From: dube@cpdvax.CSc.ti.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: CW retesting and CHEATS
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:16:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: tilde.199204062238.AA09567
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

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.
>>
>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

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

>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 
is more effective than talking across a couple of miles on a HB 1296 rig.
  
>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.

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.   :)

>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
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>