"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.

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

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 -

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 -