In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I
am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few
basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the
electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of
different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other
radio) radio problem.

Ryan,

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation.
You may have read it already.

My point was not that hams *cannot* take care of their equipment, but rather
that there is not much of an absolute *need* for theory testing compared to
years ago because of the changes in typical modern amateur equipment.

That you can troubleshoot equipment is admirable, but I bet most of that
knowledge and skill came from your own interest, not from having to pass
written tests.

If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?

I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as
most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50
questions, more like 100-250 range.

I agree - but the FCC thinks the opposite. Try to convince them that they're
wrong.

As far as the question pool, I have no
problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers
shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it
would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did
as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They
could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well.

Wouldn't work. Somebody would do the Dick Bash thing and get the answers.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation.
You may have read it already.

Jim:

If I failed to paraphrase your comments accurately, I apologize. I admit that
I
did add my own "spin."

73 de Larry, K3LT

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though
I
am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few
basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the
electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of
different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or
other
radio) radio problem.

Ryan,

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's
interpretation.
You may have read it already.


I was going more on Larry's interpretation for that particular message....


My point was not that hams *cannot* take care of their equipment, but
rather
that there is not much of an absolute *need* for theory testing compared
to
years ago because of the changes in typical modern amateur equipment.


Yes, the equipment has changed, but I still see the need for some knowledge
in that direction.



That you can troubleshoot equipment is admirable, but I bet most of that
knowledge and skill came from your own interest, not from having to pass
written tests.

I would honestly say a little bit of both. I have always been a tinkerer
since almost back in the toddler days, which usually drove my parents
completely nuts!!!!! I just gotta know how something works or I am not
satisfied!!



If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?

I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as
most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50
questions, more like 100-250 range.

I agree - but the FCC thinks the opposite. Try to convince them that
they're
wrong.


Actually, the VE groups need to push the issue since they are (for the most
part) the persons responsible for administering the tests etc. That needs
to be a collective effort between the arrl, w5yi and any other VE groups out
there, if they could get together and WORK TOGETHER in that respect at
least.



As far as the question pool, I have no
problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers
shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way,
it
would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I
did
as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times.......
They
could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well.

Wouldn't work. Somebody would do the Dick Bash thing and get the answers.


Expand the size of the question pool maybe?? Or is there a better
solution???



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...