amateur vs pro
 

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is not a professional, a professional is
someone who is paid for their skill(s). Nowhere does it say that
either is competent or incompetent. Many amateurs are vastly more
skilled than professionals operating in the same area.

2) I am an amateur radio operator in the classic definition, that of one
who loves the activity, not in the much more recent corruption of the
word - that of non-professional or shoddy.

Most very strange in a world where I can perform most activities
much better than th eso called professionals.
--------

pro - does it for money. Implies that there is some
(financial,reputation) responsibility for results

amateur - does it for no money (e.g. for the love of the activity, see
the Latin root of the word).

Proficiency, competency, or skill doesn't really enter into it.
Although, an unskilled professional had better be a good salesperson,
because otherwise, nobody is going to be willing to compensate them.

Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

It's also true that a pro that has been in business (successfully) for a
number of years is likely to be competent. (or they'd starve).

An amateur can get away with being incompetent for years without ill effect.

In some fields (Engineering, in the United States), there are some legal
aspects to being "pro" aside from being compensated. To call oneself a
Professional Engineer, one must have a certain amount of experience (6
years, typically) at engineering, have passed a couple of fairly
rigorous tests, etc. so that you have a license. One could acquire the
experience while unpaid, and certainly one doesn't get paid for the
test, so one could be an amateur Professional Engineer.

amateur vs pro
 

On Mar 29, 10:08*pm, Jim Lux wrote:

Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?

amateur vs pro
 

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!
John Ferrell W8CCW

amateur vs pro
 

Bill wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?
3rd Baron John Strutt

During the time he managed his late father's barony from 1873 to 1879,
he did some research. The Theory of Sound was published in 1878.

Then, after he left the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge in 1884, he continued
his research at home.

For all I know, Cambridge didn't pay him either.. he was definitely a
"man of means" and sort of typifies the "gentleman amateur"

Antoine Lavoisier or Joeseph Fourier would be other examples. Both had
"jobs" that paid well and didn't require a lot of their time, so they
could spend their spare time and cash on science/engineering.

amateur vs pro
 

On 3/30/2010 3:03 PM, Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
John writes:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!

I do it for satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, certainly not
for fun. Further the status of amateur doesn't imply the right of doing
it less consciencious than a professional.

73, Eddi ._._.

Hello, all, and I think a wee bit of clarification is needed he

Profession (n): One who engages in a pursuit or activity professionally.

Profession (adj, sense 1c): Characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a profession.

(Both definitions taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

Now, in light of the above couldn't an amateur (not a dilettante, mind
you) radio person practice his/her craft "professionally?" Sincerely,
and 73s from N4GGO,

amateur vs pro
 

On 3/31/2010 7:09 AM, J.B. Wood wrote:
On 3/30/2010 3:03 PM, Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
John
writes:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!

I do it for satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, certainly not
for fun. Further the status of amateur doesn't imply the right of doing
it less consciencious than a professional.

73, Eddi ._._.

Hello, all, and I think a wee bit of clarification is needed he

Profession (n): One who engages in a pursuit or activity professionally.

Profession (adj, sense 1c): Characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a profession.

(Both definitions taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

Now, in light of the above couldn't an amateur (not a dilettante, mind
you) radio person practice his/her craft "professionally?" Sincerely,
and 73s from N4GGO,

Hello, all, and back to the rear of the class for grammar/spelling. The
two above terms should have read "professional" vice "profession".
Sincerely,

amateur vs pro
 

Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
In John Ferrell writes:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!

I do it for satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, certainly not
for fun.

Isn't deriving satisfaction and sense of accomplishment part of fun? It
is for me, anyway. I suppose one can do it and get paid, being
professional, and still have fun. So maybe I should clarify and say
"who does it for *only* fun".




Further the status of amateur doesn't imply the right of doing
it less consciencious than a professional.

I don't know about that. Aside from regulatory requirements, as an
amateur one can do it however well or poorly one wishes, according to
one's own standards.

As a professional, the implication is that if you don't do a good job,
you won't get paid. Mind you, more than one person has paid another to
do a job and had a poor result. So, in the individual instances,
professional is no guarantee of quality. However, in the long run, an
incompetent professional will starve. And, if it's an activity for
which professional licensing is required (Engineer, Doctor, Lawyer,
Accountant, etc.), there's more requirements.



73, Eddi ._._.

amateur vs pro
 

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is not a professional, a professional is
someone who is paid for their skill(s). Nowhere does it say that
either is competent or incompetent. Many amateurs are vastly more
skilled than professionals operating in the same area.

2) I am an amateur radio operator in the classic definition, that of one
who loves the activity, not in the much more recent corruption of the
word - that of non-professional or shoddy.

Most very strange in a world where I can perform most activities
much better than th eso called professionals.
--------

pro - does it for money. Implies that there is some
(financial,reputation) responsibility for results

amateur - does it for no money (e.g. for the love of the activity, see
the Latin root of the word).

Proficiency, competency, or skill doesn't really enter into it.
Although, an unskilled professional had better be a good salesperson,
because otherwise, nobody is going to be willing to compensate them.

Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

It's also true that a pro that has been in business (successfully) for a
number of years is likely to be competent. (or they'd starve).

An amateur can get away with being incompetent for years without ill effect.

In some fields (Engineering, in the United States), there are some legal
aspects to being "pro" aside from being compensated. To call oneself a
Professional Engineer, one must have a certain amount of experience (6
years, typically) at engineering, have passed a couple of fairly
rigorous tests, etc. so that you have a license. One could acquire the
experience while unpaid, and certainly one doesn't get paid for the
test, so one could be an amateur Professional Engineer.



I've always thought that folks who needed to argue the differences
between "amateur" and "professional" need to get themselves a life.

But, I'm an old redneck and what do I know about anything.

amateur vs pro
 

On Mar 30, 2:08*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?

3rd Baron John Strutt

During the time he managed his late father's barony from 1873 to 1879,
he did some research. The Theory of Sound was published in 1878.

Then, after he left the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge in 1884, he continued
his research at home.

For all I know, Cambridge didn't pay him either.. he was definitely a
"man of means" and sort of typifies the "gentleman amateur"

Antoine Lavoisier or Joeseph Fourier would be other examples. Both had
"jobs" that paid well and didn't require a lot of their time, so they
could spend their spare time and cash on science/engineering.

when amateurs get bored out of their mind of the activity in question
they can take a break from it. Professionals cannot. They must
soldier on until they get interested in their livelihood again.

I believe that the "quitting (or resting) is not an option" is what
makes professionals so much better than amateurs in almost all cases.

Can there even be such a thing as an amateur soldier?

amateur vs pro
 

Jim Lux wrote:

I don't know about that. Aside from regulatory requirements, as an
amateur one can do it however well or poorly one wishes, according to
one's own standards.

As a professional, the implication is that if you don't do a good job,
you won't get paid. Mind you, more than one person has paid another to
do a job and had a poor result. So, in the individual instances,
professional is no guarantee of quality. However, in the long run, an
incompetent professional will starve. And, if it's an activity for
which professional licensing is required (Engineer, Doctor, Lawyer,
Accountant, etc.), there's more requirements.

I pulled off my power panel in preparation to installing wiring to a new
spa. It was a rats nest of professional, inspected wiring. I rewired
the entire thing. And you can find a lot more "quality work" like this
in a lot of houses.

The sub-par professionals who do this work are more likely to lose their
jobs when the market goes south, and there just isn't any work for them
at all.

But during his employment, I have no doubt that the guy who wired my
house did it quickly and cheaply, and the quicker and cheaper made his
boss all the happier.I also have no doubt that there are hundred of
other houses he did exactly the same way. As for the person who did the
electrical inspection, I'll not speculate.

But the idea that the free market will weed out the poor actors is a
noble one but not true. The free market is looking for the cheapest, not
the best.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

amateur vs pro
 

Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:

I've always thought that folks who needed to argue the differences
between "amateur" and "professional" need to get themselves a life.

But, I'm an old redneck and what do I know about anything.

I was just thinkin' the same thing.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

amateur vs pro
 

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:56:44 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

Software projects by "professionals" are quit all the time -- there's some
shockingly low percentage of software projects that are ever actually finished
(like, 25%). Even for hardware projects, at least for awhile Tektronix
seemed to be quitting upwards of a quarter of all the projects they'd start.

Usually a problem of poor specification. You cannot design what is
not described. Frequently, success is in the mind of the beholder:
"Oh! I forgot to mention you need to....(gestures made here). You
know what I mean."

In other words, professionalism that fails to rise above rank amateur.

My amateur designs are far more complete and robust than professional
ones, but they are not commercial. They would take too long the first
time (but they always could have been done in the time it had actually
taken to get to shipping).

Tracy Kidder's "Soul of a New Machine" proved how little so-called
professional effort is needed to do a professional job right. I work
with a lot of inventors/entrepreneurs whose idea-to-shipping time is
measured in the single digits of weeks.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

amateur vs pro
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Jim Lux wrote:

I don't know about that. Aside from regulatory requirements, as an
amateur one can do it however well or poorly one wishes, according to
one's own standards.

As a professional, the implication is that if you don't do a good job,
you won't get paid. Mind you, more than one person has paid another to
do a job and had a poor result. So, in the individual instances,
professional is no guarantee of quality. However, in the long run, an
incompetent professional will starve. And, if it's an activity for
which professional licensing is required (Engineer, Doctor, Lawyer,
Accountant, etc.), there's more requirements.

I pulled off my power panel in preparation to installing wiring to a new
spa. It was a rats nest of professional, inspected wiring. I rewired
the entire thing. And you can find a lot more "quality work" like this
in a lot of houses.

The sub-par professionals who do this work are more likely to lose their
jobs when the market goes south, and there just isn't any work for them
at all.

But during his employment, I have no doubt that the guy who wired my
house did it quickly and cheaply, and the quicker and cheaper made his
boss all the happier.I also have no doubt that there are hundred of
other houses he did exactly the same way. As for the person who did the
electrical inspection, I'll not speculate.

But the idea that the free market will weed out the poor actors is a
noble one but not true. The free market is looking for the cheapest, not
the best.

actually, the market looks for "good enough"..

And, in the long enough run, it does weed out the poorer actors. Of
course, in a growing market(e.g. a housing boom), there's always room
for new incompetents to enter.

amateur vs pro
 

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:48:37 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:56:44 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

Software projects by "professionals" are quit all the time -- there's some
shockingly low percentage of software projects that are ever actually finished
(like, 25%). Even for hardware projects, at least for awhile Tektronix
seemed to be quitting upwards of a quarter of all the projects they'd start.

Pulling the plug on an IT project is not necessarily a bad thing. A
project I've been working on has changed functional scope four times
in the last nine months. Is it any wonder the project is six months
late?

WHOOSH - the sound of a deadline flying by.

Business owners and project managers are reluctant to make any
admission of poor decision making. Being able to say the project is
'done' is how too many measure success. User adoption and satisfaction
always seems to be secondary. Arbitrary due dates are determined
before any real analysis of the problem and potential solutions is
made. Requirements fall by the wayside as EOQ or the day after
Thanksgiving approaches. Project managers, especially the
non-technical, often fail to manage their own unrealistic
expectations. Over-promised and under-delivered is an unfortunate fact
of life.

Usually a problem of poor specification. You cannot design what is
not described. Frequently, success is in the mind of the beholder:
"Oh! I forgot to mention you need to....(gestures made here). You
know what I mean."

Absolutely. Deliver exactly what the customer asked for and then
they'll tell you what's missing. And again and again .... For web
applications it's not unusual to be given a 'design' of what it should
look like (image only, no mark-up) and a contradictory list of
commingled business rules, requirements. features and functionality.

In other words, professionalism that fails to rise above rank amateur.

My amateur designs are far more complete and robust than professional
ones, but they are not commercial. They would take too long the first
time (but they always could have been done in the time it had actually
taken to get to shipping).

We always do throw-away proof of concepts to test and better
understand both design and functionality. Essentially the project gets
written twice. Producing a proper deliverable is much easier if you've
done 'it' before. Too many people consider the investment in any code
as being too valuable to be discarded. That's just plain wrong. A
maintainable and extensible design is of the utmost importance.

Tracy Kidder's "Soul of a New Machine" proved how little so-called
professional effort is needed to do a professional job right. I work
with a lot of inventors/entrepreneurs whose idea-to-shipping time is
measured in the single digits of weeks.

Much depends upon the complexity of the problem, management's
understanding of possible solutions, and the skillsets, abilities &
dedication of the individuals involved. In DG's case a knowledgeable
project manager was working with a team of not just any recent
engineering graduates. Most of these were hired specifically for the
project. For all the successes in some respects the project can be
considered a failure.

Very seldom does a business owner or project manager ask "what's the
best way to ..." because in their mind they already have determined
what the only solution is. IT should be treated as vested peers rather
than day laborers.

amateur vs pro
 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:25:13 -0700 (PDT), brent
wrote:

On Mar 30, 2:08*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?

3rd Baron John Strutt

During the time he managed his late father's barony from 1873 to 1879,
he did some research. The Theory of Sound was published in 1878.

Then, after he left the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge in 1884, he continued
his research at home.

For all I know, Cambridge didn't pay him either.. he was definitely a
"man of means" and sort of typifies the "gentleman amateur"

Antoine Lavoisier or Joeseph Fourier would be other examples. Both had
"jobs" that paid well and didn't require a lot of their time, so they
could spend their spare time and cash on science/engineering.


Thanks for that information Jim.

when amateurs get bored out of their mind of the activity in question
they can take a break from it. Professionals cannot. They must
soldier on until they get interested in their livelihood again.

I believe that the "quitting (or resting) is not an option" is what
makes professionals so much better than amateurs in almost all cases.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the persons
work. If they no longer enjoy it, and many never did from the start,
they chose the wrong field. Generally when a person becomes bored
with their work, or dissatisfied the quality of their work suffers.
With nearly 35 years of working I saw a lot of that.

If you are a professional who is bored out of their mind, quitting and
going back to college to pursue a different field certainly is an
option.

That is what I did after working over 26 years.
I originally enjoyed the work and had fun on the job. Did that make me
an amateur professional? I chose the line of work because I loved
doing it. OTOH there were those who figured I must not be doing my
work because I appeared to be having "too much fun". After changing
professions and jobs I ended up working for and with people who were
not so narrow minded and understood. When I retired it was as a
project manager with good people working for me and good bosses above
me.

I still loved the work, but I had reached the point where I was seeing
too many people working until they dropped at work, or retiring and
dropping within a month or two. OTOH I saw more than a few who didn't
know any thing other than work. I decided I wanted to go play.

I also love retirement (does that make me an amateur retiree?) , but
it could pay better.

Can there even be such a thing as an amateur soldier?

Sure...they don't last too long though.


73

Roger (K8RI)

amateur vs pro
 

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:48:37 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:56:44 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

Software projects by "professionals" are quit all the time -- there's some
shockingly low percentage of software projects that are ever actually finished
(like, 25%). Even for hardware projects, at least for awhile Tektronix
seemed to be quitting upwards of a quarter of all the projects they'd start.

Usually a problem of poor specification.

That is why we have "project Charters" The "Charter" describes the
project goals and how to determine when those goals have been met.

Any change in goals, or how to determine they have been met means
going back and rewriting the charter and then having all involved
reauthorized it.

My standard replay when some one asked if we could do something with a
project was "is it in the charter?". If not they had the option of
getting the heads of all the involved departments and often "sites" to
review the project charger. That usually minimized attempts to expand
projects beyond their original design. It also give all involved the
desire to put everything on the table at the beginning. :-))

You cannot design what is
not described. Frequently, success is in the mind of the beholder:
"Oh! I forgot to mention you need to....(gestures made here). You
know what I mean."

Yup, "did you include it in the charter?":-))

In other words, professionalism that fails to rise above rank amateur.

I really don't see it in that light. To me there is no higher rank
than amateur. A professional can just be a "grunt", or they can be
some one with goals, or rather "goal oriented".

73

Roger (K8RI)


My amateur designs are far more complete and robust than professional
ones, but they are not commercial. They would take too long the first
time (but they always could have been done in the time it had actually
taken to get to shipping).

Tracy Kidder's "Soul of a New Machine" proved how little so-called
professional effort is needed to do a professional job right. I work
with a lot of inventors/entrepreneurs whose idea-to-shipping time is
measured in the single digits of weeks.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

amateur vs pro
 

Roger wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:25:13 -0700 (PDT), brent
wrote:


when amateurs get bored out of their mind of the activity in question
they can take a break from it. Professionals cannot. They must
soldier on until they get interested in their livelihood again.

I believe that the "quitting (or resting) is not an option" is what
makes professionals so much better than amateurs in almost all cases.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the persons
work. If they no longer enjoy it, and many never did from the start,
they chose the wrong field. Generally when a person becomes bored
with their work, or dissatisfied the quality of their work suffers.
With nearly 35 years of working I saw a lot of that.

I agree with Roger here. However, there is, for lack of a better word, a
forced rigor or discipline that comes from having to make a living at
something. A professional who is "making a living at it" has to meet
some minimum standard, or they'll be forced to choose another activity
in order to keep body and soul together.

An amateur is under no such restriction. So the "spread" in
ability/quality/whatever metric is greater on the bottom tail of the
distribution for amateurs.

One sees this very markedly in professions such as acting or modeling.