"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG
training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class
amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and
a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


You know Jim, the more I ponder this paragraph, the more I think you
may just have hit on an important way of grading the dedication (and
therefore "value") of any given amateur licensee.

Well, that wasn't my intent at all. I was merely pointing out that for
some folks, getting a license involves a lot of learning and the
related effort, while others already have the skills and knowledge.

The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.
There is no "value added" in "making them work for it" ... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period. (and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

Carl - wk3c

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

There's one problem ... there IS no CG Morse Code school any
more ... the services are NOT teaching their radiomen Morse any
more. My youngest son is in Navy EOD ... on notch below the
SEALS (which he qualified for 100% except for being just barely
over the line on their perfect uncorrected vision requirement) ... and
he NEVER learned Morse ... despite the fact that his MOS is
"Radioman."

Carl - wk3c

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

There's one problem ... there IS no CG Morse Code school any
more ... the services are NOT teaching their radiomen Morse any
more. My youngest son is in Navy EOD ... on notch below the
SEALS (which he qualified for 100% except for being just barely
over the line on their perfect uncorrected vision requirement) ... and
he NEVER learned Morse ... despite the fact that his MOS is
"Radioman."

Carl - wk3c

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG
training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class
amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and
a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


You know Jim, the more I ponder this paragraph, the more I think you
may just have hit on an important way of grading the dedication (and
therefore "value") of any given amateur licensee.

Well, that wasn't my intent at all. I was merely pointing out that for
some folks, getting a license involves a lot of learning and the
related effort, while others already have the skills and knowledge.

The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.
There is no "value added" in "making them work for it" ... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period. (and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

Carl - wk3c

Furthermore, if the US government wants to give all prospective
amateurs 3 hots and a cot, and a paycheck, for the duration it takes
to learn the code, I'd gladly enroll in the CG Morse Code school.

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly, Brian.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG
training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class
amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time, and
a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


You know Jim, the more I ponder this paragraph, the more I think you
may just have hit on an important way of grading the dedication (and
therefore "value") of any given amateur licensee.

Well, that wasn't my intent at all. I was merely pointing out that for
some folks, getting a license involves a lot of learning and the
related effort, while others already have the skills and knowledge.

The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

That's your point, Carl, not my point.

The original story told how, back in 1978, the whole class of CG folks
went down to FCC and became Extras, while today none of them did.

My point was simply that there are significant differences between the
1978 and 2003 situations, such as:

- the 1978 class was 'required' to take the test, and means provided
to do so (do you think they went on their own time? used their own
transportation? paid any fees?).

- the 1978 class had already learned all they needed to know to pass
the 1978 tests.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.

You can't change that situation anyway.

There is no "value added" in "making them work for it"

Who said there was? The point is that the 1978 class had a completely
different situation from the 2003 class.

... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period.

So would you agree with Kim that anyone who can pass the required
tests should be allowed into the ARS?

(and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

73 de Jim, N2EY

snip

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think this is precisely why some people argue so vociferously for code
tesing despite the lack of any logical arguments for retaining it. That is
to say, they value it because it's hard instead of because it's necessary
(which it isn't!!!).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

(N2EY) wrote


It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.


Jim, you really need to retire this old mantra.

'It is a fact of human nature' that real people don't value a thing
based on it's 'investment' or 'cost', but rather based on the
usefulness, utility, comfort, satisfaction, or enjoyment that comes
from having it.

My amateur license cost me virtually nothing in terms of 'investment
of myself', and the curbs and gutters the city just installed at one
of my places cost me an $8,200 assessment. I value my amateur license
a LOT more than I value the city's new street curbing!

The things that I value the very most quite honestly are literal gifts
which I have recieved without an ounce of 'investment' or 'cost' ---
the love of my wife, the smiles of my grandkids, the whisper of the
wind at sunset on Lake Vermilion, the conversation with an old friend,
or my healthy heart. I value all of these more than my homes, my RV,
my boat, or the QSL collection in the closet.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


1) Back in '78, the students learned Morse Code as part of their CG
training,
so there was no other training needed for them to get Extra Class
amateur
licenses. Today, they would need to put in some of their own time,
and
a bit of
effort, learning Morse at 5 wpm for that test.


You know Jim, the more I ponder this paragraph, the more I think you
may just have hit on an important way of grading the dedication (and
therefore "value") of any given amateur licensee.

Well, that wasn't my intent at all. I was merely pointing out that for
some folks, getting a license involves a lot of learning and the
related effort, while others already have the skills and knowledge.

The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

That's your point, Carl, not my point.

OK, we'll put you down for "not demonstrating qualifications."

The original story told how, back in 1978, the whole class of CG folks
went down to FCC and became Extras, while today none of them did.

1978 was 25 years ago. This isn't 1978.

In 25 years, a child could be conceived, raised, educated, and become
a working adult on their own.

Things are NOT static in time just because they are (apparently) fresh
in your mind.

My point was simply that there are significant differences between the
1978 and 2003 situations, such as:

- the 1978 class was 'required' to take the test, and means provided
to do so (do you think they went on their own time? used their own
transportation? paid any fees?).

- the 1978 class had already learned all they needed to know to pass
the 1978 tests.

Which means WHAT?

Members of ANY branch of the US military in 1978 were ALL
volunteers. ALL.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.

You can't change that situation anyway.

Is this to be entirely about the PAST...again?

You cannot undo history. That has already happened...that's why it is
called history.

You can NOT use the PAST as a valid argument to have any knowledge,
skills, arts, or crafts preserved for the present and future with any
validity.

There is no "value added" in "making them work for it"

Who said there was? The point is that the 1978 class had a completely
different situation from the 2003 class.

You are slowly beginning to see reality. Congratulations.

... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period.

So would you agree with Kim that anyone who can pass the required
tests should be allowed into the ARS?

Are you talking about the USCG or US amateur radio?

You are confusing, hopping around on subjects...

The ONLY agency awarding grants (in the form of licenses) for operating
on allocated amateur radio frequencies is the FCC. The USCG has
nothing to do with it.

(and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

Which leads everyone to the implied reason of all PCTAs arguing for
the retention of code testing: They had to do it so everyone else had
better damn well do it, too!!!

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Hans K0HB) wrote in message
. com...
"N2EY" wrote


The point is that licensing should be based on one's demonstration
of the required qualifications, no more, no less.

That's your point, Carl, not my point.

OK ... but it's still my (valid) point.

The original story told how, back in 1978, the whole class of CG folks
went down to FCC and became Extras, while today none of them did.

My point was simply that there are significant differences between the
1978 and 2003 situations, such as:

- the 1978 class was 'required' to take the test, and means provided
to do so (do you think they went on their own time? used their own
transportation? paid any fees?).

- the 1978 class had already learned all they needed to know to pass
the 1978 tests.

If someone already has the knowledge to pass the tests, fine.

You can't change that situation anyway.

Agreed ... but I reitterate "If someone already has the knowledge to
pass the tests, fine."


There is no "value added" in "making them work for it"

Who said there was?

LOTS of folks here have promoted the "everyone should have
to WORK for their license "to prove their dedication, etc.""
(I'm not saying YOU said that, but lots of folks have voiced
that view ...)

The point is that the 1978 class had a completely
different situation from the 2003 class.

... if
they have the knowledge they are qualified, period.

So would you agree with Kim that anyone who can pass the required
tests should be allowed into the ARS?

Yes, unless they have some other disqualifying factor that would
render them unsuitable to be an FCC licensee (past history of
violations, etc.), but that's the FCC's call ...

(and likely
they worked for it or they wouldn't have the knowledge anyway,
so the logic of "making them work (more)" fails)

It is a fact of human nature that most people value a thing more if it
took some investment of themselves to acquire.

Maybe so, but it's not the FCC's business to determine how much
someone "values" a ham license ... only to determine if they meet
the minimum qualifications established. Besides, just because someone
did the work of learning BEFORE they decided to become a ham
doesn't mean they didn't still "do the work." Why should that (previously
accomplished) work be "devalued" as some suggest???

73,
Carl - wk3c