>More third grade style strawman arguments--nobody suggested making the
>written
>exams easier--lets make them HARDER but dealing with relevant information.
Gee, why should some ham who is never going to design circuits have to
take a hard technical exams. Some folks just can't learn technology.
You said so yourself. So why not make it easier for those folks who just
don't have the technical knack? Why should someone be tested on stuff
they aren't interested in or never use? That's what you are saying. You
argue and advocate for that?
So in one breath you say that code should be eliminated cause few use it
and it is archaic and has been replaced by other forms of communications.
Yet at the same time you want to make it more difficult technically. I
suppose this should mean more circuit analysis problems, etc. Gee, doing
circuit analysis by hand is archaic and can be done much more
efficiently. There are computer programs that can do it all much easier.
No one does circuit analysis by hand these days it's all done on
computers. I have been an RF design engineer. I almost always used a
computer for stuff.
In one breath you contradict yourself. No strawman argument here. How
can you make something easier in one respect yet insist it be more
difficult in another? You are stereotyping the population by believing
that they can learn technology and engineering science easier than they
can learn morse code. I would challenge that. RF theory ain't easy. Go
read some proceedings of the IEEE Microwave Society if you doubt me.
It either gets easier or harder. Not both.
Jon
KE9NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ogden
jono@enteract.com
www.qsl.net/ke9na
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|