Quote:
Originally Posted by sammyjalex
Let's bring up what might be a sore subject.
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"?
|
I think FRC has the right focus on using "team sports" as the proper framework to attract the broader audience. FLL is more like a "game"; a "sport" generates more enthusiasm, and FRC is intended to use that enthusiasm to generate more STEM students.
Participation in girls sports has grown dramatically since the 1970s, to where they are almost equal with boys. One of the most interesting aspects is that girls participation is highest in two sports where the boys and girls train together in the same season track & field and cross country. (Almost all other sports have distinct girls and boys seasons.) So these sports show that girls can be attracted in droves to highly competitive activities.
I think the problem is not the structure of the organization but rather a tendency for who is on these teams now and how that affects the culture of the teams. Making the culture comfortable for girls will make them more happy to join.