From: spinnefm@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Subject: Re: CW retesting and CHEATS
Reply-To: spinnefm@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:55:50 GMT

In article <199204062238.AA09567@tilde.csc.ti.com>, dube@cpdvax.CSc.ti.COM writes:
>Fred Spinner replies:
>......lots deleted...
>
>>>In article <1992Apr01.010613.22320@news.mentorg.com>, rstory@milkyway.mentorg.
>>>com (Ron Story) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Mar31.161522.10644@ll.mit.edu>, wjc@ll.mit.edu (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
>>>|> 
>>>|> In article <1992Mar30.210902.18200@news.mentorg.com>, rstory@milkyway.mentorg.com (Ron Story) writes:
>>
>>stuff deleted..
>>
>>>Except, for Electricity and Magnetism.  Hmmm, I wonder why that is?  Could it
>>>be that I have limited or no interest in E&M?  Could it be that I *never* use
>>>it on a day to day basis, and to the best of my memory, I have never used it 
>>>after the class (with the exception of a few coffee table dicussions).
>>>
>>>And to me, that sounds just like how I feel about code and CW.  ;^)
>>>
>>>As a student, several of us questioned the adminstration and professors why
>>>a EE student should take Statics and Dynamics classes.  The administration
>>>said that it was to "develop a well rounded education".  The professors just
>>>called them "filter" classes.  On no uncertain terms the professors said that 
>>>freshman and sophmore years exist to weed out the students who are weak in
>>>math or lack the discipline to study.
>>>
NO, honestly, our colleges are BETTER.  But their education to the high
school level is much better...that is probably there are about twice as
many hams in Japan.

>>Well being a graduating (hopefully) SR BSEE student-- I must say that
>>this logic is why the Japanese is killing us and our economy is bad.
>
>Do you really think that the difference between American and Japanese college
>education is the reason?  If so, you should take a better look at the way 
>the Japanese educate themselves.  While it may very well be that the Japanese
>are "killing" us, it's more likely because of their emphasis on education,
>rather than the narrow approach you argue for.
>
>>If they let me actually let me learn stuff I'd use instead of Dynamics,
>>Fluid Mechanics, Thermodynamics, and a bunch of worthless Humanities
>>I would not need to pursue a MSEE..,  I'm sure we could have learned
>>all that fun stuff instead of the crap we req'd to take.
>
>So, of course you knew from the time you entered college just what job you
>were going to get, and what the intellectual requirements were?
>
>>I never appreciated being called NOT "well-rounded" by a history
>>prof who never took Calculus!
>
>Then we won't accuse you of that character flaw.  Chances are the prof 
>did learn a little math on his way to a history degree.  
>
>>>Anyway, one more point in defense of retesting (remember the initial subject
>>>I wonder what percentage of Hams could pass their code test right now? 
>>>:-/
>>Does it really matter?
>>(BTW I could with maybe three days prep)
>
>Maybe we should push for a 3-day waiting period.. like the handgun waiting
>period. :)
>
>>I dunno... I guess my education in Engineering has been good-- I really
>>understand what's important and what's not.  Requiring code now is just
>>an "idiot" filter like requiring Dynamics for EE's.
>
>Many intelligent people spend their lives trying to understand what's
>important d d what's not.  Are you saying that you've found the secret
>
No, but I have a right to choose what is a waste of time and what isn't.
I get much more out of experimenting than I do on CW.  I can copy well
enough to pass traffic if pressed.  I could also build a rig out of
an old Tek scope and other junk if we ever get EMPed by a nuclear attack.
-- I tell you what... I'll build the rig, and you can operate it!

>I remember when I knew Ohm's law, how to calculate reactances and imped-
>ances, and how to build oscillators and amplifiers.  I was convinced that 
>I knew everything there was to know about being an engineer.
>In my mind, all that extra garbage was irrelevant (note that I spell it 
>correctly-part of the "rounding" process).  Then I went to college, where 
>I learned the biggest lesson: Don't be a one-dimensional person.  Now that
>I have been in the real world for many years, I routinely see college grad-
>uates who can't put together a sensible paragraph.  Does that make me want

-I was a frequent district finalist in the "Illinois Young Authors" competition
-in Jr High & High school... I can write.  But, then again the school never
-let me prove it by being able to test out-- I was TEN pts too low on my
-English section of SAT to qualify!

>to hire them into a 40K job; or to promote them right on up where they will

 -- Try to find a damn 20-25K job now (out of school).  It is impossible,
    even with very good credentials.  That really is the main reason I am
    so pissed with the system.  Spend $65K of your parents money to be the
    best trained service man at McDonalds!  I could get a better job as
    a radiologic technician now!  Something is really wrong!

>need to communicate their technological expertise clearly?  Not really. 
>One may never be required to write for publication, nor send 20WPM; but the
>ability to write is still nice to have in an engineer, just as the ability 
>to copy Morse code is nice to have in a Ham.
>
>>Try building some equipment instead of working on your code... It may
>>do the ham community some good.
>
>It would be nice to know how "building equipment" does more good for the 
>Ham community than learning the code.  

Try tapping morse out on a large rock sometimes.  The range isnt as good.
 
>
>>Maybe a requirement for an Extra that a UHF transmitter or receiver be
>>homebrewed would be more effective than code.
>
>I guess that depends on how you define "effective".  It could be argued that
>communicating around the world using Morse code on a store-bought rig
(homebrew HF rigs strangely work in a similiar manner!) 
>is more effective than talking across a couple of miles on a HB 1296 rig.

Yeah, but the same rig applied as a MODE L satellite unit is far more
reliable than HF-- Also history shows that hams benefitted the world much
through their innovation-- SSB, Microsats, etc.  Time is better spent
discovering new things instead of reinventing the wheel.

>  
>>However, since (note: many exceptions) most of the Extras I know
>>couldn't replace a tube in their rigs... I bet that'd kill a large percentage
>>of the Extra pool.  (They memorize well though)
>
>I'll bet that almost all the OFs can do that!  I'm not so sure that some of the
>newer engineers even know a grid from a plate; but then maybe tubes are 
>irrelevant.   :)-- At least that what the EE dept here says!
>
>>CW is fine, but its just another mode.  (howabout a TCP/IP literacy test
>>in HR exams?  Same idea)
>
>Agreed.  Let's not omit ATV either.  Let's test *every* aspect a prospective
   - I built a ATV transceiver for the club this year!
>Ham is going to be licensed to use; and let's test for real knowledge, not
>merely memory retention.  Let's at least expose our engineering students to
>as many of the things they might possibly have to use in the real world as
>we can.   
>
>>Fred M. Spinner, KA9VAW
>>President, Rose-Tech Radio Club (W9NAA)
>>Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 
>
>
>Dube Todd       AB5AP          <dube@cpdvax.csc.ti.com>

P.S. Its amazing how simple it is to annoy academic types!

Fred M. Spinner KA9VAW