Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Many people lament that there is not enough interest
in Ham radio by young people.
Agreed - but how much would be enough?
Dunno. I personally agree somewhat with Brian K's
assertion that the
absolute number of Hams could indeed drop without
serious problems.
It's happening already.
The important number is how many *active* hams there are.
On the other hand, I believe that we should have a good
mix of ages.
Sure - but how much is enough? If, say, 10% of the US amateur
population were under the age of 21, would that be enough?
How would it compare to the way things were 10, 20, 30 years ago?
Looking around at hamfests and club meetings isn't necessarily
a representative sample of the ham population.
There are often many reasons given for this deficiency,
and somewhat less "fixes".
One thing is for su Adding an age requirement, as proposed
to FCC by one frequent poster here, isn't a fix nor a good
idea.
One of the reasons that is given very often is that
Amateur radio is in some sort of competition with the
Internet.
Every activity is in competition with every other.
Surely. Comparisons between the two show that Amateur
radio is a tad
bit more involved than buying a computer, doing a dialup
and surfing the
net. Will a person who's idea of a hobby is clicking a mouse
button find
Amateur radio a tad intimidating?
More than a tad!
What is the competition between the two? In order to use
the internet,
one must of course have a computer. It must be connected to
the
internet, through one of several methods. Once the person has
learned to
turn on the computer, open a few programs or so, they have
the necessary skills to work the internet.
Yup. But there's mo
A computer has many uses, from being a glorified typewriter
to a
serious research/calculation device to gaming to
producing all sorts of multimedia stuff.
Don't forget surfing porn. A great way to build character! 8^)
See "all sorts of multimedia stuff".
Most decent white-collar jobs today require computer
skills. Many blue-collar jobs also require them.
Amateur radio on the other hand, requires that a
radio be used, which
requires some skill in operating. An antenna system
needs to be
connected to this radio. Whereas it is possible to have
everything set
up for the Ham, most young people do not have the resources to
have
someone set up their system. Coupled with the possibility of
putting an
antenna in operation that only costs a few dollars, or even
less if the
youngster has good scrounging skills, the likelihood is that
they would
design and put up their own antenna, another skill needed.
So there is a large difference in the skills needed for the
two hobbies.
You're missing a couple of other points, Mike.
Computers are all over the place, inexpensive, and
often available as
hand-me-downs. PCs only a few years old can be had
for next-to-nothing.
Not missing a point. To me, computers are like underwear -
pretty much gotta have it.
And like underwear, there are some things better done without
computers...
Some people live in places where putting up an
antenna - *any* antenna
- is banned by CC&Rs. A family isn't likely to
move so that Junior can put up a G5RV.
Heh! i had a thought -maybe we could get some of the
rebellious types to go stealth! 8^)
A few might.
Cell phones as competition? While there is a temptation
to snipe "Get Real!", I'll address those too.
What would make a person decide to take up Cell phone
use as a hobby?
Cell phones allow you to talk to people that you know
(for the most
part) and operate in the same manner as a regular telephone,
save that
you take the cell with you, and you are generally tied in
the same
building with a standard telephone. It's hard to imagine
someone doing
that as a hobby, although there are a lot of people who
spend a lot of time using them.
You missed the point, Mike.
Before cell phones became inexpensive and ubiquitous, the
average person didn't have many options for personal
mobile/portable communications. There was ham radio and
cb and not much else. Cell phones changed all that.
Actually, I think you missed my point! My point is that
if a person is
making a choice of hobbies to get into, the concept of
choosing between
Amateur radio and using a cell phone just isn't in the mix.
I see trendy
teens with cell phones glued to their heads every day.
I can only assume
that they spend hours each day on them.
Maybe - but kids spending lots of time on the 'phone isn't
a new thing at all. Goes back to the '50s at least.
I can guarantee that that kid
has never considered amateur radio as a hobby.
I doubt they consider
their cells as a hobby either.
Means to an end, not an end in itself.
So it is pretty hard to think of that as competition.
Here's how:
Back before cell phones, one "selling point" for ham radio
was something like "if you and your friends got ham licenses,
you could talk all you want without tying up the 'phone."
Another was that repeaters extended the range of an HT, mobile
or compromise home station enormously.
Of course that's a "means to an end" application - the goal is
talking to the friends, the radio part is simply how it's done.
20 years ago such a "sales pitch" made sense. Today, in most
places, the response would be to simply get a cell phone.
I have two cell phones, a few computers, spend a lot of
time on the
internet in my job and off work, and I cannot explain
the seeming
exclusivity ascribed to the them as related to my Ham license.
Time spent on them is not time on the air.
So what makes a youngster decide to become a Ham?
Same things that make anyone else.
We can try using the input of those who became Hams at a
young age.
Most of what I have heard is that the person was very
interested in the
technical aspects involved with getting on the air.
Making antennas,
building rigs, and getting them on the air was a big
part of the attraction.
I was one of those people - licensed at age 13. With no
real help from the parents, btw.
In the end, I believe that it is young people
that have a technical
interest that will likely become Hams.
More complex than that.
There are three basic areas of interest involved:
1) Technical (likes to fool around with radio stuff)
2) Operating (likes the actual operating experience)
3) Communicating (likes the message content more than
the medium)
Most hams' reasons for getting into the ARS are a mixture
of the three.
For example, I know some DXers whose main focus is #2. They
love the thrill of the chase, hunting down the new ones, etc.
Their stations are technical wonders - but the technical stuff
is simply a means to an end, not the end in itself.
Then there are the ragchew types who have real
long-term friendships
on-air. Their focus is mainly #3.
Or the techno types who are always working on a project
but rarely on
the air. Once they get something working really well,
the excitement is
gone and they're off to something else.
And that, I believe, is the crux of the issue.
I think it's more complex.
America is not a place that encourages those who might be
thinking of a
technical career. We have a tendency to encourage a more
"pop culture"
outlook, which as often as not discounts actual learning
for "street
cred", and actually turns the smart person into an object of
ridicule.
There are levels, and there are levels. If a person is
intelligent, and
wants a good livelihood, you will find careers that are
acceptable. You
can be a movie star, or perhaps a lawyer. A whole spectrum
follows, but
engineering and the technical fields are not very high on that
list.
Agreed.
How often is the Techie portrayed as a sort of Bill Nye,
the science guy type (at best).
How many TV shows and movies ever depict engineering or
technical folks at all, compared to other fields like health
care or law enforcement?
And we've only had a gazillion shows about that kind of stuff.
Bingo.
One show made a start toward a good positive presentation
of engineers
and techies. It was Star Trek. The original series had a
very kind treatment of Scottie, the engineer.
The portrayal of the engineer as a Scot is a classic stereotype. Goes
back to "MacAndrew's Hymn" at least.
How about the smart woman who takes off her glasses
and suddenly becomes the hot babe?
Bailey Quarters. Although she's hot with the
glasses *on*, as well..
I'll bet you liked Marcia Strassman too!
Of course - Mrs. Kotter...
Professor Frink on "The Simpsons"?
Pop culture is not kind to the technical types.
Been that way for a long time, Mike.
My experiences with programs like "bring your sons and
daughters to
work day" shows that almost none of the kids is even thinking
of a
technical field. A lot want to be lawyers.
Or business types, or a lot of other things.
Yup. I don't know if you heard about this, but there are
some people
who want to bring proposition 19 into the whole of education.
I can see it now, young women being forced to become
engineers.....
There's a big difference between equality of opportunity and
equality of result.
Look what happened to the guy at Harvard...
Once in the past, we were scared into thinking that maybe
science and
technology was maybe not such a bad thing. That happened when
the commies launched Sputnik.
Yeah - who'd a thunk they could do something like that?
Suddenly it seemed important that at least
some of our kids decided to work in the sciences. Hopefully
we will
decide that again without having to be shocked into it.
No, today is worse. The society seems unshockable.
Look at where
so much stuff today is made...
I share your concern. BTW, the place where so much of
our "stuff" is made is not our friend.
Sure they are - as long as we play by *their* rules.
Part of the problem goes back decades, to when the USA decided
that certain sectors of manufacturing could be dominated by
imports.
I am pretty firmly convinced that until we stop catering
to the least
common denominator, until we stop marginalizing the
technically and
scientifically inclined, we will not find many youngsters
who want to come into our hobby.
The fact of the matter is that amateur radio has always been
a rather specialized activity anyway.
No argument there.
I graduated high school in 1972 - the golden age of space
and technology, right?
Well, pretty close to the end of it....
In my high school of 2500 boys there were at most six licensed
hams. In the girls' school next door there were *none*. 5000
middle class kids in suburban Philly, going to schools where the
emphasis was on math and science, and there were but a handful of
hams. And this was in an era before CC&Rs, cable TV, VCRs, cell
phones, PCs, etc.
My basic thesis is that we as a society are moving toward the
celebration of the ordinary, the mundane. We have lost our
edge. And that can only last for so long.
I think it's the opposite - we don't celebrate the "ordinary"
enough!
Suppose - just suppose - that instead of going to the moon on
a "before this decade is out" timeline, the USA had devoted
some of those resources to developing energy
independence. Energy crisis? what energy crisis?
If we can celebrate those who *DO* things instead of simply
consume things, we might reverse that trend.
You mean "produce things". The people who are celebrities today
are all doers - movie stars, sports figures, etc.
The most popular highschool technical activity back
then was working on
cars. A kid with a few tools and skills could get
a few dollars
together, buy an old heap and get on the road.
Been there, done that. 8^)
How many highschoolers do that today?
73 de Jim, N2EY