Let's bring up what might be a sore subject.
A number of studies
http://advances.asee.org/wp-content/...ssue02-p11.pdf show through qualitative survey and observation that girls demonstrate more consistently positive attitudes toward science and technology when applications demonstrate the social value of the field - the fight against disease, geriatric care, managing natural disasters, or modifying the food we eat. The reasoning is consistently used to discuss the rising numbers of women in biology, environmental science, and even biomedical engineering as opposed to the stagnantly low numbers in physics, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, etc. More recently, we are seeing computer science join the former category.
The example sees girls demonstrate more confidence and more positive attitudes than boys and even draws upon a handful of quantitative measures through which a sample of girls outperform boys.
The examples I chose might sound familiar - these are recent FLL challenges. We lose most girls after FLL. Coincidentally, our structure also changes dramatically in the move from FLL to FTC/FRC, from one in which research into and presentation of "real-world problems" take center-stage alongside the robot, to one in which we pull our hair out over robot performance. (Yes, I know the actual chronology of the programs' creation)
Could this shift be a contributing factor for our struggle keeping girls on our teams? Can we isolate the issue as the prominence of the robot game or the lack of "social change-motivated projects"?
There are a handful of teams that I know have used engineering to address social change and to build beneficial products for their communities in the off-season. I would love to hear from representatives from these teams (842 and the DREAM Act Campaign, 2158 and the knee brace project, 1712 and the mobile inspiration project). Do you have more success keeping the women on your team over teams that place more focus on robot iteration and the robot game?