Hi, Ron Vanderhule of OAS here. I am doing a survey of the local astro clubs in regards to their membership over the last ten years. Primarily in conjunction with their out reach efforts. OAS has been maintaining the same pace of public and school star parties ever since I joined the club 18 years ago. When I was first president in '99 and '00 we had peak membership of 63. We have since dwindled to about 35 or so. Initially I assumed it was a problem germaine to our club but an article in Astronomy last year, and a few other sources, seem to indicate the problem is with peoples attitude toward science nowdays. Actually our culture as a whole has changed so much in the last 10 to 15 years. Anyway, feel free to express your thoughts and theories in regards to this. Ron Vanderhule
It seems SLAS has hovered around 200 + or - 10, for the last decade. It does seem like a dozen or so would join for one year only. The list of people who have ever joined SLAS is at least twice the current membership. I would think public star parties do more for attracting new members than school star parties. Perhaps OAS could hold public events at more places, assuming you only hold them at a few locations. SLAS holds them at about a dozen sites.
Personally, I think the anti-science voice is a loud minority. Erik
Hi, Ron Vanderhule of OAS here. I am doing a survey of the local astro clubs in regards to their membership over the last ten years. Primarily in conjunction with their out reach efforts. OAS has been maintaining the same pace of public and school star parties ever since I joined the club 18 years ago. When I was first president in '99 and '00 we had peak membership of 63. We have since dwindled to about 35 or so. Initially I assumed it was a problem germaine to our club but an article in Astronomy last year, and a few other sources, seem to indicate the problem is with peoples attitude toward science nowdays. Actually our culture as a whole has changed so much in the last 10 to 15 years. Anyway, feel free to express your thoughts and theories in regards to this.
Ron Vanderhule
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
Thanks in large part to the efforts of SLAS Historian Ann Blanchard (who ever so politely kicked me in the rear to get the data organized) we have a pretty good record of SLAS's membership numbers. Check out page 68 of the SLAS History document at: http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/slas/SLASPAST.PDF That runs up through 01 January of this year (2011). Provided SLAS does not pick up any new members between now and midnight we'll start 2012 with 225. Going back to the founding of SLAS we've had 1,795 members most of which, as Erik mentioned, were only members for 1 year. patrick On 31 Dec 2011, at 11:08, erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net wrote:
It seems SLAS has hovered around 200 + or - 10, for the last decade. It does seem like a dozen or so would join for one year only. The list of people who have ever joined SLAS is at least twice the current membership. I would think public star parties do more for attracting new members than school star parties. Perhaps OAS could hold public events at more places, assuming you only hold them at a few locations. SLAS holds them at about a dozen sites.
Personally, I think the anti-science voice is a loud minority.
Erik
Hi, Ron Vanderhule of OAS here. I am doing a survey of the local astro clubs in regards to their membership over the last ten years. Primarily in conjunction with their out reach efforts. OAS has been maintaining the same pace of public and school star parties ever since I joined the club 18 years ago. When I was first president in '99 and '00 we had peak membership of 63. We have since dwindled to about 35 or so. Initially I assumed it was a problem germaine to our club but an article in Astronomy last year, and a few other sources, seem to indicate the problem is with peoples attitude toward science nowdays. Actually our culture as a whole has changed so much in the last 10 to 15 years. Anyway, feel free to express your thoughts and theories in regards to this.
Ron Vanderhule
Club presidents and outreach committee chairs, don't kick yourselves in the butt too much. Most people who explore a new hobby drop it quickly when it becomes apparent that a little bit of effort is required. Just this morning on KSL's "Greenhouse Show", Larry Sagers lamented that most people who attend USU's greenhouse class drop-out quickly when they learn that there is work involved. I wouldn't be too quick to blame the fundamentalist anti-science crowd. It goes deeper than that, to the roots of human laziness. With television and the Internet as alternatives, interests that require people to get off their butts will always come in a distant second or third.
The statistics for SLAS are squewed because some "members" are not actually paying dues. The board used to pass out "free membership for life" but the practice was discontinued a few years back as "undemocratic". How many of these members are still active or even alive?. Also the internet has made membership in a local club rather redundant. If you're willing to forgo "face time" you can belong to any number of groups that have a strong focused interest in any or all aspects of astronomy. From CloudyNights to Yahoo discussion groups the list is endless. Why settle for Patrick Wiggins in person when you can talk to Brian Skiff or Sue French by email? Likewise the membership of this discussion list could contain a large number of dead email addresses. People just turn off their email delivery but remain on the rolls. Others abandon their email acount and move on to a new one. Others just set their spam filters to autodelete any mail from the list. The numbers game has it's problems DT ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Cc: Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] club growth Thanks in large part to the efforts of SLAS Historian Ann Blanchard (who ever so politely kicked me in the rear to get the data organized) we have a pretty good record of SLAS's membership numbers. Check out page 68 of the SLAS History document at: http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/slas/SLASPAST.PDF That runs up through 01 January of this year (2011). Provided SLAS does not pick up any new members between now and midnight we'll start 2012 with 225. Going back to the founding of SLAS we've had 1,795 members most of which, as Erik mentioned, were only members for 1 year. patrick On 31 Dec 2011, at 11:08, erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net wrote:
It seems SLAS has hovered around 200 + or - 10, for the last decade. It does seem like a dozen or so would join for one year only. The list of people who have ever joined SLAS is at least twice the current membership. I would think public star parties do more for attracting new members than school star parties. Perhaps OAS could hold public events at more places, assuming you only hold them at a few locations. SLAS holds them at about a dozen sites.
Personally, I think the anti-science voice is a loud minority.
Erik
Hi, Ron Vanderhule of OAS here. I am doing a survey of the local astro clubs in regards to their membership over the last ten years. Primarily in conjunction with their out reach efforts. OAS has been maintaining the same pace of public and school star parties ever since I joined the club 18 years ago. When I was first president in '99 and '00 we had peak membership of 63. We have since dwindled to about 35 or so. Initially I assumed it was a problem germaine to our club but an article in Astronomy last year, and a few other sources, seem to indicate the problem is with peoples attitude toward science nowdays. Actually our culture as a whole has changed so much in the last 10 to 15 years. Anyway, feel free to express your thoughts and theories in regards to this.
Ron Vanderhule
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
On 12/31/11, daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> wrote:
The statistics for SLAS are squewed because some "members" are not actually paying dues. The board used to pass out "free membership for life" but the practice was discontinued a few years back as "undemocratic". How many of these members are still active or even alive?.
I would guess less than a handful. Not statistically relevant.
There are only 3 lifetime or honorary members and are really not even members. No voting rights or the other benefits of members.
The statistics for SLAS are squewed because some "members" are not
actually paying dues. The board used to pass out "free membership for life" but the practice was discontinued a few years back as "undemocratic". How many of these members are still active or even alive?. Also the internet has made membership in a local club rather redundant. If you're willing to forgo "face time" you can belong to any number of groups that have a strong focused interest in any or all aspects of astronomy. From CloudyNights to Yahoo discussion groups the list is endless. Why settle for Patrick Wiggins in person when you can talk to Brian Skiff or Sue French by email? Likewise the membership of this discussion list could contain a large number of dead email addresses. People just turn off their email delivery but remain on the rolls. Others abandon their email acount and move on to a new one. Others just set their spam filters to autodelete any mail from the list. The numbers game has it's problems DT
----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Cc: Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] club growth
Thanks in large part to the efforts of SLAS Historian Ann Blanchard (who ever so politely kicked me in the rear to get the data organized) we have a pretty good record of SLAS's membership numbers.
Check out page 68 of the SLAS History document at: http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/slas/SLASPAST.PDF
That runs up through 01 January of this year (2011). Provided SLAS does not pick up any new members between now and midnight we'll start 2012 with 225.
Going back to the founding of SLAS we've had 1,795 members most of which, as Erik mentioned, were only members for 1 year.
patrick
On 31 Dec 2011, at 11:08, erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net wrote:
It seems SLAS has hovered around 200 + or - 10, for the last decade. It does seem like a dozen or so would join for one year only. The list of people who have ever joined SLAS is at least twice the current membership. I would think public star parties do more for attracting new members than school star parties. Perhaps OAS could hold public events at more places, assuming you only hold them at a few locations. SLAS holds them at about a dozen sites.
Personally, I think the anti-science voice is a loud minority.
Erik
Hi, Ron Vanderhule of OAS here. I am doing a survey of the local astro clubs in regards to their membership over the last ten years. Primarily in conjunction with their out reach efforts. OAS has been maintaining the same pace of public and school star parties ever since I joined the club 18 years ago. When I was first president in '99 and '00 we had peak membership of 63. We have since dwindled to about 35 or so. Initially I assumed it was a problem germaine to our club but an article in Astronomy last year, and a few other sources, seem to indicate the problem is with peoples attitude toward science nowdays. Actually our culture as a whole has changed so much in the last 10 to 15 years. Anyway, feel free to express your thoughts and theories in regards to this.
Ron Vanderhule
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
Rude statement, "Why settle for Patrick Wiggins.... " I'm not settling for Patrick; I'd rather talk to him than either of the others. What makes Brian Skiff or Sue French particularly knowledgeable about running an observatory in Utah? Should we ask them what days the sprinklers go on at SPOC? The position you take is the same as saying, I have no need for friends when I can watch TV. If you don't enjoy being part of a local group, why belong to SLAS or respond to a UtahAstronomy comment? Why not just send email to Sue French instead? -- Joe ________________________________ From: daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] club growth The statistics for SLAS are squewed because some "members" are not actually paying dues. The board used to pass out "free membership for life" but the practice was discontinued a few years back as "undemocratic". How many of these members are still active or even alive?. Also the internet has made membership in a local club rather redundant. If you're willing to forgo "face time" you can belong to any number of groups that have a strong focused interest in any or all aspects of astronomy. From CloudyNights to Yahoo discussion groups the list is endless. Why settle for Patrick Wiggins in person when you can talk to Brian Skiff or Sue French by email? Likewise the membership of this discussion list could contain a large number of dead email addresses. People just turn off their email delivery but remain on the rolls. Others abandon their email acount and move on to a new one. Others just set their spam filters to autodelete any mail from the list. The numbers game has it's problems DT ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Cc: Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] club growth Thanks in large part to the efforts of SLAS Historian Ann Blanchard (who ever so politely kicked me in the rear to get the data organized) we have a pretty good record of SLAS's membership numbers. Check out page 68 of the SLAS History document at: http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/slas/SLASPAST.PDF That runs up through 01 January of this year (2011). Provided SLAS does not pick up any new members between now and midnight we'll start 2012 with 225. Going back to the founding of SLAS we've had 1,795 members most of which, as Erik mentioned, were only members for 1 year. patrick On 31 Dec 2011, at 11:08, erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net wrote:
It seems SLAS has hovered around 200 + or - 10, for the last decade. It does seem like a dozen or so would join for one year only. The list of people who have ever joined SLAS is at least twice the current membership. I would think public star parties do more for attracting new members than school star parties. Perhaps OAS could hold public events at more places, assuming you only hold them at a few locations. SLAS holds them at about a dozen sites.
Personally, I think the anti-science voice is a loud minority.
Erik
Hi, Ron Vanderhule of OAS here. I am doing a survey of the local astro clubs in regards to their membership over the last ten years. Primarily in conjunction with their out reach efforts. OAS has been maintaining the same pace of public and school star parties ever since I joined the club 18 years ago. When I was first president in '99 and '00 we had peak membership of 63. We have since dwindled to about 35 or so. Initially I assumed it was a problem germaine to our club but an article in Astronomy last year, and a few other sources, seem to indicate the problem is with peoples attitude toward science nowdays. Actually our culture as a whole has changed so much in the last 10 to 15 years. Anyway, feel free to express your thoughts and theories in regards to this.
Ron Vanderhule
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
Nah, that's just Daniel's way of kidding. But now that I think about it I'd take Sue French over me any day. :) BTW, regarding the lifetime member question. If we want to get really technical there are 6 who qualify. The first was Dr. Mark Littmann who was given the honor in the early 70s. The other 5 were those who donated $10,000 or more to SPOC. I and another still very active member turned it down and continue to pay our dues and SPOC fees every year. The other three (very much alive) are not amateur astronomers, rather they were just doing something nice for the community. They are kept on the membership roster and continue to receive the newsletter but other than that have no active connection with SLAS anymore. Harmons, of course, remains SLAS's biggest donor but as far as I know no one ever suggested making a company a member. patrick (picker of nits) On 31 Dec 2011, at 18:02, Joe Bauman wrote:
Rude statement, "Why settle for Patrick Wiggins.... " I'm not settling for Patrick; I'd rather talk to him than either of the others. What makes Brian Skiff or Sue French particularly knowledgeable about running an observatory in Utah? Should we ask them what days the sprinklers go on at SPOC? The position you take is the same as saying, I have no need for friends when I can watch TV. If you don't enjoy being part of a local group, why belong to SLAS or respond to a UtahAstronomy comment? Why not just send email to Sue French instead? -- Joe
On 12/31/11, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rude statement, "Why settle for Patrick Wiggins.... " I'm not settling for Patrick; I'd rather talk to him than either of the others. What makes Brian Skiff or Sue French particularly knowledgeable about running an observatory in Utah? Should we ask them what days the sprinklers go on at SPOC? The position you take is the same as saying, I have no need for friends when I can watch TV. If you don't enjoy being part of a local group, why belong to SLAS or respond to a UtahAstronomy comment? Why not just send email to Sue French instead? -- Joe
Hear, hear! Well said, Joe. Further, I would be willing to bet that Patrick has more time under the stars than the celebrated Ms. French, over the course of their astronomy "careers".
participants (6)
-
Chuck Hards -
daniel turner -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net -
Joe Bauman -
Patrick Wiggins -
RON VANDERHULE