In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

But back in 1968, when I was at the FCC office for the General, the
examiner
said "why not try the Advanced while you're here?" (Could not do Extra
because
back then it had a 2 year experience requirement).

Question 1:

Were you discriminated against by such a rule?

No!

Since you lived through
such a thing, your input would be worthwhile.

My view, then and now, was that experience was part of the qualifications. Of
course, someone could just toss the license in a drawer for two years and do
nothing with it, but such was not the case with anyone I knew.

The day the Advanced license arrived, I sat down and calculated when the 2
years would be up, based on the effective date of the license. On the first
exam day when it would have been OK to take the test, I was back at the FCC
office to get the Extra.

So I took it and passed easily even though I had not studied for it at all.
I
was 14 and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades. Not a big deal
even
then because I knew of 12 year old Extras back then.

I do believe there is a "toughness effect" that is related to how much
trouble a person may have had at the time. They remember that it was
fairly hard for them then, so it remained difficult, even though the
person learned much more over the years. And since they know a lot now,
the old test must have been tough.

I did not think any of the tests - written or code - were that difficult. They
required one to know a little radio and some basic code skills, that's all.

Kind of like when I went back to my old elementary school a year or so

ago. I remembered how big the place was, and how big a deal it was to
walk from one end of the school to the other. If I hadn't gone back and
seen just how small the place was, my perception would have been forever
skewed as to it's size and how intimidating it was to a little kid such
as I was.

I had the same experience going back to my high school after not having been
there for more than 25 years. How small it appeared! And I'm about the same
size I was in those days.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...


Perhaps we should have a two class system, with only Generals and
Extras?



Dang....a two tier license structure not mandated by the government?
Heaven
forbid...hi.



There should be some sort of beginner's license that an average 14 year
old honor roll student
can get. Just like the cigarette companies, get them while they're young.
;-)


There might actually be some merit to that. Teenagers are still quite
moldable, and would be excellent candidates to "mold' them into the hams
that we want them to be, in the ham community. (Especially with making them
code enthusiasts as well.) Now for the naysayers...... this would mean
identifying those with the aptitude towards ham radio, not to all the teens,
just the "right" ones, whatever that means.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
"Symbolism is for the simple minded....."

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

The irony is that some of the most technically-
inclined YOUNG hams I've known have been those who were eager and
willing to respond to the code learning/testing challenge. It just may have
been the one thing that would have motivated more young people to
become hams.

Fun fact:

When the results of the 1996 ARRL/READEX survey were tabulated, one of the
results shown was the support for/opposition to code testing broken down by age
group.

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, but the *most* procodetest
group were the youngest! Hams under 24 at the time were 85% procodetest/15%
anticodetest. Almost a 6 to 1 ratio!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dick Carroll wrote:

You can imagine what my small hometown looked like when I returned after
5 years military time away in places like New York, Hartford, Philly,
Chicago, Paris and Frankfurt.


Probably looked like good old HOME! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Alun Palmer wrote:
Dick Carroll wrote in
:

Alun Palmer wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote in
:

Robert Casey wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote:

You view the situation as an EE who didn't need to study to work out
any of the technical problems on the Extra exam, few that there were.
Most applicants have the singleminded goal of passing the exam, and
learning beyond that goal is not only unnecessary, it gets in the way
of the goal at hand. So they naturally just don't do it. The curent
method of testing clearly facilitates that position.

I'm a EE, and like any reasonably successful college student, I still
made use of the
avaliable resources (the question pool) to prepare for the (at the
time I took them)
elements 4A and 4B. Found a few holes in my knowledge, and filled
them in for
at least long enough to score well on the tests (missed 1 on 4A, 2 on
4B IIRC).
Got the CSCEs, and then the extra on Restructuring Day.
Most students only study what is expected to be on the exams. Thus, I
could solve calculus exam problems (take the intergral of (csc
x^5)/(tan x^2 -1) dx)
but I still never got a good understanding of how to use calculus to
solve a real
world problem. Recently went looking for a "calculus for dummies"
type book, but all they had was how to do exam problems. Been there,
done that.

And obviously it wasn't a problemm and hasn't caused any problem, for
you and others similarly situated, nor for the ARS.

But.....how about all the Extras out there who have
successfully proceeded through the same system and emerged
with so little knowledge that they have no idea of even
how to design and build a simple *1/2* wave dipole?
With little or nothing beyond the question pools in their
libraries, many won't even know how or where to look it up.
And when(if) the day comes that won't be required to copy
ANY Morse code,one of the most used modes in ham radio, at the most
basic speed?

Which will affect their comprehension of dipoles neither one way or the
other.

Your linking of CW ability to comprehension of radio theory would be
frightening if it wasn't hilarious!

Understand that I'm not saying they shouldn't be hams, nor
that they shouldn't be allowed some HF access. We all start somewhere.
But to allow them licensing into the top echelon of amateurs
is ludicrous and negates all that ham radio is supposed to stand for.

In short, it reduces the ARS to CB status.

Your thinking is so completely addled that I hardly know what to say in
reply.

To quote a famous person, "There you go again!"

The minute I mention MOrse code, suddenly I'm all addled. Right.

Only when you try to link passing a Morse code test with ability to
understand theory

Well since I *didn't* make any such linkage, and never have, your
comment is out of line.

Senior, YOU've made so many out-of-line outright insults of others,
that you should spend more time off-line.

If you don't believe that proficiency in radiotelegraph operations is
a serious part of ham radio, that's your problem.

It's no one's "problem," senior.

U. S. amateur radio is NOT exclusively about radiotelegraphy.

Not in the regulations, not in the law, only in the imaginations of a
few.

I know no one who has ever linked it to technical knowlecge, despite
the many claims of NCI mavens.

Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate
with the rest of the world's frequency.

Get in tune.

LHA

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, h


bzzzzzt....

if this were true, there wouldn't be such a push to remove it.

Sorry but it's on it's going the way of the dinosaur, just without
as much darwinian effeciency.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Any twist of logic, any tactic or spin of the issue to try to
stave off the inevitable... the long overdue removal of code
testing. Nothing more.

Clint


"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...


Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate
with the rest of the world's frequency.

Get in tune.

LHA

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, h


bzzzzzt....

if this were true,

It is true. Did you read the survey and its results?

there wouldn't be such a push to remove it.

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000
members worldwide, even with no dues, no expiration of membership and having
been around over 7 years.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, h


bzzzzzt....

if this were true,

It is true. Did you read the survey and its results?

there wouldn't be such a push to remove it.

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than
5000
members worldwide, even with no dues, no expiration of membership and
having
been around over 7 years.



Oh, more than just NCI; ARRL seems to favor it, and in general most hams
do that aren't the ones clinging to desperate delusionary hopes in certain
internet
NG's.

Yep, it's outta here, CW testing is soon to be extinct. It's goneski.

Clint

"N2EY" wrote:

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership
numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members
worldwide (snip)


Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove
code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on
occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many years.
As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall movement to end
code testing - far more outside that organization are involved (including
some in this newsgroup you've personally discussed this issue with). To now
try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many
others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation.

Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will somehow
make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others
outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen, Jim.
The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that, in
light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into
question a person's sanity.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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