[CW] Dissing the ARRL

[n3drk]

Excellent Summary Jim.

But THE FREEBIES, who have never had to work for anything in their life will
resist this. They do not know what it is to want something bad enough to
work for it. There are many people out there like that. And these future
"Elmers" sit by for  ten years waiting for a FCC Policy Change rather than
motivating and uplifting themselves to pursue what others have accomplished.
These are the so- called "whiners"  which is so inherent in our society
today. They say " If we complain and resist long enough we can change the
status quo." This not only pertains to ham radio but too all aspects in
American Society.
73's
john



 <N2EY@aol.com>
To: <Makos327@worldnet.att.net>; <cw@mailman.qth.net>; <w3uls@3n.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] Dissing the ARRL


> In a message dated 1/7/04 5:50:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Makos327@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
>
> > It's about a bunch of ops concerned about the lowering of
> > standards to the point where having an Amateur Radio license won't mean
> > anything, anymore.
> >
> >
>
> Some background on the above.
>
> Way back when I got started in 1967, getting a ham license was a bit
> different than today. Let's put aside the code test entirely and
concentrate on the
> other requirements.
>
> In those days you could get started with the Novice, which had a simple
> written test. But that license had extremely limited privileges in
spectrum, modes
> and power. It was only good for a short time (one year until 1967, then
two
> years) and it was "one to a customer". No renewals and no retaking the
test. If
> you didn't upgrade before the Novice ran out you were off the air until
you
> could pass a higher class exam.
>
> In those days the written tests were multiple choice, but they were kept
> secret. The FCC published "study guides" consisting of essay-type
questions and
> answers, which indicated the areas of knowledge you needed to know to pass
the
> test. Although the study guides *seemed* simple enough, the fact of the
matter
> was that
> the actual questions could deal with almost any aspect touched on by the
> guides.
>
> The written tests for the non-Novice licenses required that you understand
a
> good bit of radio theory, practice and regulations. They weren't extremely
> "hard", but since you had only a hazy idea what was on them, you tended to
> over-prepare for them. Which wasn't a bad thing.
>
> Novice, Technician and Conditional licenses were given by mail, which
meant a
> multistep process:
>
> 1 - find a ham who would act as a volunteer examiner for you.
> 2 - take code test from volunteer examiner
> 3 - volunteer examiner writes letter to FCC saying you passed code and
would
> they send the written
> 4 - wait 6-8 weeks
> 5 - when written comes, take test with volunteer examiner as proctor. Exam
> comes and goes back to FCC in special sealed envelopes. volunteer examinr
does
> not grade exam
> 6 - wait 6-8 weeks
> 7 - If you passed, license arrives in mail. If not, go all the way back to
> step 1 and start again.
>
> If you lived within 175 miles "air line" of an FCC quarterly exam point
> (place where FCC gave exam four times a year or more) you had to take test
for
> licenses other than Tech or Novice from FCC examiner. 175 miles air-line
may be a
> lot farther on the ground, too. Exams are almost all given only on weekday
> mornings during business hours. Closed on holidays. If you're a kid in
school,
> wait for summer or maybe you'll have a chance at the Christmas holiday. If
> you're a working person, count on at least a half-day off from work. Make
that a
> full day if you live any serious distance from the exam point.
>
> Fail an exam and you cannot retest for 30 days. All elements for an
upgrade
> must be passed at the same test session - no CSCEs. If you flunked the
code you
> didn't even get to try the written, and if you missed the written by even
one
> question, too bad, go home and study some more and don't come back for at
> least a month. They would not tell you which questions you got wrong,
either.
>
> No credit for license elements passed by mail exam. Even though the Tech
and
> General used the same written exam, if you had a by-mail Tech, you had to
take
> the written again to get a General.
>
> If you want an Extra, you need two years' experience as a General,
> Conditional or Advanced before they'll let you near the Extra test.
Doesn't matter if
> you have a First 'Phone and a Ph.D in EE, a 12 year old with two years'
> experience can take the test and you can't.
>
> For a time in the '60s the FCC collected fees for license tests, renewals
and
> modifications. Novice was free but FCC office was $9 in 1968 and 1970 when
I
> was there. $9 doesn't sound like much but it works out to $40-50 adjusted
for
> inflation.
>
> Did we take it seriously? You betcha!
>
> When I applied to college, one of the things that helped me get into EE
> school was having earned an Extra class amateur license at age 16, between
> sophomore and junior year of high school. There weren't many other Extras
in the whole
> university, either.
>
> Compare all that to the present system - with or without code test. And
> remember that although ARRL and others pushed for better written tests,
back in
> 2000 the FCC cut the written testing down by more than a third. Before
April
> 2000, an Extra required a 5 written tests totalling 185 questions. Now it
takes 3
> written tests totalling 120 questions. And there are folks who want even
less
> *written* testing...
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
> to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>