Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Do we really need a new Novice class? | Policy | |||
Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules | General | |||
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Policy | |||
Hey CBers Help Get rid of Morse Code Test and Requirement | Policy |