[CW] Dissing the ARRL

[Jay Eimer]

This sounds like a case study for a bureacracy run amok.  Inconvenience is
not the same as challenging.

Jay
AD5PE
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <N2EY@aol.com>
To: <Makos327@worldnet.att.net>; <cw@mailman.qth.net>; <w3uls@3n.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:56 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
>