[TowerTalk] dumbing down...extra class test

Sun Jul 24 16:15:44 EDT 2005

Nothing personal to the lawyer and his comments, but being a lawyer, he
should understand the rules: FCC Part 97 .1
===============================

The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an amateur
radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following
principles:

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the
public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with
respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute
to the advancement of the radio art.

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which
provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases
of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of
trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance
international goodwill.

=============================

I would say the purpose of ham radio is to build a pool of electronics
experts, not people who want a place to talk.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-
> bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve Gehring
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 2:23 PM
> To: 'Thomas Beltran'
> Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] dumbing down...extra class test
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Yes, I want engineering types on the "Extra Class" portions of the bands.
> I
> do not want to converse about radio-related subjects with someone who
> doesn't have that capability.  I am selective -- not politically correct.
> Amateur radio was never supposed to be a radio service for the average
> citizen -- devoid of electronic or technically related knowledge.
> 
> I believe the FCC has designs on the Amateur Radio service; Amateurs have
> and hold valuable spectrum.  Quite frankly, the Nation is running short of
> it, especially below 1 GHz.  If the Amateur Service is diminished as a
> whole, it'll be much easier for the Government to recommend the reduction
> of
> spectrum access.
> 
> I say, "Just wait and see what takes place of the next few years."  I'll
> be
> around to record it all, as I am only 39 years old.
> 
> It is sad to see the lifelong hobby I embraced as a teen diminish before
> my
> eyes.
> 
> 73 de Steve, NL7W
> Palmer, Alaska
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Beltran
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:40 AM
> To: towertalk at 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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/55 - Release Date: 7/21/2005
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/55 - Release Date: 7/21/2005