a bad idea for people who operate on HF. Can you imagine that we are now allowing kb9rqz to operate a linear amp whose plate voltage might be /= 3KV? Do you think kb9rqz is technically qualified to open an AL80-B and change the 3-500Z tube? What if he forgets (or doesn't know to) bleed the the DC bulk caps or even forgets to unplug it? When he electrocutes himself we will have the dumbed-down general license exam to blame. Perhaps linear amp usage should be restricted to extra class, or, we should apply the above stated European approach. |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
When he electrocutes himself we will have the dumbed-down general license exam to blame. Message volume in this newsgroup would drop by 99%. So, is that a 'bad thing'? |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 5, 2:08�pm, Leo wrote:
On 4 Mar 2007 20:45:42 -0800, " wrote: From: on Sun, Mar 4 2007 6:41 pm On Mar 4, 8:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message On Mar 4, 6:56 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: wrote in message snip * Miccolis will NEVER admit he is wrong. *:-( "The bad machine doesn't know that he's a bad machine." (quote from the movie "Midnight Express" - by the character Ahmet, one of the nuts 'walking the wheel').... Now THAT is an interesting quotation...and apt...:-) 73, LA |
How Many License Classes?
From: John Smith I on Mon, Mar 5 2007 6:13
am Subject: How Many License Classes? KH6HZ wrote: ... Isn't this what they claimed the code test did? Well yes, and not only what that argument correct, that argument was acted upon by the FCC and morse was eliminated. Errr, the FCC eliminated the morse code TEST. Deignan keeps using the old false argument that the old code test was "the same" as the writtens. He and others have kept up that facade of "all or nothing" for a decade. Obviously the two test types are DIFFERENT. However, those making false claims as to CW's viability, and relevancy still attempt to justify past practices of using it as a barrier to new licensees, they eventually will give up this insanity as they find this has lost them all their credibility. "They" won't give up, JS. :-) Deignan is just trying to revive a very dead horse so he can beat on it some more. Clearly, this is a fully 100% accurate statement, since 3 of the 4 options presented as answers for each multiple-choice question is incorrect. Interesting view. However, since this is accepted practice and used by most elementary schools, high schools, colleges, state and federal institutions it is the preferred method of testing. However, the context of these questions need to examined closely as those with self-serving interests can attempt to manipulate these questions for an outcome they wish--on BOTH sides! One of the MYTHS still prevalent is that "THE TEST," some sort of awe-inspiring, feared thing, represents the SUM TOTAL OF AMATEUR RADIO KNOWLEDGE! Nonsense, of course, but the myth goes on...as does the beat...of the dead horse by others. :-) A 35- or a 50-question TEST can't possibly show EVERY BIT OF knowledge as so many "olde-tymers" seem to imply. But, to so many, they think the amateur TEST is some equivalent to a college-level test of knowledge. Having taken both types, far more at the college level, even the colleges-universities do NOT consider their multiple-choice tests as representing anything but a student's retention of knowledge UP TO THAT PERIOD OF A COURSE. Those tests in schools are there to both inform instructors of a student's capabilities and also to show the student what they've gained or missed in a course. Now, the FCC was NEVER chartered as an academic institution. Not even its predecessor radio regulating agencies. A radio amateur license test is ONLY for the purpose of the FCC in determining whether the FCC thinks an applicant should be granted a license in the amateur radio service. NO MORE. The FCC decides. The FCC giveth and the FCC can taketh away. The manual psychomotor skill of morse code cognition is far from any intellectual-academic skill of knowledge of anything more than morse code cognition. It cannot demonstrate any memory retention of regulations, theory, or of accepted practice in amateur radio EXCEPT for morse code use as it is SUPPOSED to be in the amateur radio service. The FCC has established the number of written test elements for all the radio operator licenses the FCC grants. Since privatization of radio operator testing of about two decades ago, the FCC has yielded CONTENT of questions to the various examiner groups. In itself, the arguments for or against privatization is a very separate one from who has the "right" to regulate. By law (of Congress, 1934 and 1996) the FCC has the right to regulate. Period. I believe others made similar comments regarding elimination of the code requirement 20+ years ago. Yes. The insanity of requiring morse testing did become the "elephant in the china closet" which was over-looked. Seemingly, this was a type of "mass hysteria" or "mass insanity" as you see in vigilante groups, or other self-protectionist groups. I think you've left out the self-righteous, self- proclaimed "experts in radio" that some olde-tymers imply they are. :-( The "handwriting on the wall" was there in radio four decades ago. Radio services had already begun to down- play USE of OOK CW modes for communications or the new radio services simply didn't use those modes. But, the EMOTIONAL aspect of amateur radio licensing is hardly ever discussed. Olde-tymers are incessantly touting the marvelous things They encountered when young and inexperienced and want to keep those things forever and ever, lest they suddenly realize that They have become old like their beloved morse mode. Even if they acknowledge the reality of age, they have another emotional need to show they are "better than others" in something, anything. High-rate morse code cognition is a convenient "betterment." What is WRONG is their wanting to transfer Their desires to all others not in the amateur radio service that come after them. Although it speaks ill of the power of the FCC to present itself as a logical and relevant governing agency, most of those problems have been eliminated or are in the process of being so ... I am OPPOSED 100% to that viewpoint. The FCC is required to regulate ALL of USA civil radio services. That is a very formidable task and, like it or not, amateur radio is only a small part of that whole task. The FCC serves ALL the citizenry of the USA, not just a minority group in a radio hobby activity. Having observed FCC Reports and Orders and other legalese on radio regulations of many radio services, I find them most logical in their public statements about their decisions. For over 20 years of observations and over many radio services. Those are clear and straightforward, in rather plain English despite their abbreviations. That they do NOT agree with certain groups or opinions is no cause for blanket condemnation. Decisions have to made and the FCC seems to me to do a credible job of that. If you want to bring back the Chaos of the radio waves that existed in the 1920s, then go for all the anarchy you can stomach. I do NOT want that and even the aging "flower children" of the 1960s are starting to realize the Opposition to Everything won't get them anywhere. The trend in amateur radio licensing is to make things "easier". Well, as people become more and more educated on the whole, all of education just seems easier. When you basic understanding out of high school these days equals the education you only used to get from jr. colleges in past years, that happens. A good many of the old wives tales, misconceptions and ignorance is fading away in a better educated world. I mean your avg seventh or eight grader is highly computer savvy these days and his/her access to the internet gives them unlimited access to any knowledge in mans archives. The ability of motivated individuals is truly unlimited when they have access to all mankinds accumulated stores of knowledge. An advantage those of yesteryear never had and will never be able to make up for ... A couple of points he Deignan has not toned down his combination of Cynical Chic attitude and general "I am superior to you" coloring of his comments. The "knowledge of computers" (how to use them, really) is generally overblown by those INTO computers as it applies to this modern age. Yes, the Internet is OPEN to all and at least one out of five households in the USA has some form of Internet access. But, on the Internet is a collection of dreck, of bigotry, terribly one-sided crap, emotionally- loaded opinions, all mixed in with public relations, personal "look at me" sort of things AND intellectual knowledge. It is much more convenient to use the Internet to hunt for any of those things than to leave the house and go running around for input different ways. The Internet made many many things possible but the increase of an individual's knowledge bank is an entirely different subject. The Internet is such a HUGE pot-pourri of different "stuff," so MUCH stuff that it can't be evaluated properly. 73, |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 4, 8:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: [snip] You run the risk of simpler questions being selected for that 50 question exam. It is easier. I said the material was combined. I did not say that the question pools were combined verbatim. Instead, a new question pool is/was developed that covers the combined material. The "simpler" versions of the questions aren't used. For example, the Tech test might ask a question such as what is the approximate length of a quarter wave vertical for the 10m band while the General test would have a question that is much more specific like what is the calculated length for a quarter wave vertical for 28.300. The question on the Tech test would have choices that would be enough different that you would not have to actually calculate the exact value. The question on the General test would have at least two of choices close enough together that you would have to calculate the value. Let us say they combined the Tech and General. The approximate question would never be considered for the new pool. Therefore there is no risk of getting "simpler" questions when the material is combined. Dee, N8UZE |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
"Thomas Horne" wrote in message ink.net... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: "KH6HZ" wrote in message ... There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license. Tech, and Extra. Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with all privileges. Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add. I disagree. My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level license system but I think they will be General and Extra. I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license "system." However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple entry level license, and a full license. Whover said we needed more license classes ought to have his head examined. Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. I would advocate two licenses: a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. The material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined material. Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. It would certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate. Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine these two. Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how best to present the combined material. At this point in time, there are no combined manuals that already address the material for both license classes. In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person could study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will be to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of the box. As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level" license. Dee, N8UZE Dee If this comes across as quarrelsome then I apologize in advance. Rest assured it does not come across as quarrelsome and presents some interesting talking points. The technician class license serves a useful purpose as a place for those who are interested in local public service radio. I got two of my Community Emergency Response Team members to take the weekend class to prepare for the technician exam. Both of them passed and are now ready to serve as Radio Telephone Operators (RTO) for there units. If training for emergency communications service isn't a legitimate function of Amateur Radio then nothing is. Not every one is interested in DX work. The ability to talk across the area without depending on a rather complex and brittle trunking or cellular system is attractive to some folks. The only reason that I'm striking for the higher licenses is that I'd like to learn more about radio and it's various modes of transmission. Consider this though. Even though not interested in DX work, there may be some need for long distance communications not just the ability to talk across the local area. In Katrina, everything was down and upon occasion a little bit more than just VHF/UHF was needed and used. I favor keeping the three licenses but if we had to drop to two, my choice would be General and Extra. I believe that the present general is a little too light on the theory however. I was able to prepare for the upgrade exam in only two weeks. I was urged to take the element four exam when I turned in the element three even if only to get an idea of what I was preparing for. It was very humbling to take that element with no preparation but it did give me an impression of the difficulty level of element four. From what I saw something between the present general and the extra would be a good level for the general test to be. A heavier emphasis on field measurement and other aspects of Radio & Electric Safety would be one aspect to consider making more demanding. -- Tom Horne, KB3OPR/AG Keep in mind though that as N2EY has said many people do not have all that much background to build upon. I think the Tech and General writtens have about the right amount of difficulty my self. Dee, N8UZE |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
"Thomas Horne" wrote in message nk.net... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 4, 10:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: [snip] All of amateur radio is fine for the casual operator. Ok then, let's do the same as some typical European countries. Only one license class and every one takes the equivalent of the Extra class written exam. Prior to the no code change, they did not have entry level licenses. All licenses took the same written (basically equivalent to our Extra written) and those who passed code got everything while those who didn't were VHF/UHF only. When the code was dropped, they folded the two groups into one. No need to haul out the many variations that existed. While some countries did have an entry license with a simpler written there were others who didn't. In some countries, you had to take formal classes and you were not allowed to take the test if you had just studied on your own. Dee, N8UZE Dee Are you saying you see that last as a positive thing? It would certainly be good for the technical education industry but does that make it a good thing for amateur radio. Not necessarily. I was trying to make the point that people should be careful what they wish for. It may come with unintended consequences. I'm perfectly satisfied with the self study approach and the voluntary classes that some groups sponsor. If a formal course were a requirement then I imagine that it would be easier to find one. I'd love to find a formal class for the extra class material. I'd even be happy with a referral to a respectable correspondence or on line course. Anyone have any suggestions along those lines. -- Too bad you are not in my area. The club just coaxed me into doing one again this year for the Extra. I don't know of any correspondence or on line classes. Since you will probably be going the self study route if/when you choose to upgrade, I have the following recommendations: 1. DON'T RUSH. There's a lot of material so if you rush through it, you'll have a hard time remembering it as it will be in your short term memory rather than your long term memory. 2. Periodically review the parts you've already studied. It's a long haul and by the time you get to the end, you might forget what you learned in the beginning. 3. For studying and learning the material use something that explains it in detail like the ARRL extra class license manual. 4. Review use something with the questions, answers and brief explanations like the W5YI question and answer manual 5. Don't hesitate at buying the two separate books. It's worth it. The ARRL book has too many words and the W5YI is too brief. Using the former for the initial study and reference and using the latter for review worked well for my students. 6. Find someone (perhaps through your local club) who would be willing to answer questions and clarify hard parts as you go along. Dee, N8UZE |
Another Windy Pontification By Lennie The Licenseless
On Mar 3, 10:30�pm, "
wrote: * *SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE CODELESS "REVOLUTION" * *Based solely onwww.hamdata.compublished statistics from * *22 February to 3 March 2007, there doesn't seem to be the * *kind of "revolution" nor the influx of CB hordes expected * *by the long-timers....(HUGE SNIP OF WINDY VERBAGE) Most notable in it's absence from the rolls of newly licensed persons is the name"Leonard H Anderson" of California. Despite both outright insistence of impending licensure to not-so- subtle hints of "well maybe I'll do it this time", it's apparent that Lennie has no intention of doing what he says he'll do. No doubt this is the reason that Lennie "retired from regular hours" as an alledged "electrical engineer" without having been professionally published or hallmarked in his career...Not even a single one of his "articles" in a long since defunct Amateur Radio periodical have even made it as a footnote in any other publication or paper. But here he is again...Trying to impress the general public with more of his windy blatherings that really amounts to nothing. Lame. Really lame. Steve, K4YZ |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
|
A "Codeless Revolution?"
|
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 4, 12:25�pm, "
wrote: * *The military is IN the business of DESTRUCTION at the * *very real fact of part of the military being destroyed in * *the process of doing "defense." * Wrong again. The Armed Forces is in the business of defending the United States and implementing of US foreign policy, by force of arms if necessary. Even the most casual of reader of military teechnology knows that the current state of the art of that "business" is LIMITING that "destruction" (read that "collateral damage") at every possible level. Today's military can do far more tactically and strategically with far less damage than their forebearers did in World War 2. If you'd like, I can suggest a couple of sources of research for you to follow-up on so you can get future posts more accurate- sounding... Or....You can just go on pounding us with tons of windy arguments about how since the correspondents weren't really "there" when "it" happened, we can't possibly know what's going on.... Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
A "Codeless Revolution?"
On Mar 6, 1:39 am, "K4YZ" wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:53?am, . wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:09:26 -0500, "Dee Flint" wrote: Dee, as a Technician (from Novice), I enjoyed DXing and Contesting on 10M SSB. ?Lots of fun. Yup, 10 meters is a fun band. ?However as a Tech, you only get part of it. While there can certainly be a lot of DX in the Tech portion, I've seen it full from top to bottom with DX during a contest if the band is open. ?You could have even more fun if you upgrade. would you mind checking your facts before making an ### of yourself BB is a cureently a general I believe he made that leap shortly after the last restructuring Hey slimeball...Why don't you read what Dee wrote BASED ON WHAT BRAIN SAID...?!?!? I did steve WHY should she "check (her) facts" when Brain had JUST made a post that made it appear as though he were only a Tech...?!?! becuase sge should that is why and BB made no such post If you want to admonish anyone, fatboy, admonish Brain for misrepresenting himself (again). again you **** with the facts stve YOU don't check YOUR "facts" before posts...So take your own advice, Your Creepiness. yes I do you lie all the time stve like your lie I am under investagtion I was indeed investagted, but only because you complained... No let me be fair someone claim to be an LPN from TN claimed to have knowledge my father was being abused by me I merely assume it was till proven otherwise Steve, K4YZ |
How Many License Classes?
KH6HZ wrote:
CW's relevancy and viability, and its continued usage as a skills test in the ARS, are two separate issues as I see it. People who "see it differently" may see the tooth fairy or aliens, no problems, they have medications for that nowadays. I see CW, still, as a very viable and very relevant mode of operation in the ARS. The last time I recall somewhere around 50% of hams polled indicate they use CW. That makes it very relevant to the ARS today. Well, keep watching ... Now, whether or not it should remain a test element is a different argument altogether. For a very long time, I have been a proponent of eliminating the code test, and instead strengthening the written examinations. The written exams need to be relevant and justifiable, that is all ... Others have suggested retaining CW as a skills test, and while I understand that line of thought, I disagree with it today. I'm not sure there is one 'skills' test for the ARS which is really suitable. Some have claimed they have seen aliens, I remain skeptical ... Instead, I would rather see us focus on simply ensuring that people who become licensed actually have a solid grasp of the knowledge we ask them to learn as part of the licensing process. I see the current structure of the theory examinations as simply not doing this. When you can "pass" the licensing exam yet get every single question on rules and regulations wrong -- that says something is seriously broken. They need to know allowable power levels for band/freqs which are in use. They need to know the freqs they are allowed to use. It would be nice if they knew how to construct transistor gear (tubes are obsolete and irrelevant.) However, the construction they can pick up later ... if so interested ... From my daily interaction with recent US high school graduates, I can definitely see that the vast majority are lacking basic math and english skills, compared to their foreign counterparts. Virtually all the US-based students I work with need some form of remedial or "basic" english and math classes, whereas their foreign counterparts are beyond the "entry level" freshman math and science classes from the get-go. Well, look at just the general population, only about 3 in 100 are intelligent enough to be bothered with. Always has been so, and will be so long into the future. This is nothing new ... you see a prime example of it right here in this news group ... Some just don't get it and never will ... JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
How Many License Classes?
KH6HZ wrote:
... Nope, I'm an ARRL Life Member, and I used to be a member of No-Code International, until Carl Stevenson had me kicked out because he didn't like me. Well, to the avg joe, it is apparent why he didn't like you, most probably don't like ya. I mean, I had that figured out right away! However, if that is true, he kicked ya just because he didn't like you--that IS UNFAIR. However, if he kicked ya because you are an ignorant jerk, you really can't blame him, can ya? JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
How Many License Classes?
On Mar 6, 5:11�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote: * ... * *A couple of points he *Deignan has not toned down his * *combination of Cynical Chic attitude and general "I am * *superior to you" coloring of his comments. *The "knowledge * *of computers" (how to use them, really) is generally * *overblown by those INTO computers as it applies to this * *modern age. *Yes, the Internet is OPEN to all and at least * *one out of five households in the USA has some form of * *Internet access. *But, on the Internet is a collection of * *dreck, of bigotry, terribly one-sided crap, emotionally- * *loaded opinions, all mixed in with public relations, * *personal "look at me" sort of things AND intellectual * *knowledge. *It is much more convenient to use the Internet * *to hunt for any of those things than to leave the house * *and go running around for input different ways. * *The Internet made many many things possible but the * *increase of an individual's knowledge bank is an * *entirely different subject. *The Internet is such a * *HUGE pot-pourri of different "stuff," so MUCH stuff * *that it can't be evaluated properly. * *73, The above is false, misleading, inaccurate and comes from a "footing" which is flawed. True, you MUST be intelligent and educated enough to access INTELLIGENT, ACCURATE, KNOWLEDGEABLE are RELEVANT sources on the internet. Sorry, JS, there is NO, repeat *no* a priori knowledge of whether "all" websites contain "intelligent, accurate, knowledgeable, relevant" stuff for anyone. Now you know as well as I that there are websites which have questionable intelligence, unreferenced "accuracy," and things which are not "relevant" to what is being searched for. Frequently I limit searches by including: site:.edu *(NOTE: *the a colon follows site and a period preceeds edu--with NO spaces in the entire line) That is very general advice. In electronics engineering I can (and have, many a time) found ".edu" sites with OLD and OUTDATED manufacturers datasheets and similar "information." By trial and error, I know where I CAN find the latest information on components that are no longer in production but are still on sale somewhere. This will limit your searches to ONLY educational institutions, in google ... there is much more you need to know also--TAKE A COMPUTER CLASS!!! Now now, JS, try not to get excited less someone tells you to shove that up your CLASS. :-) If you doubt the accuracy of what your search engine is giving you, indeed, if you have found inaccurate data returned from your search engine--EDUCATE YOURSELF AND COME UP TO SPEED IN THE PRESENT MILLENNIUM--THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE INTERNET--IT IS YOU!!! Not quite. It is the CONTENT of many, many Internet sites. Those of us who DO search (not just with Google) are able to find what we want, to ignore many of the hits on search listings out of experience. For example, you can compare the content of one of the Big3 amateur rig manufacturers, Icom. Icom America has less content on small stuff, especially accessories. Also on digitized copies of operating manuals. Icom Japan was more on their English site, including old manuals. I'm not sure where the LINKS of HRO take one on getting manuals and brochures but those aren't the same as either Icom site. Take another detailed look at the ARRL as an example. If one searches Applications, that button is really a Link to access the FCC website, yet the organization implies it is "theirs." Not ALL amateur equipment makers HAVE a recognizeable Internet site yet (strange but true) or the common, familiar brand name is NOT what their website has in their URL. [try finding a URL for Maldol antennas...it's a Japanese company, BTW, and I was able to get more direction by going to a UK dealer's webiste to learn much more than was "easily available" elsewhere] You want Porn? LOTS of it! If that's your bag, that is, not mine [been there, done that...:-) ] You want HATE groups? Plenty around for spleen-venting. Want a couple of Al-Quaida agit-prop sites? Watch ABC TV news in HD for the Low Down on them. There be ALL KINDS OF STUFF on the 'Net with some imaginative folks behind them doing the URL disguise thing. You can do you own via GoDaddy, get your own "stealth" URL name, be an "edu" or a "sci" or an "org" and have a blast putting stuff over on others. :-) 73, LA JS --http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
A "Codeless Revolution?" Not Yet
Although it's only been a dozen days since the
rules changed, there doesn't seem to be a flood of new growth yet. On Feb 22, 2007, the last day of the old rules, there were 654,680 current, unexpired FCC-issued amateur radio licenses held by individuals. Of those, 324,326 were held by Techs and Tech Pluses. On Mar 05, 2007, there were 654,265 current, unexpired FCC-issued amateur radio licenses held by individuals. That's a drop of 415. Of those, 322,461 were held by Techs and Tech Pluses. Looks like, so far, the main result of the rules changes has been upgrades rather than new hams. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com