"Brian Kelly" wrote:

(snip) I'll cheerfully give up thumping for
code tests when the writtens get much stiffer
than they are now. As the situation stands
now everywhere I look the service is being
dumbed down.


In case you haven't noticed, the entire country is being "dumbed" down. So
what are you going to do about it - continue to excluded more and more
people from Ham Radio as you wait for someone to do something about it?

I don't like what is going on in this country either. But I don't see how
we can sit here and insist Ham Radio is only for "smart" people as we
exclude more and more in a growing country while our own numbers barely
remain stable. Especially when I see darn few 'rocket scientists' in our
existing numbers - in any license class.

In my opinion, the existing license exams serve their purpose well.
Therefore, I see no reason to demand that future prospective Hams know more
than new Hams today, twenty years ago, or fifty years ago.

Of course, you're perfectly free to continue "thumping for code tests" as
much as you want. The same with the "stiffer" written tests. However, since
code tests serve no purpose other than to exclude today and stiffer written
tests would do the same, you certainly won't get any support from me.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote:

(snip) I'll cheerfully give up thumping for
code tests when the writtens get much stiffer
than they are now. As the situation stands
now everywhere I look the service is being
dumbed down.


In case you haven't noticed, the entire country is being "dumbed" down.

I disagree! There are lots of things that are not being "dumbed down".
For example, I don't see TAC making the marathon one inch shorter.

So
what are you going to do about it - continue to excluded more and more
people from Ham Radio as you wait for someone to do something about it?

Who is being excluded? The requirements are what the FCC says they
are. Meet those requirements and the license is granted.

I don't like what is going on in this country either. But I don't see how
we can sit here and insist Ham Radio is only for "smart" people as we
exclude more and more in a growing country while our own numbers barely
remain stable.

You might want to check those numbers.

Especially when I see darn few 'rocket scientists' in our
existing numbers - in any license class.

Note that reducing the license requirements has NOT brought on
significantly more growth nor attracted the "rocket scientists".
Compare the growth of US ham radio from 1980 to 1990 (no medical
waivers, all hams code tested, Techs had same written as General until
'87) with the growth from 1990 to 2000. Sure there were short term
surges but not long term.

Since 2000 the total growth has been maybe 12,000 even though both
written and code testing were reduced.

Or look at what has happened in Japan since 1995...

In my opinion, the existing license exams serve their purpose well.

All depends what that purpose is. Looking at the FCC enforcement logs,
it seems that they don't ensure some hams know enough about how to
behave on the air.

Therefore, I see no reason to demand that future prospective Hams know more
than new Hams today, twenty years ago, or fifty years ago.

The problem is that as the technology "advances", the knowledge seems
to drop. Read rec.radio.amateur.antenna for a while and see how long
it takes before somebody starts yet another round on the T2FD....

Of course, you're perfectly free to continue "thumping for code tests" as
much as you want. The same with the "stiffer" written tests. However, since
code tests serve no purpose other than to exclude today and stiffer written
tests would do the same, you certainly won't get any support from me.

The purpose of tests is not to exclude but to guarantee a certain
minimum level of knowledge. What that knowledge should be is purely a
matter of opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

Who is being excluded? The requirements are what
the FCC says they are. Meet those requirements
and the license is granted.


Jim, please read the thread before replying. Brian is arguing for stiffer
written tests and/or code to exclude those he doesn't like. My comments
addressed the concept of using excess requirements to exclude others.


Note that reducing the license requirements has
NOT brought on significantly more growth nor
attracted the "rocket scientists".


I didn't say it did, Jim. The 'rocket scientists' point was made to
address Brian's argument for stiffer requirements to keep "dumb-downed"
people out. My comments about growth had to do with what I suspect would
happen if Brian were successful in his efforts to exclude others with
changes in the requirements.


(snip) The purpose of tests is not to exclude
but to guarantee a certain minimum level of
knowledge. (snip)


Again, I didn't say the purpose was to exclude. Again, my comments had to
do with the changes Brian is seeking, not the existing requirements.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote:

Who is being excluded? The requirements are what
the FCC says they are. Meet those requirements
and the license is granted.


Jim, please read the thread before replying.

I did.

Brian is arguing for stiffer
written tests and/or code to exclude those he doesn't like.

That's not how I read it. It's about what every ham should know and be
tested on.

My comments
addressed the concept of using excess requirements to exclude others.

But who decides what requirements are excess? It all comes down to
opinion.

For example, I think every ham should at least know Ohm's Law for DC
circuits. Basic stuff like E = IR, resistors in series and parallel,
how many amps a 50 watt rig draws from a 12 volt source if its overall
efficiency is 50%, etc. Others would say that stuff is "too
technical", particularly for "entry level" licenses. And there are
plenty of hams who don't know that stuff. Is requiring Ohm's Law
knowledge exclusionary? Is it an excess requirement?

Note that reducing the license requirements has
NOT brought on significantly more growth nor
attracted the "rocket scientists".

I didn't say it did, Jim. The 'rocket scientists' point was made to
address Brian's argument for stiffer requirements to keep "dumb-downed"
people out. My comments about growth had to do with what I suspect would
happen if Brian were successful in his efforts to exclude others with
changes in the requirements.

Nobody know what would really happen because for the past 25+ years
the direction has been towards easing the test requirements. Dick Bash
started it.
None of the changes along the way was very big but the end result has
been dramatic. Particularly for the top license classes.

(snip) The purpose of tests is not to exclude
but to guarantee a certain minimum level of
knowledge. (snip)

Again, I didn't say the purpose was to exclude. Again, my comments had to
do with the changes Brian is seeking, not the existing requirements.

What bad things would happen if the tests were "beefed up",
particularly the written tests for the General and Extra?

Perhaps the idea of dropping the code test would get a lot more
acceptance if it were coupled to better written testing. But it's not
- in fact, the written testing keeps getting trimmed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

That's not how I read it. It's about what every
ham should know and be tested on.


Read back over Brian's messages in this thread. His stated goal is to
exclude "dumbed down" people with stiffer license exams. He has given no
real evidence to suggest that doing so would improve ham radio or further
the purpose and goals of ham radio. Likewise, he has offered no real
evidence to suggest that his proposal would solve any specific problem with
ham radio. Instead, he has focused solely on the idea of excluding people.


But who decides what requirements are excess? It
all comes down to opinion.


The FCC does. All we can do is agree or disagree with their decisions.
However, if one disagrees with their decisions and wants others to agree
with that (or wants the FCC to change their decisions), it is obviously up
to that person to give solid reasons why. Brian's stated reasons are to
exclude 'dumbed down" people, without any real evidence to back that up. I
just don't think that is a solid reason.


What bad things would happen if the tests were
"beefed up", particularly the written tests for
the General and Extra?

Perhaps the idea of dropping the code test would
get a lot more acceptance if it were coupled to
better written testing. But it's not - in fact,
the written testing keeps getting trimmed.


I disagree. The written tests have been "beefed up" when necessary. For
example, the Technician and other license exams were "beefed up" several
years ago to put more emphasis on RF exposure levels and RF environmental
safety practices. There was a need for those changes. I just don't see a
need to "beef up" the license exams just for the sake of "beefing up" the
license exams, especially when there is no real benefit in doing so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/