"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/