There is a weekend course, but it was designed for young, mostly engineering 
students at UBC........ we ran the course over 4days
(7 hours per day) and at the end had a 80% pass rate........ not as easy as itr 
seems


John
VE5MU


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: larry allen 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23


  Hi Buddy

  Way back in the mid 60's people had to write paragraph style answers.. 
  There were no answer banks..
  I have even heard now, in my country of canada, that you can pass the exam 
  after a weekend course....
  My question.. how can someone learn about electronics and ham radio in one 
  weekend?....
  Larry ve3fxq

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "F.R. Ashley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: <[email protected]>
  Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23

  >I have always felt the "CW issue" was not really about CW. Guess that
  > sounds a bit odd. It seems to me most see it as a reduction of 
  > standards,
  > "dumbing down" so to speak. I think CW did act as a filter of some 
  > sort
  > because it did indeed keep some people from getting their license, 
  > whether
  > or not they would have been "good hams". But love it or hate it, the
  > requirement is gone, so deal with it however you can. Personally, I 
  > have
  > always been in favor of keeping the requirement, along with tests that
  > require you to learn something. However I won't throw up my hands in
  > despair, at least not yet. None of us knows what the future of ham 
  > radio
  > is or how this CW issue will pan out. Let's just hope for the best,
  > encourage new people, and elmer them to be good hams. Have fun.
  >
  > Buddy WB4M
  >
  > 



   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.2/641 - Release Date: 1/20/2007 
10:24 AM

Reply via email to