I believe you will find the "outright hostility" you speak of may come from
the other side of the aisle as well. The impatience of a "NOW" generation
can make being a good mentor a real challenge.
Bob W7KD
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>
To: "Thomas Beltran" <tbeltran@earthlink.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] dumbing down...extra class test
> Part of the problem is that the older hams want to have nothing to do with
> the younger kids - there is no mentoring at all. In many cases, it is
> outright hostility. The older, more experienced hams tend to exclude the
> younger because of a large variety of reasons - impatience, long hair,
> etc.
> If we had more people that were willing to be mentors or Elmers, then a
> lot
> of the problems would go away. We should also listen.... but that is
> probably a waste of time as many here already know all the answers, or of
> the mindset that "if it wasn't invented 30 years (or more) ago it has
> little
> value...."
>
> KBOFHP
> Scott
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Thomas Beltran
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 1:40 PM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] dumbing down...extra class test
>
>
>
>
> AC0H wrote:
>
> "It's just a little embarrassing to wander across an antenna conversation
> in
> the
> Extra portion of 20m and notice that nobody involved knows the formula
> for a half wave dipole or quarter wave vertical."
>
> I'm curious as to who should, in your opinion be embarrassed, and why?
> Perhaps it comes down to who should be in the hobby - just engineers?
> This
> is just another way of asking, who is, or how does one define a ham? One
> of
> the most technically brilliant hams I have known, who could problably be
> left on an island and build a complete station from found-junk, had very
> little interest in going on the air. In fact, he just went on the air to
> test his radios. But I can assure you, in taking the amateur test, not
> only
> would his brain not have been toast, but it wouldn't have even gotten
> warm.
> If everyone were like him however, we wouldn't have any frequencies left -
> no one would be using them.
>
> But the opinion you express is one I hear quite a bit, interestingly not
> on
> the air, but on the internet. I would be one of those people who many
> "professional" hams feel, should not be in the hobby, or at least, not be
> an
> extra. But thankfully, at least this discussion is more civil than the
> one
> concerning CW.
>
> I studied, and passed the advanced and extra portion and extra code test
> in
> 1978 (I was first licensed in 1970). At that time, I had only had a
> semester in Algebra, and several semesters in statistics. I was a liberal
> arts major, just starting graduate school. As I recall, the only study
> guide I had was the ARRL license manual. Perhaps the test was easiest
> then,
> and got harder by 1992, and then (by your account) easier again? So,
> lets
> assume that although I didn't have the use of those awful crib-sheets that
> are now available, I just slipped in a window when the test was very easy.
> I took the test in person, at a session in Fargo North Dakota.
>
> I enjoy building fairly simple projects from scratch, kits, restoring old
> radios, and operating. But I have very little technical knowledge of
> electronics. But even the extra was to me, an admittedly non-technical
> person, a fairly easy exam relative to other exams I had taken at that
> point. To try and create some level or standard of compentence on the
> basis
> of about 45 minutes of testing is quite surprising to me.
>
> After attending law school, and having a family and family concerns, I've
> been very busy - what little knowledge of electronics I had has certainly
> been reduced over time. I can say then, that even if I had been a
> engineering student, and been able to rattle off the formula for a
> half-wave
> dipole, now some 30 years later, I probably wouldn't be able to do it. So
> you might want to include some type of continuing education requirement in
> your definition of a ham. If you didn't lock me out in that window of
> time
> where the FCC must have slipped and gave an easy test, get me and other
> non-deserving hams out later with some tough continuing education
> requirement - but it needs to be really tough. Not building a K2, but I
> suggest - given a large junk-box, design and build a complete ham station
> with the junk-box parts. Would that separate, as they say, the men from
> the
> boys?
>
> I find it absolutely amazing that so many people seem to feel that the ham
> radio test, either the extra code test or theory tests were so difficult,
> or
> should be so difficult, as to be a some type of guarantee of competence.
> I'm sure there are other lawyers on this list, I wonder how many of you
> would send a new associate into court alone on an important case? After
> all, if a short electronics test should mean something, someone with a
> four-year degree and then three years of law school, and a (in California)
> three-day bar exam under his or her belt should be an expert ready to
> argue
> that next case before the U.S. Supreme Court - NOT.
>
> There may be a lot of reasons for why those hams on 20 meters did not know
> the formula for a dipole. It could be that like me, they had other
> academic
> interests, so they just learned what was necessary to get the ham license.
> Or perhaps they had been engineers, who (unlike Mr. Stover) easily passed
> the extra, but thirty or forty years later, just have moved on to other
> things. I think it comes down to being a good citizen in the ham
> community.
> Which for me would be first, an interest in the subject matter, good
> operating habits, and a warm disposition to new hams and the varying
> sub-interests within the hobby. Of course, just my opinion. Tom W6EIJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
> any
> questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
> any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|