Re: The aging of the amateur
From: Tom Polakis (polakisgroups_at_cox.net)
Date: 11/06/04
- Next message: Mark Pippin: "Observing Report - Venus and Jupiter at Midday"
- Previous message: Sky-High: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- In reply to: RichA: "The aging of the amateur"
- Next in thread: Bob Schmall: "Re: The aging of the amateur"
- Reply: Bob Schmall: "Re: The aging of the amateur"
- Reply: Jan Owen: "Re: The aging of the amateur"
- Reply: Martin Brown: "Re: The aging of the amateur"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:34:53 -0700
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:26:44 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
> This is something I can't quite pin down.
> A few years ago, I noticed that amateurs seemed
> to be older than they were 20 years ago, on average...
They are. take a look at the story that begins on p. 82 of the September
2000 S&T. Between 1979 and 1998 the U.S. median age went from 30 to 32
years while the S&T subscriber median age went from 35 to 48. The story
offers plausible explanations. I think it has everything to do with
proximity to a dark sky, and countless other urban and suburban
distractions offered to Generation X-and Y-ers.
Tom
- Next message: Mark Pippin: "Observing Report - Venus and Jupiter at Midday"
- Previous message: Sky-High: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- In reply to: RichA: "The aging of the amateur"
- Next in thread: Bob Schmall: "Re: The aging of the amateur"
- Reply: Bob Schmall: "Re: The aging of the amateur"
- Reply: Jan Owen: "Re: The aging of the amateur"
- Reply: Martin Brown: "Re: The aging of the amateur"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]