[KYHAM] Fwd: [CW] ARRL Pacific Div. CW Survey Results

[Anthony W. DePrato]

>INTERESTING THIS JUST CAME IN



>The following came out today from the Director of the
>Pacific Division,  Bob Vallio, W6RGG.
>
>"Here is the report on the Pacific Division License Testing
>Requirement Survey.  I want to thank every one who returned
>their survey to me, via e-mail, USPS, and FAX.  My thanks to
>Vice Director Andy Oppel for the time and energy he devoted
>to this project.
>
>Survey Method
>
>The survey was distributed on December 15, 2003, as an
>e-mail from Pacific Division Director Bob Vallio, W6RGG,
>to all members of the Pacific Division who subscribe to
>e-mail from their Director and Section Manager.
>
>Responses were requested via e-mail reply, U.S. Mail, or fax.
>According to the distribution report, the e-mail was sent to
>5,619 members, which is almost 56% of the 10,065 members
>in the division. Approximately 1,100 responses were received
>via e-mail, 34 via U.S. Mail, and 73 via fax.  This response
>rate (nearly 20 percent) is considered incredibly good for a
>survey, which often have response rates in the 1-3 percent
>range.  No time limit was imposed on responders, thus
>responses were accepted up to the time this document was
>assembled.  Results were recorded on tally sheets and
>then totals from each tally sheet input into a spreadsheet
>for the calculation of sums and percentages. A few members
>chose not to answer each of the five questions -- the questions
>they did answer were included in the tally with no attempt to
>guess at answers to the others.  A few other members
>provided only a written opinion without directly answering
>the survey questions-- noattempt was made to tally these
>responses.  While written comments were not solicited in the
>survey (for fear there would not be enough time to read
>and assimilate them all), quite a few were received.  All of
>these comments were read and general themes extracted
>(see "Conclusions" section below).
>
>Results
>
>The questions asked follow, along with the tally count taken
>for each possible response and percentages of the total
>number of responses to the question.  The number of responses
>to each question ranged from 1,075 to 1,095.
>
>1.  A Morse code testing requirement should be retained for the
>General Class license.
>
>Response........ Count.........Percent
>Strongly agree...369..............33.7%
>Somewhat agree..208...........19.0%
>Neither agree nor disagree..83...7.6%
>Somewhat disagree....131...12.0%
>Strongly disagree...304..........27.8%
>...Total Responses..1095
>
>
>2.  A Morse code testing requirement should be retained for
>the Extra Class license.
>
>Response...........Count.............Percent
>Strongly agree......663................60.8%
>Somewhat agree....121..............11.1%
>Neither agree nor disagree...63.. 5.8%
>Somewhat disagree...79 7.........2%
>Strongly disagree.....164............15.0%
>    Total Responses.....1090
>
>
>3.  In the interest of getting new people into the hobby, an
>entry-level license without a Morse code testing requirement,
>but with limited power and limited HF band privileges, should
>be created.
>
>Response..............Count....................Percent
>Strongly agree.........461.......................42.1%
>Somewhat agree.....250........................22.9%
>Neither agree nor disagree... 114..........10.4%
>Somewhat disagree.... 82..................... 7.5%
>Strongly disagree.... 187....................... 17.1%
>    Total Responses......1094
>
>
>4.  In light of BPL and other serious issues that threaten
>the future of amateur radio, how much time and funding
>should the ARRL put into retaining the Morse code license
>testing requirements?
>
>Response..............Count...................Percent
>All out effort.  Save the Morse code requirement or go
>bankrupt trying..........57.........................5.2%
>Significant effort. Devote dedicated staff and budget to
>this issue................275.........................25.3%
>Moderate effort.  Form a proposal and submit it to the
>FCC.......................343......................... 31.6%
>Minimal effort.  File comments on other proposals and
>leave it at that........152..........................14.0%
>No effort whatsoever. (Choose this answer if you strongly
>wish to eliminatethe requirement).
>..............................260.......................... 23.9%
>    Total Responses........ 1087
>
>
>5.  How much time and funding should the ARRL put into
>eliminating the Morse code license testing requirements?
>
>Response......................Count................Percent
>All out effort.  Eliminate the Morse code requirement or
>go bankrupt trying............51..................... 4.7%
>Significant effort. Devote dedicated staff and budget to
>this issue........................132.....................12.1%
>Moderate effort.  Form a proposal and submit it to the
>FCC.............................. 236..................... 21.7%
>Minimal effort.  File comments on other proposals and
>leave it at that................168......................15.5%
>No effort whatsoever.  (Choose this answer if you strongly
>wish to retainthe code requirement).
>......................................488...................... 44.9%
>    Total Responses 1075
>
>Evaluation of Results
>
>Bias Potential
>
>While sufficient responses were received to achieve statistically
>significant results, there is a potential for bias in the results.
>
>* Distributing the survey via e-mail excludes those members without
>e-mail access, as well as those who did not subscribe to e-mail
>from their Director and Section Manager.  The roughly 44% of
>the membership in the Pacific Division that did not receive the
>survey may very well have a somewhat different demographic
>makeup compared with those it did reach.  In particular, persons
>with e-mail access tend to be somewhat younger than
>those without e-mail access.
>
>* The demographic makeup of the Pacific Division is quite a bit
>different compared to other divisions because in addition to
>Northern California, it includes the states of Nevada and Hawaii,
>and the U.S. possessions in the Pacific.  Moreover, parts of
>Northern California are often cited as among the most politically
>liberal in the U.S.  Hence, caution must be exercised in assuming
>that these results are representative of ARRL membership
>at large.
>
>* Based on the written comments received, a large number of
>respondents believe that removal of the testing requirement
>jeopardizes the continued existence of sub-bands devoted to
>CW as an operating mode. This is unfortunate as it clearly
>introduces bias toward retention of the requirement.
>Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure the magnitude
>of such bias, and no time remains to conduct a follow-up survey.
>
>* Three survey respondents were highly critical of the reference
>to BPL in question 4, further commenting that the questions
>were attempting to lead the responder to an answer.  It is fair
>to note that all three of those offering the criticism were highly
>in favor of retaining the Morse code testing requirement, and
>that no one was critical of the identical reference in question 5.
>Questions 1 and 2 already asked how strongly they agreed
>or disagreed with retaining the testing requirement, and BPL was
>deliberately introduced as an issue after those questions.
>The very purpose of Questions 4 and 5 was to ask how much
>the ARRL should devote in effort and financial resources, in
>carrying out their wishes vis-=E0-vis the Morse code testing
>requirement. Those questions cannot be answered without
>mentioning the other issues.  There are members who feel that
>the ARRL should have filed comments with the FCC for every
>Morse code testing proposal filed with the FCC thus
>far -- these questions were an attempt to see how widely held
>this feeling is.  Furthermore, the results (30% favoring a
>significant or substantial effort be undertaken to preserve the
>testing requirement) seem well in line with the number strongly
>favoring retention of the requirement (33%), so any bias
>introduced here seems nominal.
>
>Conclusions
>
>* A significant number of survey responders favor retention of the
>Morse code testing requirement for the existing General class
>license -- 52.7% in favor, 39.7% opposing, 7.6% neither for
>nor against.
>
>* An overwhelming majority of survey responders favor retention
>of the Morse code testing requirement for the existing Amateur
>Extra class license: 71.9% in favor, 22.3% opposing, and 5.8%
>neither for nor against.  Of those in favor, most had very strong
>opinions -- 60.8% strongly agree, 11.1% Somewhat agree.  It
>would seem that the Amateur Extra class code testing
>requirement is very much a "sacred cow".
>
>* A significant number of survey responders favor an entry-level
>license without a Morse code testing requirement, but with limited
>power and limited HF band privileges -- 52.7%.  A number answered
>in opposition of this effort with comments that the existing
>Technician class handles this if the code requirement is simply
>removed.  While this interpretation of the question is
>not quantifiable, it is safe to assume that the number in favor
>of a new entry-level license is somewhat (but perhaps only
>slightly) higher than the survey results indicate.
>
>* The level (in terms of staffing and funding) at which respondents
>expect the ARRL to respond to their wishes regarding Morse code
>testing is all over the map, as shown in the results of questions
>4 and 5. There is no clear single level that will please even a
>simple majority.
>
>Common Themes Among Comments
>
>Although written comments were not solicited as part of the survey,
>quite a few respondents included them.  The common themes
>noted in these comments are:
>
>* Arguments in favor of retention of the Morse testing requirement:
>
>o Removal of the requirement would be more "dumbing down" of the
>license requirements.
>
>o It is a gateway that keeps undisciplined people and poor
>operators out of the service.  Several cited "protecting the
>lower part of the bands" as a motivation.  Many others cited
>CB operators.
>
>o It is a traditional rite of passage -- "I had to do it, so you
>should also be required to."
>
>o Morse code is a tradition that binds all amateurs together.
>
>o People who have to work harder for their license will appreciate it
>more,  and therefore be better (or more devoted) operators.
>
>o "If I can pass the code test, anyone can", or "Those who say they
>cannot pass the code test are just plain lazy and haven't worked hard
>enough."
>
>o CW is more reliable than other modes, so every amateur should
>learn it.
>
>o Removal of the code requirement jeopardizes CW sub-band
>allocations.
>
>* Arguments against retention of the Morse testing requirement:
>
>o There are some who just cannot learn Morse code well enough
>to pass the test.
>
>o The requirement keeps good people out of significant facets
>of the hobby.
>
>o A requirement to demonstrate CW proficiency in order to use non-CW
>operating modes on HF frequencies defies logic.
>
>o Morse code is less important given the newer digital modes.
>
>o CW is the only operating mode with a specific test requirement.
>
>o There is no incentive for young people to learn Morse code.
>
>* A number of respondents argued for increased code speed
>requirements,  especially for the Amateur Extra class license.
>There seemed to be no understanding of the FCC's reason for
>reducing the requirement (most informed sources believe it was
>to escape from all the "special accommodation" procedures for
>those with various medical issues), or how unreceptive the FCC
>is to any notion of increasing the code speed in the current
>testing requirement.
>
>* Nearly everyone indicated their appreciation of being asked for
>their opinion.
>
>* Several dozen respondents suggested a more difficult written test
>should the Morse code requirement be dropped.
>
>* At least 3 respondents cited the Novice class license as fulfilling
>any need for an entry-level license (apparently not aware that
>this class was no longer available for new licensees).  Several
>others pointed to the withdrawal of the Novice class license
>as a serious mistake. "
>
>And that ends the survey results from the Pacific Division Director.
>I presume these results will be circulated among all the ARRL
>BOD;  perhaps too late to augment the current ARRL "restructure"
>proposal the BOD approved earlier this month?  See:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=3D1
>
>Or,  perhaps the BOD members were well aware of the
>trend of this survey at the time of their meeting,  1/16/04?
>If so,  guess they figured a 5 wpm test was sufficient to
>grant Extra Class licenses in response to 70+% agreememt
>that that license should require a CW test.
>
>73,  Jim  KH7M
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CW mailing list
>CW@mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw