Well, I'm overdue for another post so I'll throw out an idea. Usually this kind of thing incites a wave of angry and smug abuse from my (many) detractors, but they need something to rail against, after all.
In the past year, I've watched several of my on-air friends upgrade to General Class, and even Extra. Most don't really spend a lot of time on HF, and the meagre privileges extended to those who pass the Extra exam are hardly compelling. When I ask them why they wanted to make this move, the answers are a bit hazy. Mostly, it was about the challenge of advancing, and the recognition of their level of knowledge. None of them have developed the abrasive arrogance and the disdain for the "lower Classes" that I've encountered, and that turned me solidly against the very idea of ever upgrading my licence.
It seems that there's a "market" of sorts for this kind of validation. Though it doesn't appeal to me personally, it's obvious that it's a motivator to many. To me, the idea of awards such as DXCC and WAS are empty. Wouldn't I already know if I made those contacts? Why do I need someone else to tell me that I really did? It's largely incomprehensible to me, but a whole lot of hams are driven by this potential for third-party recognition. So why not make it work for us?
Suppose that a local club, for example, offered a "certification" for CW? There could be a written exam covering procedures, technical aspects of the modulation scheme, common frequencies and allowed power levels, etc. It could include a actual demonstration of proficiency, covering receiving or sending, or both. And the club could provide a nice certificate that would prove that the individual actually did know those things.
While it wouldn't offer any additional privileges, it would offer validation, recognition, and provide a challenge. Considering the scant privileges afforded to someone passing the Extra Exam, it would seem to be a motivator for a lot of hams.
This exam could be given by certified VE's to lend a veneer of "officiality" to the achievement. This could also potentially re-vitalise the entire VE program. While coming up with a written exam is certainly work, other clubs in other places could simply copy the exam that they find to be most suitable. And, with modern computer technology, copious amounts of quality copy could be generated and disseminated easily. It would be light years from the old phonograph records used to test prospective licensees in the "old days", and it would be virtually impossible to study for the specific test copy.
Unlike the one-size-fits-all approach of the FCC exams, there would be a great deal of flexibility in these unofficial certifications. You could be certified for strictly straight key operation, for example. You could be certified for any speed, or for "basic" or "advanced" copy.
This concept extends outside of CW, of course. Certifications in PSK31 and RTTY are possible, for example. There could even be a "hands-on" test where a ham would have to set up software (audio levels, frequency, rate, etc.) and successfully carry out a contrived QSO in order to pass. Or just a written test on principles and procedures. Weak signal HF operation is markedly different than FM operation, and there could also be tests on using AGC, RF gain, noise blankers, bandwidth filters, mic gain, etc, to your best advantage. How about a certification in antenna theory? Or a certification in contest etiquette? Or SSTV, packet/APRS, EME, or satellite communications?
Such a program wouldn't just offer hams 'bragging rights'. It would help ensure more uniform understanding of various niches of the hobby, establish an ad-hoc "body of knowledge", give hams confidence to tackle new things that they would otherwise be too intimidated to experiment with, and provide experienced hams an ideal platform to share their expertise with those who would be demonstrably willing to learn it. It would also provide validation, recognition, and a clearly-defined challenge to those that find that sort of thing compelling. It would also re-imagine the role of clubs. Clubs could require dues-paying membership as a requirement to stand for their examination programs, or charge a nominal fee for the work involved. Preparation materials could be available online or be presented in lectures and classes.
Ideally, this is something that the ARRL should carry out, but they have neither the will nor the skill to imagine such an endeavour. They have lead from behind in every development in the hobby for my entire lifetime. Realistically, the certifications from certain clubs would "mean more" than the sheepskin from others, and there would be a sort of competition for the most stringent qualifications. This is far more than the FCC exams can offer, but the FCC exams serve an entirely different purpose.
Obviously, these certifications wouldn't grant any additional privileges. What additional privileges does your rank in a contest offer? What additional privileges does your grid score count, or your DXCC certificate offer? None whatsoever, yet so many continue to contend for these achievements.
On the other hand, if there's a discussion on the air about, say, satellite communications, the person that can say that they have a certification in that kind of operation would probably have more credibility than someone that read an article about it in QST years ago, for example. Even a lowly Technician could offer useful and practical advice and opinions on subjects that their "superiors" can only speculate and BS about. It could help to break down the artificial distinctions that exist, and foster a kind of co-mentoring that the hobby truly lacks. We desperately need to start learning from each other, instead of reinforcing these petty hierarchies and distinctions as to who is a 'real' ham or just a dabbler.
Whatever niche of the hobby it is that you want to preserve or promote, this concept that I'm proposing will do more to ensure that competent and confident hams approach it, and that they will have a more satisfying experience exploring it, than any amount of snarling about the idiocy of your fellow hams ever would.
People that want to make a constructive contribution to the hobby would have an ideal opportunity to do so by writing tests, tutoring for them, and giving the actual examinations. Those that instead wish to whine, snarl, and whinge about how "ham radio has changed" will be left on the sidelines nursing their bitter resentments. And those in those niches that fail to draw new adherents are simply failing in the marketplace of ideas. Still, you would have given it your best shot.
I would love to have a certification in CW at a particular speed, so that I could laugh at all of those "superiors" who look down on today's Techs for not passing a code test. Even if you get your Extra Class licence, there will be a lot of your fellow hams sneering at you for being a "no code Extra". There's no bottom to this kind of arrogance. It's ugly and counter-productive. But it exists, and it can be largely rendered toothless by our fellow hams positively affirming others' knowledge and skills.
5 comments:
This makes a lot of sense. There are too many misinformed, self-styled experts on the air and elsewhere. I still hear a lot of confusion about things like Echolink and IRLP on the local repeaters... a certification in VoIP modes would be another good one.
I'm curious as to where you've encountered the elitism. While I myself don't spend much time on HF, when I have been able to make contacts, I've gotten nothing but good cheer and welcome. In fact, I don't recall a single negative experience. Now, I have listened to some comments by others, both on HF and VHF/UHF, that would be considered uncouth, but those appear to be few and far between. The one thing I don't do, though, is CW. Maybe that's where it's at?
Where? That's really what you're asking?
Okay...the .850, .370, "dot one", WINET. Overheard it dozens of times on other repeaters and on HF -- countless times online.
There. I told you "where". I bet that hasn't changed your viewpoint at all.
One thing that I've learned is the futility of discussing anything with someone that says, "I've never come across that". At best, it means that they refuse to accept it, no matter what you say. At worst, it's their way of calling you a liar.
I've never been in an earthquake.
If I was talking to someone that *had* been in one, though, I wouldn't say, "That's never happened to me. Every place I've been, the ground has been pretty solid. Are you sure? Maybe it's just you. Maybe it's just your imagination".
I used to make recordings and collect links of examples online and show them to another person who had "never come across that sort of thing". Amazingly, every example was an "isolated case" to them. As it turns out, what they really expected me to do was prove that 100% of all hams are jerks 100% of the time, or else they would never concede that even one ham could ever be a jerk.
Believe me or don't. Either way, it's hardly a fundamental point of the article.
I think you're reading in a little too much into my question. I wasn't asking you to prove anything, or to call your experiences into question. I believe that one of the fundamental points of your article was how you had no interest in upgrading your license from a tech (which is essentially limited to the UHF/VHF bands) to general (which allows a much wider latitude on the HF bands). To wit, you state: "None of them have developed the abrasive arrogance and the disdain for the "lower Classes" that I've encountered, and that turned me solidly against the very idea of ever upgrading my licence. (sic)" As upgrading your license from tech to general opens a wide range of HF bands, your comments seem to imply that you've received a lot of the disdain from the HF bands, and hence the underlying reason you do not want to advance. Moreover, you'd rather simply get a 'certification' in CW as some sort of validation to others, but it would seem that that validation would mean very little if the 'others' did not understand or appreciate where there validation itself came from.
The question I posed to you was not for purposes of disbelief, but trying to figure out where you've gotten such disdain as my experience has been different. In that regard, I didn't express any viewpoint, only what my experience has been.
73s
KD0ZSW
Post a Comment