Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
As far as "dumbing down" goes - I don't buy it - as Ed Hare, W1RFI (someone
who I think most here respect), has recounted ... the "beginner's test
(novice)" in his day had a 3-1/2 page study guide, the general study guide
was 16 pages (I had mis-remembered and stated 12-14 pages in a couple of
presentations, but that was an honest mistake and doesn't really alter the
point). Today, the "Now You're Talking" - the study guide for the
"beginner's test (tech)" is on the order of 200 pages or slightly more and
covers MANY more topics than the study guides of Ed's test-taking days ever
covered.

Except that's not the whole story. I've had this discussion with W1RFI
both
online and in person. There's a lot more to the old vs. new exams.

First off, the "3-1/2 page study guide" refers to the part of the old
ARRL License Manual that had the sample questions. These were
essay-type questions
meant to indicate subject areas that would be on the test. The old LM
was *not*
meant to be a stand-alone study guide, nor did it contain the exact
Q&A. One or two essay questions could cover an enormous amount of
ground, yet take up a small part of one page.

In addition, the prospective ham had to know the rules and regulations
(not part of those 3-1/2 pages) plus Morse Code sending and receiving.

Most of all, the old 1963 Novice was an extremely limited license. Good
for one
year, small parts of 4 bands bands, two modes and low power with
crystal control. Every US ham had a year to pass at least the General
written (same exam was used for Technician, General and Conditional) or
leave the ham bands.

The point is that things have NOT been "dumbed down" ... there is more to
study and learn than ever before - just to become a "beginner."

Yes and no.

If someone wants to really *understand* the material, there's lots to
learn. If they want to be able to practically apply it, there's even
more.

But if all they want to do is pass the test, all they need is to get
enough multiple choices right and the license is theirs. FCC doesn't
care if someone understands the material or not, or if they got a
perfect score or just enough for a passing mark. Same license is issued
either way.

This isn't meant as a put-down of newer hams - they don't control the
testing process or requirements!

I was
licensed long enough ago to have been a member of QCWA for some time, and I
am FIRMLY convinced that those who complain about "dumbing down" of the
testing are either being disingenuous, or more likely simply remember the
tests that they took many years ago as being MUCH harder than they actually
were.

Or maybe they're using a poor choice of words.

The old tests required some understanding and detailed knowledge in a
few well-defined areas. The new tests are more amenable to memorization
without much understanding, and treat a wide variety of subjects in a
very basic manner.

On top of all this is the fact that in the bad old days just getting to
an exam was a major effort for a lot of prospective hams. So we tended
to overprepare just to be sure.

Besides, the test isn't a proof that you "know all there is to know,"
nor SHOULD it be.

Of course not! At the same time, if the test is "too easy", the
newcomer has so much to learn that they can be frustrated to the point
of giving up.

I'd ask older hams with higher class licenses to think back to the mistakes
that they made when they first went on the air many years ago - and how the
more experienced hams of the time (generally) were patient, tolerant, and
helpful. Show the newcomers the way in polite, respectful, and constructive
ways, rather than slamming them and telling them they're no good!

Of course - but that's a two-way street! Being called "olde fartz",
"obsolete", "dinosaurs", "beepers", "key tappers", "elitists",
"one-by-twos who need a whack from a two-by-four" and such doesn't make
an experienced ham - *any* experienced ham - want to Elmer the name
caller.

Look at KB3EIA's experiences - see the problem? I had a similar one
here on rrap when I tried to help someone with an HF antenna problem,
then realized the person expected me to completely solve his problem
with incomplete information and a barrage of put-downs. Eventually I
realized it was a waste of my time - the person involved would not
accept any solution provided.

Of course a lot of Elmering *does* go on - via reflectors, in person,
on the air, with books, websites, etc. I've done a bit of that
myself....

73 de Jim, N2EY