Are all girl FIRST team counterproductive to the philosophy of FIRST?

[Rich Kressly]

I like this discussion ... a lot.

- Regardless of the OP question which I think is tough to answer at all, I like Patrick's amended question and I like the broader discussion even more.

-Karthik's "Rock Star" strain here is a good one. There are examples of female FIRST alums and what they are doing who are being promoted - I saw one speak at the Robotics Ed Caucus lunch briefing I attended fall 2009 and another I worked with personally who has been featured in FIRST marketing, etc. However, I'm unsure of the total numbers (probably small), and the numbers of female grads actually mentoring and working with teams. I'd venture a guess that, since STEM fields have been historically "male dominated" that finding the career female engineer/scientist who isn't a FIRST alum to hold up as an example would be somewhat harder than finding the younger female engineer/scientist who is a FIRST alum. It would seem obvious, however, that we need more female engineer/scientist guest speakers at events and more female engineer/scientist working with teams (in lead roles). I do believe there have been positive strides in this direction during my 10 years in FIRST, but it will certainly take a long while to move a culture away from the "male dominance" (both real and perceived) over time.

-Now, the discussion of "how" best to "grow" more females toward STEM (and still maintain one's soul, integrity, insert any other such parameter here) becomes the part of this discussion that was originally called for. In general, there is some educational value, supported by research, that "clustering" works. There are schools that have intentionally placed all females together in math and science classes and have seen interest and test scored rise as compared to a control group over time. However, the difference here is that every other student in that same school still has access to math and science. In some cases discussed here, an exclusively female FRC team COULD (notice I said "could") exclude certain populations of students from the opportunity based on gender. It's this scenario that makes me, personally most uncomfortable. Now an all-girls school FRC team with all girls? That's a no-brainer. However, I would have serious philosophical reservations about denying access to an FRC team SOLELY based on gender. In an effort to give more girls a chance (noble, indeed), you'd potentially be shutting out the next great male astronaut (ouch). Does a sponsor/donor still have the right to donate based on certain exclusionary desires? You bet. Do I have the right to choose whether or not I'd like to be associated with that? You bet.

Carry on..great discussion here ...

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

-Now, the discussion of "how" best to "grow" more females toward STEM (and still maintain one's soul, integrity, insert any other such parameter here) becomes the part of this discussion that was originally called for.

This is the key topic that should be discussed in this thread. Every team has their own reasons for running a team the way they do. Jane mentioned several dozen posts back that its not uncommon for college students to change their majors as they progress through their education. When referring to females in engineering/science I would hope they are choosing to do this based on a genuine change of heart and not because they feel they will not be able to succeed in a mainly male driven environment.

This got me thinking about all girls teams and how they may or may not deal with this feeling. Certainly an all girls team will give females a better chance to get more involved in the program. What they won't provide is the window into the way the world really is. Now, I'm not sure if at a high school age this is a good thing or a bad thing, and I certainly don't agree with the world being that way, but change will not happen overnight. This is something a female pursuing a STEM field will have to endure.

To me, it would seem a girl who spent 4 years on an all girls FRC team vs a girl who spent 4 years on a co-ed FRC team would come out with different experiences, this is for certain. However, if the environment is established by the team and mentors to allow girls to succeed in a co-ed environment than I would argue the girl on the co-ed team had the better experience (this is all very hypothetical of course). More than likely this girl would have experienced the hardships many of the female mentors and engineers have spoken about in this thread. When this girl gets to college or becomes an intern or even gets a real job, she may have already had to overcome some gender barriers in her career. Maybe this life experience that has been instilled in her will truly make her stick in STEM.

Just some food for thought..

-Brando

[martin417]

I have mixed feelings about exclusivity. On the one hand, the prime directive of FIRST is to inspire kids. ALL kids, not just a select group. I personally welcome any kid, male, female, any race or nationality, from any school (or home school). I know of teams in the area that will not allow a kid to participate unless he is a student at that school. I even know of a team that requires a student to be a junior or senior to participate. I do not agree with these policies, or any similar policies, but the team leaders have the right to make the rules.

What I have the most issues with is the double standard. It is OK to make an all girls team, or an all African American team, but not OK to make and all boys team or an all Caucasian team. Not that I would agree with either of those policies either. I just don't like double standards.

In college, I remember meetings posted for SWE (Society of Women Engineers) and NSBE (National Society of Black Engineers). At the risk of igniting a firestorm, I would bet that if anyone tried to start the NSCCME (National Society of Conservative Caucasian Male Engineers, that the world would fall upon them and vilify the person responsible.