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

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

"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

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

.... moderately difficult video game... even...

John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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

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?


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.

Of course not. The analogy is only going so far as to point out what
teenagers might appreciate in the form of challenge. It isn't an across
the board analogy.

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.
They aren't supposed to be at a high level, AFAIAC. They are supposed
to be at an appropriate level. That is a subject to be discussed of
course. But it isn't too difficult to make "test" tests in order to
insure that the tests are about at the correct level.

4) Reducing the license test requirements has not brought sustained
growth to US amateur radio.

No it hasn't. And no amount of reduction will, save for temporary gains.

- Mike KB3EIA -

We agree on one thing, don't lower the standard of the test, Joe Six
Pack and all his inbreed relatives already have found there way into ham
radio... time to get some intellects...

Warmest regards,
John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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?


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.

Of course not. The analogy is only going so far as to point out what
teenagers might appreciate in the form of challenge. It isn't an
across the board analogy.

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.
They aren't supposed to be at a high level, AFAIAC. They are supposed
to be at an appropriate level. That is a subject to be discussed of
course. But it isn't too difficult to make "test" tests in order to
insure that the tests are about at the correct level.

4) Reducing the license test requirements has not brought sustained
growth to US amateur radio.

No it hasn't. And no amount of reduction will, save for temporary
gains.

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote


4) Reducing the license test requirements has not brought sustained
growth to US amateur radio.


Does Amateur Radio need to grow?

If so, why?

Good luck on this one now,

de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote


4) Reducing the license test requirements has not brought sustained
growth to US amateur radio.


Does Amateur Radio need to grow?

Answer =3D NO

If so, why?

Good luck on this one now,

.. . . passed that one. Next?=20

de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

4) Reducing the license test requirements has not brought
sustained growth to US amateur radio.

Does Amateur Radio need to grow?

Not at the price of continuously lowering standards - which
doesn't work anyway.

If so, why?

All else being equal, the ARS would be well served to have more hams.
For a whole bunch of reasons ranging from more buyers and
sellers at hamfests to more points to make in contests to more
folks to ragchew with.

But all else is never equal. Simply lowering the license test
requirements hasn't helped raise the numbers.

While there's a lot of debate on the code test issue, even
though all that's left is the basic, entry level 5 wpm test,
little attention is paid to the fact that the *written* testing
was drastically reduced in 2000 for all license classes.
Previously it took 5 written tests totalling 190 questions to
get an Extra, now it takes 3 written tests totalling 120
questions. The biggest reduction took place for the Technician -
the written testing for that license was cut to about half its
former level.=20

73 de Jim, N2EY