LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #8   Report Post  
Old April 14th 04, 04:40 PM
Michael Black
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do we really need a new Novice class? Jason Hsu Policy 5 January 28th 04 12:55 AM
Low reenlistment rate charlesb Policy 54 September 18th 03 01:57 PM
There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules JJ General 159 August 12th 03 12:25 AM
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st Dwight Stewart Policy 300 August 12th 03 12:25 AM
Hey CBers Help Get rid of Morse Code Test and Requirement Scott Unit 69 Policy 9 August 1st 03 02:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017