"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process. People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests. Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Or how about this rebuttal:

Those who want technical knowhow in amateur radio are either unwilling
to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give
the
theory a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently
unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue
to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive
"recruiting
program" for them ...

--

Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?

73 de Jim, N2EY