| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Just how necessary is a new Novice class?
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. 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. What's now the Technician exam was two separate tests back then - Novice and Technician. Both the Novice and Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But in spite of this, the ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license. The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice license obsolete. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required. Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a 4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept? My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more important than the Technician license: 1. The ARRL directors couldn't agree, so they proposed a compromise that they felt would promote good PR. I don't think they seriously expect the FCC to approve it. 2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and reintroduce the Novice class. Jason Hsu, AG4DG usenet AAAAATTTTTT jasonhsu.com http://www.jasonhsu.com/ee.html |
"Jason Hsu" wrote in message om... 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. Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? I would venture to say it is harder to get than the Novice (if we still had novice testing) . That's the problem as percieved by ARRL, NCVEC and other. 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. But that's probably because you were an adult and only the Tech gave sufficient VHF capability to allow you to engage in voice operations, especially via FM. What's now the Technician exam was two separate tests back then - Novice and Technician. Both the Novice and Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But that was again most likly because you didn't want to be limited to the Novice HF and limited VHF privileges. But in spite of this, the ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license. The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice license obsolete. I agee only to the extent that VHF operations had become a much greater part of ham radio capabilities. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required. True to a point, but that again was a result of operating privileges, not (IMHO) the locense difficulty of 5 wpm. Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a 4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept? You'll have to ask ARRL...but before you do, kook at the privileges to be granted to new Novice class under both ARRL and NCVECs petition. Before the Novice was almost an exclusive HF with code operating license. That will change significantly. The Novice was a gateway for many of us when getting on the air really was pretty much an HF only thing. The Novice clearly offered a great starting point for youth...far more than does today's tech. My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more important than the Technician license: 1. The ARRL directors couldn't agree, so they proposed a compromise that they felt would promote good PR. I don't think they seriously expect the FCC to approve it. 2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and reintroduce the Novice class. I disagree. I believe they want an easier entrance license than tech that allows youth to get a license AND offers a full array of operating privileges (HF, VHF, SSB, FM, CW, etc) to that license. Today's Novice is effectively an HF non-phone lcense and todays Tech is clearly a VHF/UHF only license. That's the problem. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
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. 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?" 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. 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. What's now the Technician exam was two separate tests back then - Novice and Technician. Both the Novice and Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But in spite of this, the ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license. 5WPM is easy for some, and not at all easy for others. The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice license obsolete. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required. Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a 4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept? My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more important than the Technician license: 1. The ARRL directors couldn't agree, so they proposed a compromise that they felt would promote good PR. I don't think they seriously expect the FCC to approve it. 2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and reintroduce the Novice class. That is a pretty good assessment, Jason. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Jason Hsu" wrote in message om... 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. Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? I would venture to say it is harder to get than the Novice (if we still had novice testing) . That's the problem as percieved by ARRL, NCVEC and other. Probably was harder than the Novice, at least question wise. but we aren't talking about orders of magnitude harder. I like how Jim N2EY puts it, that the old tests tested more in depth on fewer subjects, while the new Technician tests test more subjects to lesser depth. 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. But that's probably because you were an adult and only the Tech gave sufficient VHF capability to allow you to engage in voice operations, especially via FM. That is a *big* reason, and was why I went the Technician route. A smaller reason is the element one test. For some of us, that was a lot harder. But both were a big part of the demise of the old Novice class. What's now the Technician exam was two separate tests back then - Novice and Technician. Both the Novice and Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But that was again most likly because you didn't want to be limited to the Novice HF and limited VHF privileges. But in spite of this, the ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license. The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice license obsolete. I agee only to the extent that VHF operations had become a much greater part of ham radio capabilities. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required. True to a point, but that again was a result of operating privileges, not (IMHO) the locense difficulty of 5 wpm. I think it was a little bit of both, Bill. Mostly privileges, but there is a sizable minority that find Element 1 daunting. If I hadn't, I probably would have become a novice long before they ever had a no-code Tech. Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a 4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept? You'll have to ask ARRL...but before you do, kook at the privileges to be granted to new Novice class under both ARRL and NCVECs petition. Before the Novice was almost an exclusive HF with code operating license. That will change significantly. The Novice was a gateway for many of us when getting on the air really was pretty much an HF only thing. The Novice clearly offered a great starting point for youth...far more than does today's tech. My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more important than the Technician license: 1. The ARRL directors couldn't agree, so they proposed a compromise that they felt would promote good PR. I don't think they seriously expect the FCC to approve it. 2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and reintroduce the Novice class. I disagree. I believe they want an easier entrance license than tech that allows youth to get a license AND offers a full array of operating privileges (HF, VHF, SSB, FM, CW, etc) to that license. Today's Novice is effectively an HF non-phone lcense and todays Tech is clearly a VHF/UHF only license. That's the problem. But is the Technician license all that hard? I barely studied for mine, I might be as guilty as the PCTA's that like to talk about how a person can "get" Morse in one weekend, but I'm amazed that people would consider the Technician test too hard. Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no requirements? Learn as they go? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net...
Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? I would venture to say it is harder to get than the Novice (if we still had novice testing) . That's the problem as percieved by ARRL, NCVEC and other. Granted, a No-Code Novice (if it existed) would be easier to get than a No-Code Technician license. But if the No-Code Technician license was too hard but the Coded Novice license was easy to get, then why didn't more new hams get the Novice license first and then upgrade to Technician Plus later? 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. But that's probably because you were an adult and only the Tech gave sufficient VHF capability to allow you to engage in voice operations, especially via FM. OK, but giving Tech Plus privileges to No-Code Technicians would give this new entry-level class the same HF privileges that the Novice licensees have. Also, removing the 5 wpm requirement for the General class would make it easier for No-Code Technicians to upgrade. This would resolve the issue of the lack of HF privileges for the No-Code Technicians. If the Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges aren't enough, then an expansion of them would be called for. A modest expansion of Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges would be MUCH more sensible than automatic upgrades to the General class. Although I believe the 5 wpm exam should be eliminated for all license classes, I oppose the free upgrades from No-Code Technician to General because the Technician exam was never intended to prepare people to use General class privileges and the General class license was never intended to be an entry-level license. Most people (except for a few of the most strident pro-code testers who want to brag about passing the 13 wpm exam) have no objections to the free upgrades from Advanced to Amateur Extra since most of the current Amateur Extra exam question pool was previously in the Advanced exam question pool. But the same argument does NOT apply in upgrading Technicians to General. If the General exam were that unnecessary, then why wasn't it merged in the restructuring of 2000, and why won't it be eliminated in the ARRL proposal? I highly doubt that anyone staunchly favors free upgrades from Technician to General. I think this part of the ARRL proposal is simply the result of insisting on both a 3-class system AND a new Novice class. In my opinion, either current Novices should be merged into the Technician class (with Tech Plus privileges), OR there should be 4 license classes (Novice, Technician, General, Amateur Extra). I disagree. I believe they want an easier entrance license than tech that allows youth to get a license AND offers a full array of operating privileges (HF, VHF, SSB, FM, CW, etc) to that license. Today's Novice is effectively an HF non-phone lcense and todays Tech is clearly a VHF/UHF only license. That's the problem. I still think that the Technician license is fine as an entry-level license and that the Technician exam isn't terribly hard - just an extended version of the old Novice exam. If a No-Code Novice license is created, it should NOT be at the expense of the Technician license. As I mentioned before, offering HF privileges to current Technicians doesn't require upgrading them to General - simply giving No-Code Technicians the Tech Plus privileges would accomplish this. Offering HF voice privileges (in addition to the slice of 10m) to current Technicians can be done by adding more voice privileges to the license. Automatic upgrades to General are not necessary and are unwarranted. Jason Hsu, AG4DG |
Jason Hsu wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? I would venture to say it is harder to get than the Novice (if we still had novice testing) . That's the problem as percieved by ARRL, NCVEC and other. Granted, a No-Code Novice (if it existed) would be easier to get than a No-Code Technician license. But if the No-Code Technician license was too hard but the Coded Novice license was easy to get, then why didn't more new hams get the Novice license first and then upgrade to Technician Plus later? Jason, I really think that an awful lot of hams that think we need a lot more hams on the air also don't think that people are very smart in general. Element one was the pariah for so many years; it was keeping new hams out. And now somehow the easy test people "know" that the Technician license is too difficult!? 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. But that's probably because you were an adult and only the Tech gave sufficient VHF capability to allow you to engage in voice operations, especially via FM. OK, but giving Tech Plus privileges to No-Code Technicians would give this new entry-level class the same HF privileges that the Novice licensees have. Also, removing the 5 wpm requirement for the General class would make it easier for No-Code Technicians to upgrade. This would resolve the issue of the lack of HF privileges for the No-Code Technicians. If the Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges aren't enough, then an expansion of them would be called for. A modest expansion of Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges would be MUCH more sensible than automatic upgrades to the General class. Although I believe the 5 wpm exam should be eliminated for all license classes, I oppose the free upgrades from No-Code Technician to General because the Technician exam was never intended to prepare people to use General class privileges and the General class license was never intended to be an entry-level license. Most people (except for a few of the most strident pro-code testers who want to brag about passing the 13 wpm exam) have no objections to the free upgrades from Advanced to Amateur Extra since most of the current Amateur Extra exam question pool was previously in the Advanced exam question pool. But the same argument does NOT apply in upgrading Technicians to General. If the General exam were that unnecessary, then why wasn't it merged in the restructuring of 2000, and why won't it be eliminated in the ARRL proposal? I highly doubt that anyone staunchly favors free upgrades from Technician to General. I think this part of the ARRL proposal is simply the result of insisting on both a 3-class system AND a new Novice class. In my opinion, either current Novices should be merged into the Technician class (with Tech Plus privileges), OR there should be 4 license classes (Novice, Technician, General, Amateur Extra). I disagree. I believe they want an easier entrance license than tech that allows youth to get a license AND offers a full array of operating privileges (HF, VHF, SSB, FM, CW, etc) to that license. Today's Novice is effectively an HF non-phone lcense and todays Tech is clearly a VHF/UHF only license. That's the problem. I still think that the Technician license is fine as an entry-level license and that the Technician exam isn't terribly hard - just an extended version of the old Novice exam. Agreed. I do not believe that kids are stupid and need an "easy" license, especially if we *don't* really know that the technician license is keeping them off the air. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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. Looks like the added 8 WPM (5+3=13) is equal to the old element 4B (the written test an Advanced would take to get Extra back in the olden days). Or to put it another way, that having passed a 13 WPM test long ago is equal to 1/2 of the Extra written test (I'm ignoring medical waivers here). An Advanced took what is roughly 1/2 of the current Extra written (element 4). Now that the Extra only needs 5WPM, I suppose this equivalence is valid.... 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. 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. What's now the Technician exam was two separate tests back then - Novice and Technician. Way back when, Tech required Novice code and general written. The old pre 87 tech plus. I was one. Took element 4 a few years ago and now I'm an extra. Back in the early 1970s there was actually a rule saying that you could not hold a tech AND a novice license at the same time. That Tech's were restricted above 50MHz, thus no HF operations even as a novice. Even though you had done novice code. I don't know if that was a bureaucratic screw-up or if the FCC had a reason. Back then I wanted to get a tech (phone privs on VHF I wanted) so my father and I visited a guy who was the FCC field engineer for the NYC area. This guy thought the tech license was an evil anti-ham dead end that would cause me never to attain true ham-dom on HF... Anyway, we did the novice code test. He set his keyer for a Farnsworth style test, but I had trained for slow character code. Bombed it. There's more about this guy, but it's OT. Both the Novice and Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But in spite of this, the ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license. Most of the ARRL guys are old time HF hams who did the high speed code thing. They say code is easy because they found it easy for themselves and got the higher class licenses and rose to prominence at the ARRL (not that high speed code is a necessary skill needed for running an organization, but they used it as a political tool to edge out lower level licensee candidates). So nobody who found code to be a PITA would be there to say that code is a PITA..... The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice license obsolete. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required. Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a 4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept? My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more important than the Technician license: 2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and reintroduce the Novice class. The olden days of building and operating a vacuum tube CW transmitter from parts from junked TV sets. It worked because common consumer electronics parts could be easily applied to transmitter work. Not so today. Tubes are fairly forgiving of short duration mistakes but solid state devices are not Whatever entry level license is proposed or is established should be achievable by teenagers who are able to do fairly well in school. You don't have to be a genius honor roll student to get it, but you should have more smarts than Beavis and Butthead can muster.... |
I still think that the Technician license is fine as an entry-level license and that the Technician exam isn't terribly hard - just an extended version of the old Novice exam. The Tech exam is what, roughly equivalent to an honors level high school physics exam and history exam (I mention "history' as that requires memorizing random information, names and dates equivalent to frequency bands and such rules). Not the inner city non-honors public schools where if you can write your name you graduate)... The Extra exam might be roughly equivalent to an exam for a 3 credit college class. |
:
If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means that after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come afterward. 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?" And although there is really no test process needed at all to get on HF (witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels) Well, they're not *legal* and should not be there. And legal CB operators are not supposed to talk internationally. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no requirements? Learn as they go? - Mike KB3EIA - If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Jason Hsu" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? I would venture to say it is harder to get than the Novice (if we still had novice testing) . That's the problem as percieved by ARRL, NCVEC and other. Granted, a No-Code Novice (if it existed) would be easier to get than a No-Code Technician license. But if the No-Code Technician license was too hard but the Coded Novice license was easy to get, then why didn't more new hams get the Novice license first and then upgrade to Technician Plus later? A very large part of the reason was that to get on 2m FM, which is your "local watering hole" you have to be a Technician. So people took the Tech route and then upgraded to Tech+ to get HF privileges if interested. Many instructors actively recommended that route rather than going Novice and then upgrading to Tech+. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... [snip] Whatever entry level license is proposed or is established should be achievable by teenagers who are able to do fairly well in school. You don't have to be a genius honor roll student to get it, but you should have more smarts than Beavis and Butthead can muster.... This means that all the tests need to be harder as ordinary youths even below the teen age level regularly pass the Technician and General class exams. With a little extra elmering, some pass the Extra exam. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... I still think that the Technician license is fine as an entry-level license and that the Technician exam isn't terribly hard - just an extended version of the old Novice exam. The Tech exam is what, roughly equivalent to an honors level high school physics exam and history exam (I mention "history' as that requires memorizing random information, names and dates equivalent to frequency bands and such rules). Not the inner city non-honors public schools where if you can write your name you graduate)... The Extra exam might be roughly equivalent to an exam for a 3 credit college class. Not hardly. The Tech and General exams are no harder than the material that students are learning in junior high if they are going to even a halfway decent school. The Tech and General exams require nothing harder than adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. I certainly hope our junior high kids of average intelligence and standard class room training can handle these basic math functions. The Extra exam couldn't hold a candle to the exams that I had to take in college for a 3 credit course. Although covering material that is not a typical school subject, it's no harder than standard high school (non-honors physics). Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no requirements? Learn as they go? - Mike KB3EIA - If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise. Do you really believe that bringing in a new ham at the proposed novice level isn't worth it? 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
The Tech exam is what, roughly equivalent to an honors level high school physics exam and history exam (I mention "history' as that requires memorizing random information, names and dates equivalent to frequency bands and such rules). Not the inner city non-honors public schools where if you can write your name you graduate)... The Extra exam might be roughly equivalent to an exam for a 3 credit college class. Not hardly. The Tech and General exams are no harder than the material that students are learning in junior high if they are going to even a halfway decent school. The Tech and General exams require nothing harder than adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. I was thinking of the part where you have to decide when and what to add, multiply, etc. I certainly hope our junior high kids of average intelligence and standard class room training can handle these basic math functions. The Extra exam couldn't hold a candle to the exams that I had to take in college for a 3 credit course. Most 3 credit classes are harder, but I had a few that were "give-aways". Maybe I should say "as hard as an easier hour test taken early in a freshman college class". |
Jason Hsu wrote:
Granted, a No-Code Novice (if it existed) Still tougher than a CB license (if they still did those).... ;-) |
"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. 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. 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. What's now the Technician exam was two separate tests back then - Novice and Technician. Both the Novice and Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But in spite of this, the ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license. 5WPM is easy for some, and not at all easy for others. Agreed. The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice license obsolete. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required. Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a 4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept? My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more important than the Technician license: 1. The ARRL directors couldn't agree, so they proposed a compromise that they felt would promote good PR. I don't think they seriously expect the FCC to approve it. 2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and reintroduce the Novice class. That is a pretty good assessment, Jason. I have already disagreed and said so in a different email. I would especially doubt the ARRL expects a non-approval from the FCC. The ARRL has a long standing positive relationship with most, if not all, those in the FCC that will be assessing the petitions. If there's any doubt in ARRL's mind, it is (IMHO) likly tied to doubt that any code test will remain as opposed to even having only a 5wpm test for Extra. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no requirements? Learn as they go? - Mike KB3EIA - If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I would agree, *if* you mean that you will do a class where people, partway in your class, get the "Novice" or whatever it's called, and then continue on to General. How to enforce "no drop-outs" is another question.... |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... : If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means that after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come afterward. 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?" And although there is really no test process needed at all to get on HF (witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels) Well, they're not *legal* and should not be there. Absolutely agree. And legal CB operators are not supposed to talk internationally. I know there's a distance limitation...but what about a legal CBer in the USA talking to a legal Canadian CBer over a distance of less than the specifid threshold limit? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
This means that all the tests need to be harder as ordinary youths even below the teen age level regularly pass the Technician and General class exams. With a little extra elmering, some pass the Extra exam. Maybe all those "ordinary" kids you see passing those tests are the smart ones. Beavis and Butthead probably never show up at a testing session, even if they understood what ham radio was about, and not confuse it with CB. And no wisecracks that ham radio is becoming like CB, okay?..... |
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:10:51 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote: "Robert Casey" wrote in message ... : snip And legal CB operators are not supposed to talk internationally. I know there's a distance limitation...but what about a legal CBer in the USA talking to a legal Canadian CBer over a distance of less than the specifid threshold limit? I'm pretty sure that cross-border communications between Canada and the US were illegal back in the 70s when I had a CB license.....apparently, that restriction no longer exists. In the US, Part 95 subpart D disallows International communications, *except* between US and Canadian CB stations. http://www.noard.com/citizensband.htm On the Canadian side, RIC-18 mentions no specific restrictions on International communications at all. There is a limitation on communicating beyond the 'normal range' of the station (i.e. other than by ground wave transmission only) which pretty much rules out International comms except with anywhere but the US, geographically speaking. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwapj/ric18.pdf/$FILE/ric18.pdf Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73, Leo |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no requirements? Learn as they go? - Mike KB3EIA - If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise. Do you really believe that bringing in a new ham at the proposed novice level isn't worth it? 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK It is worthwhile to encourage them to become a ham yes and I will do so. But from the discussion of what is proposed to be on the "new novice" or communicator tests, a one evening two hour session will do to cover the material in more depth than they will need. I'm not going to set up a single session one hour class. It's too much hassle to get a room, books, etc for that. I would willingly tutor individuals at my home for that license for a few hours but will not run a class for it. I'd set up the class so the first week, we discuss that study guide which they will have been asked to read in advance. We will discuss any questions that they may have on it. The remaining class weeks would cover the material to go on to General. I want to bring new hams into the hobby but I'm simply not going to spend my time teaching material that simple. Nothing against the people or even really against the material. I simply expect a better return on my investment of time. I will not get that teaching material aimed at the elementary school level when I am teaching adults. To me the satisfaction comes in seeing their faces light up when we've conquered a difficult chapter. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... I was thinking of the part where you have to decide when and what to add, multiply, etc. Most 3 credit classes are harder, but I had a few that were "give-aways". Maybe I should say "as hard as an easier hour test taken early in a freshman college class". Robert, All I can add here is that any Ohm's law problems I've seen have perhaps two resistors in parallel with the combination in series with a third. That hardly compares with first year college material with a modest network of resistors (perhaps 12 or so) and a couple of different emf sources thrown in - and you solve for the current and direction in one of the resistors (first year, D.C. It gets worse, of course LOL). Ah .... 1st year physics. Hmmm ... calculus was involved here. I don't ever recall anything of that magnatude in an amateur radio exam. I also doubt a 7 year old would likely pass such physics exams. 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 ... 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/04 |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... The Tech exam is what, roughly equivalent to an honors level high school physics exam and history exam (I mention "history' as that requires memorizing random information, names and dates equivalent to frequency bands and such rules). Not the inner city non-honors public schools where if you can write your name you graduate)... The Extra exam might be roughly equivalent to an exam for a 3 credit college class. Not hardly. The Tech and General exams are no harder than the material that students are learning in junior high if they are going to even a halfway decent school. The Tech and General exams require nothing harder than adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. I was thinking of the part where you have to decide when and what to add, multiply, etc. If you read the problems in the question pool, they are no more difficult than the word problems that students are required to learn to work in 6th grade and down. They just substitute things like amps, watts, etc for apples and pennies. I certainly hope our junior high kids of average intelligence and standard class room training can handle these basic math functions. The Extra exam couldn't hold a candle to the exams that I had to take in college for a 3 credit course. Most 3 credit classes are harder, but I had a few that were "give-aways". Maybe I should say "as hard as an easier hour test taken early in a freshman college class". Possibly but that will also depend on the subject they are majoring and minoring in. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"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. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no requirements? Learn as they go? - Mike KB3EIA - If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I would agree, *if* you mean that you will do a class where people, partway in your class, get the "Novice" or whatever it's called, and then continue on to General. How to enforce "no drop-outs" is another question.... Sure no problem with them taking the Novice as they feel like it. It might even be beneficial as they will, as did we all, struggle a bit to get on the air. What could be more convenient than going to a class you are already enrolled in? I would stress the point that they can bring questions to class as it will benefit all the other students. As to enforcing attendance, we give our classes through the Parks and Recreation Department, etc. They charge for the use of the room. Thus the students have to pay a registration fee and that must be for the whole course that goes directly to the Parks and Recreation depart. So some will stay just because they have paid for the entire thing. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: This means that all the tests need to be harder as ordinary youths even below the teen age level regularly pass the Technician and General class exams. With a little extra elmering, some pass the Extra exam. Maybe all those "ordinary" kids you see passing those tests are the smart ones. Beavis and Butthead probably never show up at a testing session, even if they understood what ham radio was about, and not confuse it with CB. And no wisecracks that ham radio is becoming like CB, okay?..... Actually we've had "Beavis & Butthead" and some even less bright. They still passed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Jason Hsu wrote: Granted, a No-Code Novice (if it existed) Still tougher than a CB license (if they still did those).... ;-) And cheaper than a GMRS license ;) Just a side note - I was shopping at Sam's club yesterday and they had some small Motorola HTs. 5 watt output with a number of channels (it advertised that some of these channels were FRS channels). I read both sides of that bubble packed pair of radios (they were packaged as pairs, plus a recharger) and nowhere could I find the mention of the necessity of a license. At 5 watts and capability of a number of other channels, the user should (but, of course, won't) obtain a GMRS license. All they know is that FRS radios are often advertised as 1 or 2 miles range - and this one is advertised as a 5 mile range. More talk power. As long as some companies make money, I guess this is a very minor point. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/04 |
"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. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Robert Casey wrote:
I still think that the Technician license is fine as an entry-level license and that the Technician exam isn't terribly hard - just an extended version of the old Novice exam. The Tech exam is what, roughly equivalent to an honors level high school physics exam and history exam (I mention "history' as that requires memorizing random information, names and dates equivalent to frequency bands and such rules). I assume you are being very facetious? Not the inner city non-honors public schools where if you can write your name you graduate)... The Extra exam might be roughly equivalent to an exam for a 3 credit college class. Possibly - though it depends on the class! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Robert Casey wrote:
: If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means that after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come afterward. 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?" And although there is really no test process needed at all to get on HF (witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels) Well, they're not *legal* and should not be there. And legal CB operators are not supposed to talk internationally. Sure, but if you make it legal, is there any reason to require any test at all? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no requirements? Learn as they go? - Mike KB3EIA - If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise. Do you really believe that bringing in a new ham at the proposed novice level isn't worth it? 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. 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' - Mike KB3EIA - |
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? 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 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. What's now the Technician exam was two separate tests back then - Novice and Technician. Both the Novice and Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But in spite of this, the ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license. 5WPM is easy for some, and not at all easy for others. Agreed. The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice license obsolete. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required. Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a 4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept? My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more important than the Technician license: 1. The ARRL directors couldn't agree, so they proposed a compromise that they felt would promote good PR. I don't think they seriously expect the FCC to approve it. 2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and reintroduce the Novice class. That is a pretty good assessment, Jason. I have already disagreed and said so in a different email. I would especially doubt the ARRL expects a non-approval from the FCC. The ARRL has a long standing positive relationship with most, if not all, those in the FCC that will be assessing the petitions. If there's any doubt in ARRL's mind, it is (IMHO) likly tied to doubt that any code test will remain as opposed to even having only a 5wpm test for Extra. Cheers, Bill K2UNK - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no requirements? Learn as they go? - Mike KB3EIA - If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise. Do you really believe that bringing in a new ham at the proposed novice level isn't worth it? 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK It is worthwhile to encourage them to become a ham yes and I will do so. But from the discussion of what is proposed to be on the "new novice" or communicator tests, a one evening two hour session will do to cover the material in more depth than they will need. I'm not going to set up a single session one hour class. It's too much hassle to get a room, books, etc for that. I would willingly tutor individuals at my home for that license for a few hours but will not run a class for it. I'd set up the class so the first week, we discuss that study guide which they will have been asked to read in advance. We will discuss any questions that they may have on it. The remaining class weeks would cover the material to go on to General. I want to bring new hams into the hobby but I'm simply not going to spend my time teaching material that simple. Nothing against the people or even really against the material. I simply expect a better return on my investment of time. I will not get that teaching material aimed at the elementary school level when I am teaching adults. To me the satisfaction comes in seeing their faces light up when we've conquered a difficult chapter. There you go, Dee! Not every one wants to be an elementary school teacher, and not everyone wants to teach adults very simple things. How long does it take people to learn how to sign a statement that they have read part 97? I question whether a class will be needed for the new licenses anyhow. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Robert Casey" wrote in message ... [snip] Whatever entry level license is proposed or is established should be achievable by teenagers who are able to do fairly well in school. You don't have to be a genius honor roll student to get it, but you should have more smarts than Beavis and Butthead can muster.... This means that all the tests need to be harder as ordinary youths even below the teen age level regularly pass the Technician and General class exams. With a little extra elmering, some pass the Extra exam. Yes, even SEVEN YEAR OLDS to extra. :-) Yeah, lots of "elmering." Suuure. LHA / WMD |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: I still think that the Technician license is fine as an entry-level license and that the Technician exam isn't terribly hard - just an extended version of the old Novice exam. The Tech exam is what, roughly equivalent to an honors level high school physics exam and history exam (I mention "history' as that requires memorizing random information, names and dates equivalent to frequency bands and such rules). Not the inner city non-honors public schools where if you can write your name you graduate)... The Extra exam might be roughly equivalent to an exam for a 3 credit college class. Hardly. NONE of the US amateur license examinations are any sort of academic achievement diplomas or certifications. The FCC was never chartered to be any academic organization. Of course, if you want to believe in the fantasy that an extra doing 20+ wpm morse is an "expert radio operator" in this new millennium, that's your thing. Would have been fine in the 1930s. Not now. If you want to start an "electro magnet school," fine. It worked for Gordon West. LHA / WMD |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no requirements? Learn as they go? - Mike KB3EIA - If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise. Do you really believe that bringing in a new ham at the proposed novice level isn't worth it? 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK It is worthwhile to encourage them to become a ham yes and I will do so. But from the discussion of what is proposed to be on the "new novice" or communicator tests, a one evening two hour session will do to cover the material in more depth than they will need. I'm not going to set up a single session one hour class. That's certainly your call...but I think it is shortsighted. It's too much hassle to get a room, books, etc for that. I would willingly tutor individuals at my home for that license for a few hours but will not run a class for it. Personally I'd be happy to teach a one evening class. I'd even prefer that they get the Novice and get on the air for a period of time before continuing on for the General... especially if they are really newcomers to radio in general. I'd set up the class so the first week, we discuss that study guide which they will have been asked to read in advance. We will discuss any questions that they may have on it. The remaining class weeks would cover the material to go on to General. Again, that's clearly your option to do as you want. I want to bring new hams into the hobby but I'm simply not going to spend my time teaching material that simple. Simple for you perhaps. When I was 13 I had literally NO knowledge before becoming a Novice. Luckily my dad had a technical background and had been a ham himself in the 1940s. There are, I'm sure, many possible newcomers to ham radio whowould have literally ZERO radio knowledge as a starting point. Frankly, that can be a great advantage...no preconceived notion that the individual aready knows it all. Nothing against the people or even really against the material. I simply expect a better return on my investment of time. I will not get that teaching material aimed at the elementary school level when I am teaching adults. Why do you limit your teaching to adults...or only adults with a pre-requisite knowledge of some radio basics? To me the satisfaction comes in seeing their faces light up when we've conquered a difficult chapter. Why wouldn't you get the same enjoyment if the first chapter was very basic radio concepts? For most people today, they don't have any working knowledge of radio basics at all...especially if they never took a high school or college physics course. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"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 |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com