| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#9
May 30th 05, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
