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.

bb

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 -

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.