Mike Coslo ) writes:
Dave wrote:

What has the ARRL done to encourage minorities to take up
ham radio as a hobby? What do ham radio clubs do to
promote ham radio among minorities?
It's an interesting question, Dave. I think that the best thing we can
do is to provide a supportive environment for everyone.

There is an ongoing effort to recruit underrepresented groups to the
engineering fields. There are very few female engineers and few that are
in college. This despite lots of effort to recruit. There has been some
limited success in recruiting people of African descent.

I suspect that Engineering will take a while to be more representative
from a ethnic standpoint. I do believe it will eventually get there. And
as more minorities are involved in technical matters, more will be
interested in technical hobbies like the ARS.

But you may have this in reverse. If people aren't playing with amateur
radio as kids, then they may not become interested in technical professions.

Some people grumble that amateur radio doesn't represent leading edge
technology anymore. But I still think there is value as a stepping stone.
If kids take up the hobby, and then pursue technical fields (or even
just feel comfortable around technical matters) it still has value to
society in general.

The value of amateur radio may be where it leads, rather than being
something that attracts people who are already somewhere.

Michael VE2BVW

As to gender representation, I have noted that not many women *want* to
be engineers. I would also note that the women engineers that I know
absolutely HATE being called a "woman engineer". One I know sums it up
as "I can't stand it when people call me a woman engineer. I'm an
engineer dammit!" So the typical recruitment efforts may indeed backfire
when applied to potential engineers, at least of the female variety.

Why would a person
of color want to become a ham radio operator?

Because it is fun. Same reason as for everyone.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dave" wrote in message ...

What has the ARRL done to encourage minorities to take up
ham radio as a hobby?

Are they under some legal obligation to encourage ANY subset of
our society to take up Amateur Radio?

What do ham radio clubs do to promote ham radio among minorities?

In the clubs I belong to, they post public announcements in the
local papers that ANY person can read and decide for themselves.

Why would a person
of color want to become a ham radio operator?

Why wouldn't they?

Does skin color, ethnic backround, religious preference, sexual
orientation, etc etc generally predispose one to liking or not liking
ANY particular sport, avocation, hobby, occupational field, etc etc
etc???

And if it did, shouldn't it be the decision of the person to whom
such color is attached make the decision as to what THEY want to do?

Why should any group, club, etc, specifically recruit
"minorities" if the sole purpose is to have a token in that group?

(BTW...I find it a bit amusing to refer to persons of African
heritage as "black", yet call them "persons of color", when in strict
scientific definition, "black" is the ABSENCE of color!)

Personally, I want to "hang out" with people who share like
interests, opinions, etc...Not ones who are there because they were
compelled by some legal mandate or recruiting quota to be
there...Color, gender, religious preference are inconsequential in
those contexts...To me, anyway.

The Constitution and it's Ammendments make it illegal to
"discriminate" against any person based on the aforementioned
criteria. There are precious few circumstances in which any subset of
our society may be admitted or excluded based soley upon gender,
ethnicity, etc, and those are carefully delineated by law.

After that, it should be up to the individual to decide s/he
wants to do with their life, including persuing licensure in Amateur
Radio.

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:08:50 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

One of the many reasons that I took early retirement when it was offered.

I observe a lot, and one observation is that early retirement is seldom
a bad thing! A few less dollars per month, but so what?

At least for me, it's an exercise in living on about 1/3 of my
former salary -- in the Federal system with 30 years' service, basic
retirement adjusted for survivors' benefits is 50% of salary (it's
not a "gift" or "welfare" - we were required to pay into that with
after-tax money) and my ex gets 1/3 of that.....life and medical
insurance premiums, however, are not reduced from what they were
when I was on "active duty" and Social Security (I am fully
qualified from 15 years' private sector employment before and after
my Federal employment) is only about 20% of what I would have
received were I not receiving a Federal pension.

Don't get old..... ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Phil Kane wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:34:10 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

There is an ongoing effort to recruit underrepresented groups to the
engineering fields. There are very few female engineers and few that are
in college. This despite lots of effort to recruit. There has been some
limited success in recruiting people of African descent.

The pendulum must be swinging backwards. When I was in engineering
school 50 years ago we were lucky to have one female student and
one student "of color" in a class of 100. From my observations at
the school from which I graduated (one of the top three in the US),
twenty years ago the female students outnumbered the male students
and a majority of the students today are from groups which were/are
considered minorities, largely Asian and other peoples "of color".

Interesting! I've been at a prominent university for just about 27
years now, and I have never seen any case where the females outnumbered
the men in engineering classes, even though the university population is
over 50 percent female.

From what I've seen in schools and in the workplace, the number of
non-white-males in engineering is definitely on the increase. But it's
still got a way to go before the ethnic/gender background of the
engineering fields matches that of the general population.

Certainly at UCLA, they have a different situation:

http://www.joannejacobs.com/mtarchives/014477.html

When we have the Bring your daughters (and sons) to work day, for the
last few years, none of the young ladies wanted to be engineers. Most
wanted to be lawyers.

Any ideas why?

I have often thought that the engineering "lifestyle" has been one of
the worst advertisements for the profession.

Become an engineer, and you get to:

Work long and uncompensated hours

be looked at as a major oddball by a large segment of the community. I
wish I had compiled a list of all the engineer disses I've heard over
the years.

And if you are successful as an engineer, you get to choose one of two
paths. Choose to enter management, and essentially stop being an engineer.

or

Continue to be an engineer, and continue to be a subordinate.

Guess who makes more money?

Years ago, I needed to make the choice between becoming an engineer, or
becoming an artist (who also had technical duties) Guess what won out?

All valid points. Here are some mo

- In engineering, there's a good chance your particular field may
undergo radical changes in employment levels.

- Getting an engineering degree not only requires taking lots of math
and science courses, but also pretty much requires that you have a
good background in those courses from high school.

- The reward system is unbalanced in ways beyond pay compensation. For
example:

Example 1: Suppose an engineer set out to design, say, a system to
turn sewage and garbage into fuel, and do it practically, profitably
and cleanly. Suppose s/he succeeded, and the result solved two
problems at once. And suppose said engineer got patents to protect the
rights to the process.

Those patents would only be good for a limited time (14 or 20 years,
depending on the type of patent) and once they were gone, anyone could
use the process. Improvements to the process could make money for
other people, too. So the engineer had better make his/her money
quick. But the only way to make money from the process is to build
actual functioning recovery systems, or sell/lease the right to do so.

Suppose a writer wrote a book about an engineer set out to design a
system to turn sewage and garbage into fuel, and do it practically,
profitably and cleanly. And suppose said writer copyrighted the book,
and the book was a success.

The copyrights would be good for as long as the writer bothered to
renew them, and the writer's estate could continue to renew them for a
considerable time after the writer died. Rights to a movie version, TV
series, and other media not yet even invented would belong to the
writer unless sold or leased. The writer could make money for a much
longer time than the engineer.

The engineer's process would actually have to work. The writer's book
could be pure fantasy.


Example 2: How many TV shows, movies, books, and other media do you
see today or in the past 40-odd years that are about the law and law
enforcement, or medical care? How many about any sort of engineering
or technical jobs?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Become an engineer, and you get to:

Work long and uncompensated hours

be looked at as a major oddball by a large segment of the community. I
wish I had compiled a list of all the engineer disses I've heard over
the years.

And if you are successful as an engineer, you get to choose one of two
paths. Choose to enter management, and essentially stop being an engineer.

or

Continue to be an engineer, and continue to be a subordinate.

Guess who makes more money?

Years ago, I needed to make the choice between becoming an engineer, or
becoming an artist (who also had technical duties) Guess what won out?

Then again, you could have the skills to live like this guy:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/cus...la-news-fringe


73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


- The reward system is unbalanced in ways beyond pay compensation.
For example:


How many TV shows, movies, books, and other media do you
see today or in the past 40-odd years that are about the law and
law enforcement, or medical care? How many about any sort
of engineering or technical jobs?

TV shows, movies, books about your vocation are part of your "reward
system"? Wow! Next compensation cycle I'm going to put my engineers
pictures on TV rather than give them a pay raise. I'm sure they'll be
thrilled!

I bet you're damned glad you're not a farmer, a well driller, a plumber,
a purchasing agent, a mail carrier, a diesel mechanic, or a grocery
store manager! They don't get on TV very much either!

TV shows, movies, and books are written to entertain mass audiences, not
to be a "reward system" component.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

[snip]
When we have the Bring your daughters (and sons) to work day, for the
last few years, none of the young ladies wanted to be engineers. Most
wanted to be lawyers.

Any ideas why?

Yes, law is much more glamourous than engineering. Even though few
engineers these days "get their hands dirty," this field of endeavor still
has an image of not being an office job even though that is false as far as
actual practice goes.

[snip]
Continue to be an engineer, and continue to be a subordinate.

Guess who makes more money?

Years ago, I needed to make the choice between becoming an engineer, or
becoming an artist (who also had technical duties) Guess what won out?

All valid points. Here are some mo

- In engineering, there's a good chance your particular field may
undergo radical changes in employment levels.


That is certainly true. Fields like law are viewed as being more stable.
While I've always managed to stay in engineering, I've worked in the
aerospace, nuclear, and automotive fields.

- Getting an engineering degree not only requires taking lots of math
and science courses, but also pretty much requires that you have a
good background in those courses from high school.

- The reward system is unbalanced in ways beyond pay compensation. For
example:

Example 1: Suppose an engineer set out to design, say, a system to
turn sewage and garbage into fuel, and do it practically, profitably
and cleanly. Suppose s/he succeeded, and the result solved two
problems at once. And suppose said engineer got patents to protect the
rights to the process.

Those patents would only be good for a limited time (14 or 20 years,
depending on the type of patent) and once they were gone, anyone could
use the process. Improvements to the process could make money for
other people, too. So the engineer had better make his/her money
quick. But the only way to make money from the process is to build
actual functioning recovery systems, or sell/lease the right to do so.


Odds are the engineer will only get his normal salary plus a one time bonus.
In general, it takes time and facilities to develop something and this means
working for a company. In most cases, you have to sign the patent rights
over to them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" ) writes:
"N2EY" wrote


- The reward system is unbalanced in ways beyond pay compensation.
For example:


How many TV shows, movies, books, and other media do you
see today or in the past 40-odd years that are about the law and
law enforcement, or medical care? How many about any sort
of engineering or technical jobs?

TV shows, movies, books about your vocation are part of your "reward
system"? Wow! Next compensation cycle I'm going to put my engineers
pictures on TV rather than give them a pay raise. I'm sure they'll be
thrilled!

I bet you're damned glad you're not a farmer, a well driller, a plumber,
a purchasing agent, a mail carrier, a diesel mechanic, or a grocery
store manager! They don't get on TV very much either!

TV shows, movies, and books are written to entertain mass audiences, not
to be a "reward system" component.

73, de Hans, K0HB


I thought he was talking about enticing kids into professions. If you
see crime scene investigators on tv, and most portrayals will show
them as "cool", then that will make kids say "when I grow up, I want to be
a ...". It's advertising, not reward.

There's that story of Mae Jamieson, the astronaut, who says she decided
to become one, maybe even realized she could become one, from watching
Star Trek as a kid, and seeing "Lt. Uhura"; a woman, and black. If there
had been only men, only white, on TV, she might not have seen that she
could become that.

This whole thing is similar to amateur radio. If it's not out there
in the public eye, then few will find their way to the hobby. Reading
about Field Day, or anything else, isn't a reward for being a ham, but
an attempt to portray the hobby to outsiders, and hopefully in a good
light.

Michael VE2BVW

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

- The reward system is unbalanced in ways beyond pay compensation.
For example:

How many TV shows, movies, books, and other media do you
see today or in the past 40-odd years that are about the law and
law enforcement, or medical care? How many about any sort
of engineering or technical jobs?

TV shows, movies, books about your vocation are part of your "reward
system"? Wow! Next compensation cycle I'm going to put my engineers
pictures on TV rather than give them a pay raise. I'm sure they'll be
thrilled!

I bet you're damned glad you're not a farmer, a well driller, a plumber,
a purchasing agent, a mail carrier, a diesel mechanic, or a grocery
store manager! They don't get on TV very much either!

TV shows, movies, and books are written to entertain mass audiences, not
to be a "reward system" component.

Heh. Depends on the individual "reward system" at work within the
various imaginations of the the amateurs. :-)

One example: The "fight" to maintain old, antiquated entranace
standards is somehow morphed into some kind of "service of the
country" by "maintaining a pool of trained radio operators." Nice
patriotic thought but a bit late...it came about in the 1920s, in
between the Big Wars. Rather outdated as of 40 years ago.

Out in my neck of the woods is the Entertainment Capital of the
USA. Unofficial "capital" but it generates an enormous capitol of
providing dreams and wish-fulfillment gratification for millions in
the form of emotional entertainment, recreation. Showbiz is about
entertainment For Profit To The Entertainers. [nasty old
"professionalism" in accepting "filthy lucre" for presenting fantasy]
Showbiz folk don't rationalize much about their quest for making all
that money...except maybe on all those think pieces found as
"interviews" in print and on TV...which, after some rather easy
inspection-observation, turns out to be Plants of the PR system to
get a Showbiz person into the Public Mind.

What we've got in this venue is some wannabe Leaders in another
fantasyland of dreams of glory ("service to the country" for enjoying
a hobby or acting like the Boss NCO of a corps) which include the
re-enactment of radio's early days. Those "early days" took place
well before the life experiences of any of the regulars in here but
they press on, making such re-enacts "moral" "legal" and
"purposeful," all according to the tenets of the Church of St. Hiram.
Amen cue heavenly chorus in BG.

Oddly enough, observation of ANY of the amateur radio publications
of the last half century WILL turn up the vast majority being White
Males involved in the hobby of amateur radio. Myself, among the
very many observers, think of them as the Kode Klux Klan. Their
Belief System is manifest, sturdily installed in beeping craniums,
never to be changed.

The "reward system" lies in Believing as the PCTA do...its own
"reward" because they establish the "reward standards."

So...where are all the non-whites in those ham photographs?

Is it a case of "only white men can code?" :-)

"There's no business like code business, like no business I know..."

cue crawl, up closing theme, roll credits...