From: m22755@mwvm.mitre.ORG (Terry Alford)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Forwarding "Rationale for CW testing  (Wayne Green are you listen
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:08:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: mwunix.9211131809.AA14054
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

*
*        Terry

*** -----------
*** Forwarded note from Terry Alford, sent 11/10/92 at 12:01:42...
*** -----------

Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 12:06:01 EST
From: m22755@mwvm (Terry Alford)
To:  t_alford%huac%mwgate1@mwunix
Subject: Forwarding "Rationale for CW testing  (Wayne Green are you listen

*
*        Terry

*** -----------
*** Forwarded note from Terry Alford, sent 11/09/92 at 18:10:36...
*** -----------

Date: Monday, 9 Nov 1992 18:59:53 EST
From: m22755@mwvm (Terry Alford)
To:  info-hams%ucsd.edu@mwunix
Subject: Forwarding "Rationale for CW testing  (Wayne Green are you listening?)

*
*        Terry

*** -----------
*** Forwarded note from Terry Alford, sent 11/09/92 at 18:10:36...
*** -----------

Date: Monday, 9 Nov 1992 18:55:22 EST
From: m22755@mwvm (Terry Alford)
To:  infor-hams%ucsd.edu@mwunix
Subject: Rationale for CW testing  (Wayne Green are you listening?)

This note presents a candidate rationale for continuing code (and other) HAM
license requirements.

Point 1 attempts to provide a general rational for license testing.  Point 2
attempts to more specifically justify code testing.  Point 3 attempts to
reinforce rationale for both code and theory testing.

In a sense, Conan (and Nietsche) are right:  That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

1.  Some type of testing that generally demands some type of commitment of
effort from candidate HAMs is desirable because it helps reduce the likelihood
of irresponsible operation.  If you have to spend a number of hours over a
number of days to earn a privilege, you are more likely to value that
privilege, and therefore not abuse it.  In other words, if you have to earn a
privilege, you will be more likely to value and protect that privilege.
Related to this phenomena is the development of esprit de corps, etc.
Fraternity and sorority pledges, military recruits, sports teams, etc. all
utilize this principle in an attempt to filter out poor prospects and build
cooperation, loyalty,  and dedication to a standard of behavior.  Some good
people get filtered out, some undesirables get in anyway, but generally it
seems to be better than the alternative of just giving people something for
nothing.  The trick is to optimize the level of filtering --- too severe
results in a narrow elitist group, too slack devalues the whole process and
fails to develop appreciation and self-responsibility.  Compare the abuses of
CB radio to HAM radio.  In summary, point one is that some form of testing
that builds a sense of accomplishment and value in license privileges should
in fact be utilized.

2.  So what kind of testing would best accomplish Point 1 in the field of HAM
radio?

Well, most of us wouldn't argue in favor of a physical fitness test.  We need
something more specific to the field of HAM radio.  One such something is CW.
There is a strong historical link to code, and developing code skill seems to
make a demand on most people that provides a sense of accomplishment that
increase with the level of achievement.  The combination of tradition,
struggle, and sense of accomplishment typically results in a bonding to the
field of HAM radio.  So it seems that code testing meets many of the criteria
outlined in point one.  If so, then the question becomes:  Is there something
better than code testing to achieve the desired results of building esprit de
corps and a sense of treasured accomplishment?

3.  Well there is certainly much more to HAM radio than code.  Written exams
on practice, theory, etc. are also part of the licensing process.  Just as one
could criticize active knowledge of CW as unnecessary for much of HAM radio
operation, one could criticize knowledge of electronic theory (like, how many
people really understand the theory of auto mechanics and how necessary is
that in order to operate an automobile?).  And as far as 90% of the written
exam questions go, it seems adequate to just lookup the information if you
really need it.  I bet most of the operators out there would have a good
chance of being embarassed if they were asked to retest with no warning a year
or more after they passed the same-level exams with flying colors.  Most
operating knowledge is not tested on written exams, and active memorization of
most of what is tested in written exams in not critical to nominal radio
operation.  A core value of written exams, like that of code exams, is in
making increasing demands of individuals with increasing sense of
accomplishment and valuation of the correspondingly awarded privileges.  And
like code, the written exam material is specifically associated with the
domain of radio, even though (like code) active knowledge of most of that
material is no critical per se to being a competent operator.

So, In summary, code testing, like theory testing, may be justified in large
part because of specific and traditional ties to the practice of HAM radio,
and because together, both code and theory testing generally help engender a
sense of responsibility and value.   Code testing compliments theory
testing...together they represent a challenge, which when met, seems to do a
good job of fostering esprit de corps and an increased likelihood of
perpetuation of good tendership.

These thoughts are offered for consideration by WD4TUA (formerly N5FMZ), a
TECHNICIAN, who is now pursuing 13 WPM and upper level theory, not because it
is particularly important in its own right, but because it is a challenge and
a requirement in order to obtain something of perceived value.  By the way, I
am not a member of ARRL.
*
*        Terry