| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
June 5th 05, 03:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
June 5th 05, 03:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike:
That would really be funny--if it wasn't so pathetic... How about a few calculus questions on the test, how about having to write short story with grammar, spelling and punctuation correct. How about having to give a description of the physics of the electron-hole theory, argument at to why the theory should be considered valid, and an opposing argument on why it should be considered flawed. How about demonstrating how the quadratic formula relates to thermal physics, electrical physics--some examples of its' uses in both... Gesus, the ham exams are for dummies... get real... When the hams talk about how difficult the test EVER was it is a joke, the damn test can be passed by any second year college student after a day of study... you guys end up describing the size of your own mind when you do this--and still after all these years you have not figured it out--people laugh--haven't you seen them laughing before, surely you caught one or two out of the corner of your eye? Wake up... the only reason people don't rub your nose in your own dog poop is they are not like you--they have been raised differently--they try to be nice no matter what... but there is an end to tolerance of bad behavior... John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: Look at the old ham mags and other publications (ARRL and non-ARRL, doesn't matter as long as it was a ham- oriented publication) of the so-called golden years of, say, the '50s. Back when we had annual growth of about 8% year after year. They *weren't* specifically aimed at "young'uns". The license requirements *weren't* reduced (as NCVEC and others want to do) to make the tests easier for kids to pass. The "Beginner And Novice" columns weren't aimed at teenagers or any other age group. And that may be a big part of what made them so attractive to kids! Let us assume that a company makes a video game. It's pretty popular and sells a lot. They would like to sell more. Should they make their next game really easy? Will millions more teenagers buy the game because they can beat the game the first time they play it? Do they want to make it so hard that it is impossible to beat? BTW, the answer is no on both counts. People who would play video games do not buy games that are too easy to beat. Nor too hard. Comparisons to the ease or difficulty of the ARS licensing process are invited. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#3
June 6th 05, 03:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Smith wrote:
Mike: That would really be funny--if it wasn't so pathetic... How about a few calculus questions on the test, how about having to write short story with grammar, spelling and punctuation correct. How about having to give a description of the physics of the electron-hole theory, argument at to why the theory should be considered valid, and an opposing argument on why it should be considered flawed. How about demonstrating how the quadratic formula relates to thermal physics, electrical physics--some examples of its' uses in both... Gesus, the ham exams are for dummies... get real... When the hams talk about how difficult the test EVER was it is a joke, the damn test can be passed by any second year college student after a day of study... you guys end up describing the size of your own mind when you do this--and still after all these years you have not figured it out--people laugh--haven't you seen them laughing before, surely you caught one or two out of the corner of your eye? Wake up... the only reason people don't rub your nose in your own dog poop is they are not like you--they have been raised differently--they try to be nice no matter what... but there is an end to tolerance of bad behavior... Go back, re-read my post, and then tell me just what I wrote. Then let me know if I wrote anything along the lines of what you just tried to slippery-slope my post into. Some things to point out are the parts where I am suggesting making the tests quite difficult. My tolerance has not been exceeded. You may wish to continue the canine excrement comments at will. - Mike KB3EIA - John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: Look at the old ham mags and other publications (ARRL and non-ARRL, doesn't matter as long as it was a ham- oriented publication) of the so-called golden years of, say, the '50s. Back when we had annual growth of about 8% year after year. They *weren't* specifically aimed at "young'uns". The license requirements *weren't* reduced (as NCVEC and others want to do) to make the tests easier for kids to pass. The "Beginner And Novice" columns weren't aimed at teenagers or any other age group. And that may be a big part of what made them so attractive to kids! Let us assume that a company makes a video game. It's pretty popular and sells a lot. They would like to sell more. Should they make their next game really easy? Will millions more teenagers buy the game because they can beat the game the first time they play it? Do they want to make it so hard that it is impossible to beat? BTW, the answer is no on both counts. People who would play video games do not buy games that are too easy to beat. Nor too hard. Comparisons to the ease or difficulty of the ARS licensing process are invited. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#5
June 6th 05, 03:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
bb wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Look at the old ham mags and other publications (ARRL and non-ARRL, doesn't matter as long as it was a ham- oriented publication) of the so-called golden years of, say, the '50s. Back when we had annual growth of about 8% year after year. They *weren't* specifically aimed at "young'uns". The license requirements *weren't* reduced (as NCVEC and others want to do) to make the tests easier for kids to pass. The "Beginner And Novice" columns weren't aimed at teenagers or any other age group. And that may be a big part of what made them so attractive to kids! Let us assume that a company makes a video game. It's pretty popular and sells a lot. They would like to sell more. Should they make their next game really easy? Will millions more teenagers buy the game because they can beat the game the first time they play it? Do they want to make it so hard that it is impossible to beat? BTW, the answer is no on both counts. People who would play video games do not buy games that are too easy to beat. Nor too hard. Comparisons to the ease or difficulty of the ARS licensing process are invited. - Mike KB3EIA - Now if they were to make a game that you weren't allowed to play until you could beat it, your analogy would be closer to amateur reality. Beating the game would be a little like passing the test. I thought I was arguing for a middle of the road difficulty test. "John Smith" seems to think otherwise. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#6
June 6th 05, 11:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Look at the old ham mags and other publications (ARRL and non-ARRL, doesn't matter as long as it was a ham- oriented publication) of the so-called golden years of, say, the '50s. Back when we had annual growth of about 8% year after year. They *weren't* specifically aimed at "young'uns". The license requirements *weren't* reduced (as NCVEC and others want to do) to make the tests easier for kids to pass. The "Beginner And Novice" columns weren't aimed at teenagers or any other age group. And that may be a big part of what made them so attractive to kids! Let us assume that a company makes a video game. It's pretty popular and sells a lot. They would like to sell more. Should they make their next game really easy? Will millions more teenagers buy the game because they can beat the game the first time they play it? Do they want to make it so hard that it is impossible to beat? BTW, the answer is no on both counts. People who would play video games do not buy games that are too easy to beat. Nor too hard. Comparisons to the ease or difficulty of the ARS licensing process are invited. - Mike KB3EIA - Now if they were to make a game that you weren't allowed to play until you could beat it, your analogy would be closer to amateur reality. Beating the game would be a little like passing the test. But how many people can beat a game they've never played? I thought I was arguing for a middle of the road difficulty test. "John Smith" seems to think otherwise. - Mike KB3EIA - So far I've only read what you and "Quitefine" have posted. |
|
#7
June 6th 05, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Look at the old ham mags and other publications (ARRL and non-ARRL, doesn't matter as long as it was a ham- oriented publication) of the so-called golden years of, say, the '50s. Back when we had annual growth of about 8% year after year. They *weren't* specifically aimed at "young'uns". The license requirements *weren't* reduced (as NCVEC and others want to do) to make the tests easier for kids to pass. The "Beginner And Novice" columns weren't aimed at teenagers or any other age group. And that may be a big part of what made them so attractive to kids! Let us assume that a company makes a video game. It's pretty popular and sells a lot. They would like to sell more. Should they make their next game really easy? Of course not. Will millions more teenagers buy the game because they can beat the game the first time they play it? If anything, that will cause the game to be unpopular because it presents no challenge and requires no skill. Do they want to make it so hard that it is impossible to beat? Probably not. BTW, the answer is no on both counts. People who would play video games do not buy games that are too easy to beat. Nor too hard. Comparisons to the ease or difficulty of the ARS licensing process are invited. Some points: 1) Amateur radio is not a video game. It's much more complex than that. 2) Anybody can buy a video game - all you need is cash. And if you're satisfied to play older games, they can often be had for very little money, or even free. The need for skill comes only when you go to play the game. 3) The tests for an amateur radio license in the USA have varied in the degree and types of knowledge required. (Skills are a type of knowledge). But they have never required a very high level of knowledge to pass. And the licenses have been earned by people of all ages and all walks of life. 4) Reducing the license test requirements has not brought sustained growth to US amateur radio. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#8
June 6th 05, 03:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The only way I could think you could reduce the number of games
sold/played on computers is to make the kids get a license before they can have a computer. Now the test could be pretty damn complicate, but if you require them to pass a 50 wpm typing test the numbers will drop... now consider that they will view having to learn code for a license as totally preposterous and you are close to getting a clue... It is the code, not the exam... John wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Look at the old ham mags and other publications (ARRL and non-ARRL, doesn't matter as long as it was a ham- oriented publication) of the so-called golden years of, say, the '50s. Back when we had annual growth of about 8% year after year. They *weren't* specifically aimed at "young'uns". The license requirements *weren't* reduced (as NCVEC and others want to do) to make the tests easier for kids to pass. The "Beginner And Novice" columns weren't aimed at teenagers or any other age group. And that may be a big part of what made them so attractive to kids! Let us assume that a company makes a video game. It's pretty popular and sells a lot. They would like to sell more. Should they make their next game really easy? Of course not. Will millions more teenagers buy the game because they can beat the game the first time they play it? If anything, that will cause the game to be unpopular because it presents no challenge and requires no skill. Do they want to make it so hard that it is impossible to beat? Probably not. BTW, the answer is no on both counts. People who would play video games do not buy games that are too easy to beat. Nor too hard. Comparisons to the ease or difficulty of the ARS licensing process are invited. Some points: 1) Amateur radio is not a video game. It's much more complex than that. 2) Anybody can buy a video game - all you need is cash. And if you're satisfied to play older games, they can often be had for very little money, or even free. The need for skill comes only when you go to play the game. 3) The tests for an amateur radio license in the USA have varied in the degree and types of knowledge required. (Skills are a type of knowledge). But they have never required a very high level of knowledge to pass. And the licenses have been earned by people of all ages and all walks of life. 4) Reducing the license test requirements has not brought sustained growth to US amateur radio. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#9
June 6th 05, 06:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Smith" ) writes: The only way I could think you could reduce the number of games sold/played on computers is to make the kids get a license before they can have a computer. Now the test could be pretty damn complicate, but if you require them to pass a 50 wpm typing test the numbers will drop... now consider that they will view having to learn code for a license as totally preposterous and you are close to getting a clue... It is the code, not the exam... John THe code is the game, as is the written test. Pass the code test, and you move up a level. Same with the written test. It ultimately is not all that different. I tend to not play computer games, but every so often I give one that came with the installation a try. For the first bit, I am horrible, and I can't understand how anyone could get very high scores. But as I play with the game, I learn the tricks that work, and suddenly I am doing well, until I hit some higher plateau. SOmeone looks at theory, and it looks like a really high cliff. If they turn back then, they don't get very far. But if they keep at it, it turns out that the first steps aren't really that bad. Code's the same. Some of us have pointed out the feeling of accomplishment when we were young, to have passed the code test. It wasn't something in our way, it was something to get good at. The first time I picked up an electronic hobby magazine, back in 1971, none of it made sense. If there hadn't been non-technical material, such as Wayne Green's column in Electronics Illustrated, there wouldn't ahve been much value in each issue at the beginning. But I kept at it, and I learned. I thought I had four years to go before I could get a license, because back then you had to be at lest fifteen here in Canada to take the test. The rule was changed the next spring, and that year or so of reading everything I could get my hands on (three months after that first hobby magazine, I had a membership in the ARRL so I could get QST) was highly valuable, because I didn't have to cram to pass the test, I had a certain level of background to get ready for the test. I ended up joining the local club's code and theory class. It had started in the fall, but it was February when I learned I would be able to get a license that year. Kid sitting across from me, somewhat older, told me I'd not be successful, coming in so late. But then, what I really needed was the code, and the "network" the ham club supplied. I passed all but the code receiving test in May, the first month I could take the test, and passed the code receiving test in June. I didn't get the results till grade six was over, so I couldn't boast to my classmates. Michael VE2BVW |
|
#10
June 6th 05, 06:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael:
Frankly, a Jr. College degree (A.A./A.S.) is multitudes more difficult than passing a ham exam... frankly, the exam is moot when in comparison, even to the ability to be proficient in beating a moderately video game... however, here in La La Land who knows... Warmest regards, John "Michael Black" wrote in message ... "John Smith" ) writes: The only way I could think you could reduce the number of games sold/played on computers is to make the kids get a license before they can have a computer. Now the test could be pretty damn complicate, but if you require them to pass a 50 wpm typing test the numbers will drop... now consider that they will view having to learn code for a license as totally preposterous and you are close to getting a clue... It is the code, not the exam... John THe code is the game, as is the written test. Pass the code test, and you move up a level. Same with the written test. It ultimately is not all that different. I tend to not play computer games, but every so often I give one that came with the installation a try. For the first bit, I am horrible, and I can't understand how anyone could get very high scores. But as I play with the game, I learn the tricks that work, and suddenly I am doing well, until I hit some higher plateau. SOmeone looks at theory, and it looks like a really high cliff. If they turn back then, they don't get very far. But if they keep at it, it turns out that the first steps aren't really that bad. Code's the same. Some of us have pointed out the feeling of accomplishment when we were young, to have passed the code test. It wasn't something in our way, it was something to get good at. The first time I picked up an electronic hobby magazine, back in 1971, none of it made sense. If there hadn't been non-technical material, such as Wayne Green's column in Electronics Illustrated, there wouldn't ahve been much value in each issue at the beginning. But I kept at it, and I learned. I thought I had four years to go before I could get a license, because back then you had to be at lest fifteen here in Canada to take the test. The rule was changed the next spring, and that year or so of reading everything I could get my hands on (three months after that first hobby magazine, I had a membership in the ARRL so I could get QST) was highly valuable, because I didn't have to cram to pass the test, I had a certain level of background to get ready for the test. I ended up joining the local club's code and theory class. It had started in the fall, but it was February when I learned I would be able to get a license that year. Kid sitting across from me, somewhat older, told me I'd not be successful, coming in so late. But then, what I really needed was the code, and the "network" the ham club supplied. I passed all but the code receiving test in May, the first month I could take the test, and passed the code receiving test in June. I didn't get the results till grade six was over, so I couldn't boast to my classmates. Michael VE2BVW |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| 197 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (23-NOV-04) | Shortwave | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | Policy | |||
| 209 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (04-APR-04) | Shortwave | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | General | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Dx | |||
Hybrid Mode
