RadioBanter - Just how necessary is a new Novice class?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Just how necessary is a new Novice class? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27445-just-how-necessary-new-novice-class.html)

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Jason Hsu wrote:
Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? During the
years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose
the
No-Code Technician.

Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.

Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

In one of my recent classes, I had an 8 year old boy of ordinary grades
and
ordinary intelligence take and pass the Technician. Sorry but the test
does
NOT need to be easier. He made it on the second try. This is no worse
than
many adults.

If it was that easy, why two tries before passing...and what
was his passing score when he did?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Jason Hsu wrote:

The ARRL and the new NCVEC petitions call for creating a new Novice
class and upgrading Technicians to General. (I already commented on
the ARRL petition to the FCC.)

I'm not upset with the ARRL about this. The directors did what they
felt they had to do. But I'm still puzzled by parts of the proposal.

The highly controversial proposal of upgrading Technicians to General
is the result of insisting that all license classes be merged into
just 3 without downgrading privileges for any class. It's a game of
License Class Survivor, and all classes but 3 have to be voted off the
island. General and Amateur Extra are (correctly) considered too
important to eliminate, and Advanced licenses get upgraded to Amateur
Extra. So only one more license class can remain, and the ARRL and
NCVEC think that the Novice should remain and be reopened, and the
Technician license should be voted off the island. Because of the "no
downgrade" condition, Technician licenses are upgraded to General.

Interesting take on the issue, Jason.

My main concern is that there is a precedent in the proposed mass
upgrade:

If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means that
after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come afterward.

Mike, that is absolutely false as an argument of any substance.
Government has given temporary waivers in many areas and no one
has ever been able to say that after the door closed on a particular
waiver, they should be allowed a similar waiver afterwards.

Is it fair to those that come afterward?

Life's a bitch and then we die. Was it fair when new drivers no longer
had to take a drivers test on a manual gearshift auto? In any state today
you can take the driver's test on a car with automatic transmission
and then, having passed, go drive a car with a manual gearbox.

In many states, there have been waivers of penalties for people that
come forward to pay back taxes...and then, once the waiver period
is over, if someone else comes forward with a back taxes payment they
DO pay penalties.

There will be a *powerful* argument that "The Tech elements were good
enough for the majority of hams to become General, so why should I have
to take a harder test?"

They can argue that until hell freezes over and it won't stand up in
any court. A one time "free pass" based on a legitamate FCC goal
of license and rules simplification is ample justification.

Bill, just the same as we (you) are on the verge of eliminating Element
one as the great barrier to the Amateur radio service, we can change the
entrance requirements.

And who needs to argue that in any court? We simply do it the same way
that you support upgrading Techs to Generals. The same way that we make
a new "communicator license, and have people sign affidavits that they
have read part 97

If that's what you want, then you can file an RM asking the
FCC to consider it. Jim N2EY keeps saying the same thing
but admits it is just an argument and he'd never actually do so.

And although there is really no test process needed at all to get on HF
(witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels) I believe that we should
foster technical knowledge qualifications for the ARS.

No argument there...BUT the process still needs a solution and the
hodgepodge of 6 licenses and 6 sets of rules today just isn't needed.
That is why both ARRL and NCVEC have proposed almost identical
3 license plans with the "free" upgrades.

Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? During the years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose the
No-Code Technician.

Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.

Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

I could have passed the Technician exam in 7th grade, and there are
plenty enough people that think I'm as dumb as mud. I wasn't an
exceptional student or even close.

Yet there's no doubt at all that the current Tech is more
difficult than the Novice ever was.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" ) writes:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
If the tests are going to be geared to "an average sixth grader", and
one of the requirements is to sign a paper stating that you have read
part 97, exactly what is the class going to consist of? And since ther
is a good possibility that the General test is going to end up being at
the level of the Technician license.

I know I'm mixing proposals there, but the point is, maybe the new
novice or communicator should be easy enough that people *don't* have to
take any classes for it.

I'm sure there will be some that won't need any class and
will study or learn independent of any formal instruction. I did
exactly that myself as a teenager for Novice & General in the 50's.
On the other hand, I'd have no problem teaching a class targeted at
whatever the Novice syllabus of test material might actually end
up being.

One benefit of a class of some sort is that it gets the local club
into view. ONe can make a stab at "controlling" the entry into
the hobby, which might not occur if someone reads about the hobby somewhere,
memorizes the test, and then is suddenly a ham with little connection
to it's history or any of the locals. Getting a ham license is
just a first step, and when someone is teaching a class they can
influence the newcomers in operating habits, infuse them with a sense
of the history of the hobby and even show excitement about CW. Plus,
there is (or should be) a level of interaction between the class members,
which should give them a start in the hobby.

I suspect this may be far more important than the learning that occurs
at the classes. I don't like the assumption that a class is the
only way to enter the hobby, but I like these side benefits.

When I was a kid, one had to be at least fifteen here in Canada
to get a license, so when I decided to get a ham license, it was
four years in the future. They changed the rule when I was twelve,
so I had over a year reading electronic hobby magazines and QST,
where I was learning without the goal being the getting of a license.

When the rules changed in late 1971 (well, the rule went into effect
some months later), I had to use the roundabout method of contacting
the ARRL to find a local code & theory class. And I entered that class
in February, at least half way into the course. It was the code
that I needed, and even coming in late I caught up. But it put me
in contact with the local club.

That seems like a long time for a code & theory class, looking back.
But of course, it was once a week for an hour or two. Obviously, while
the goal was to pass the test, it was not about getting the test out of
the way. A simpler test does not mean one has to merely teach the
questions on the test.

Michael VE2BVW

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

If the tests are going to be geared to "an average sixth grader", and
one of the requirements is to sign a paper stating that you have read
part 97, exactly what is the class going to consist of? And since ther
is a good possibility that the General test is going to end up being at
the level of the Technician license.

I know I'm mixing proposals there, but the point is, maybe the new
novice or communicator should be easy enough that people *don't* have to
take any classes for it.

I'm sure there will be some that won't need any class and
will study or learn independent of any formal instruction. I did
exactly that myself as a teenager for Novice & General in the 50's.
On the other hand, I'd have no problem teaching a class targeted at
whatever the Novice syllabus of test material might actually end
up being.

My goal or objective would be to encourage
as many new people, especially kids, to get a novice license
and just see how it goes from there.

Sure, I will work with whatever we
have. That doesn't mean that I have to like it tho'

If you don't like teaching or working with some folks because
their initial knowledge base of radio is nonexistent then I'd
suggets you not even try as you have to be (IMHO) a
ready and willing instructor to any student group you might
encounter.

Not necessarily Bill. I'm happy to work with rank newbies. And I do,
with Field Day, and at things like Kids Day at the mall, where many if
not most of the kids didn't even know amateur radio existed before
seeing us.

But don't connect not wanting to "teach" extremely elementary things to
people that are capable of so much more with inability or lack of desire
to teach. Some people want to teach college level courses, some at high
school level, and some, such as my instructor in a wheel class I'm
taking, teach autistic children to work with pottery. I'm in awe of what
she does, but there is no way I would do it.

As I say, I'm happy to provide a good introduction to amateur radio
(fun, not too dweeby ,or overly technical, but as interesting as I can)
to people that may only be awakening to technology, but I'm not
interested in teaching them where to sign on the form where they say
they have read part 97.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Jason Hsu wrote:

The ARRL and the new NCVEC petitions call for creating a new Novice
class and upgrading Technicians to General. (I already commented on
the ARRL petition to the FCC.)

I'm not upset with the ARRL about this. The directors did what they
felt they had to do. But I'm still puzzled by parts of the proposal.

The highly controversial proposal of upgrading Technicians to General
is the result of insisting that all license classes be merged into
just 3 without downgrading privileges for any class. It's a game of
License Class Survivor, and all classes but 3 have to be voted off the
island. General and Amateur Extra are (correctly) considered too
important to eliminate, and Advanced licenses get upgraded to Amateur
Extra. So only one more license class can remain, and the ARRL and
NCVEC think that the Novice should remain and be reopened, and the
Technician license should be voted off the island. Because of the "no
downgrade" condition, Technician licenses are upgraded to General.

Interesting take on the issue, Jason.

My main concern is that there is a precedent in the proposed mass

upgrade:

If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means that
after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come afterward.

Mike, that is absolutely false as an argument of any substance.
Government has given temporary waivers in many areas and no one
has ever been able to say that after the door closed on a particular
waiver, they should be allowed a similar waiver afterwards.

Is it fair to those that come afterward?

Life's a bitch and then we die. Was it fair when new drivers no longer
had to take a drivers test on a manual gearshift auto? In any state today
you can take the driver's test on a car with automatic transmission
and then, having passed, go drive a car with a manual gearbox.

The problem I see with your analogy is that it's all one license, and
the requirement never comes back.

A closer analogy would be: At one time, a special test had to be taken
to drive a motorcycle. Then everyone would be given a motorcycle
endorsement, but after that, people would *again* have to take the
motorcycle test again to get the endorsement.

There will be a *powerful* argument that "The Tech elements were good
enough for the majority of hams to become General, so why should I have
to take a harder test?"

They can argue that until hell freezes over and it won't stand up in
any court. A one time "free pass" based on a legitamate FCC goal
of license and rules simplification is ample justification.

Bill, just the same as we (you) are on the verge of eliminating Element
one as the great barrier to the Amateur radio service, we can change the
entrance requirements.

And who needs to argue that in any court? We simply do it the same way
that you support upgrading Techs to Generals. The same way that we make
a new "communicator license, and have people sign affidavits that they
have read part 97

If that's what you want, then you can file an RM asking the
FCC to consider it. Jim N2EY keeps saying the same thing
but admits it is just an argument and he'd never actually do so.

Of course I don't want it, nor Jim. But that doesn't mean that there
aren't some people out there that DO want it. And they will agitiate
for it.

And although there is really no test process needed at all to get on HF
(witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels) I believe that we should
foster technical knowledge qualifications for the ARS.

No argument there...BUT the process still needs a solution and the
hodgepodge of 6 licenses and 6 sets of rules today just isn't needed.
That is why both ARRL and NCVEC have proposed almost identical
3 license plans with the "free" upgrades.

Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? During the years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose the
No-Code Technician.

Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.

Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

I could have passed the Technician exam in 7th grade, and there are
plenty enough people that think I'm as dumb as mud. I wasn't an
exceptional student or even close.

Yet there's no doubt at all that the current Tech is more
difficult than the Novice ever was.

Well, I think that is the case, but I haven't seen the Novice tests, so
I'll accept that as the case from people that have been hams for a
longer time.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Black wrote:

"Bill Sohl" ) writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

If the tests are going to be geared to "an average sixth grader", and
one of the requirements is to sign a paper stating that you have read
part 97, exactly what is the class going to consist of? And since ther
is a good possibility that the General test is going to end up being at
the level of the Technician license.

I know I'm mixing proposals there, but the point is, maybe the new
novice or communicator should be easy enough that people *don't* have to
take any classes for it.

I'm sure there will be some that won't need any class and
will study or learn independent of any formal instruction. I did
exactly that myself as a teenager for Novice & General in the 50's.
On the other hand, I'd have no problem teaching a class targeted at
whatever the Novice syllabus of test material might actually end
up being.

One benefit of a class of some sort is that it gets the local club
into view. ONe can make a stab at "controlling" the entry into
the hobby, which might not occur if someone reads about the hobby somewhere,
memorizes the test, and then is suddenly a ham with little connection
to it's history or any of the locals. Getting a ham license is
just a first step, and when someone is teaching a class they can
influence the newcomers in operating habits, infuse them with a sense
of the history of the hobby and even show excitement about CW. Plus,
there is (or should be) a level of interaction between the class members,
which should give them a start in the hobby.

I suspect this may be far more important than the learning that occurs
at the classes. I don't like the assumption that a class is the
only way to enter the hobby, but I like these side benefits.

That is an interesting perspective, and I don't know if it was designed
that way, but it is a good thing to expose the newbies to the club study
atmosphere. As long as it is a good club, the beginner will get good
exposure. I took my Tech license without any club input, and thank
heavens I was able to get in a good club, then worked with the guys and
gals on proper procedure. Elmering is critical IMO!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"starwars" wrote

|
| Aww, come on, Steve, Lennie's too busy "elmering" the kids into his
| NAMBLA lifestyle.
|

I've found a lot of reasons to discount Len's contributions to this
newsgroup, but to suggest that he's involved in corrupting children is
the lowest form of insult imaginable. That you are so cowardly that you
lack the balls to identify yourself speaks volumes. In plain simple
English, you're a gutless asshole.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
[snip]
While I have no problem with the elimination of Morse code, nor have I
a
problem with an easy entry level license, I am rather perplexed with
the
continued insistance that the tests are too hard. I am also somewhat
surprised at a free ride of either codeless techs or tech plusses
being
moved to general. The only techs which got the free ride were the
techs
from years ago who took the general theory. The only difference was
the
5
words per minute vs the 13 words per minute of the general class
license.
When the code requirement was dropped to 5 words per minute, the old
techs
had already passed the entire exam for new general class licensees.
Hmmmm
... come to think of it, they didn't get a 'free' ride - they passed
the
same elements as newly issued general class licenses.

Just my thoughts ...

And keep in mind that that upgrade isn't exactly "free". They have to
take
the time and energy to find or get the necessary proof of license, find
a
test session, show up at said test session, and process the paperwork.

Actually there's no need at all to do that. All the FCC needs to
do is change the rules to reflect that all Techs licenses are now
General and they will be reissued as General as they individually
expire and are renewed. The same would be true for Advanced to
Extra, and, if the NCVEC petition wins out with the new entry
license being "Communicator" then existing Novice licenses
would be equivalent to Communicator and renewed as such when
the current license expired. There is NO immediate need for any
paperwork to happen at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

If the goal is simplification of number of classes, then there would indeed
be a need to do the upgrades enmass. Otherwise the closed classes could
hang on for up to 10 years, which nearly negates the simplification process.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE