[FRC Blog] Something New - SWE Grant

[snoman]

one of the reasons I believe they chose lead driver as requirement is that it can be verified at competition. anything else is hard to verify. 50 50 on a team roster isn't just having a token girl. one of our teams applied we have a 100% girl team as well as the boys team. we did have to provide our strategy for diversity. I will give an update November 21st that's when they will be letting you know if you receive the grant.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

Man, that gender equality. What a bummer. I can't believe they actually want to support teams that encourage hands-on STEM exposure to females. It's not like research shows that its the most effective at getting girls into STEM.

I don't think anyone is saying its wrong to work harder to reach girls considering I will work a little harder to make sure the girls in the group are getting engaged but that doesn't mean I'm going to give them a position they don't deserve because of their gender.

Yes, encourage and reward teams for getting females hands on in robotics in active, meaningful ways but don't do so in ways that eliminate those meaningful teams or celebrate bad actions. We should celebrate the teams who are actively working to create female leaders among their team regardless of their position on the team and overall team size.

I am also all for groups using their money as they wish but this was not done without some oversight/advice from FIRST. I'm a little disappointed with how this was implemented.

[snoman]

what we did is we give presentations to and questioned all females in the high school almost 40% of them showed some interest if there was an all-girls team. this is also a high school of 200 total students in grades 9 through 12

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

edit: Why driver and not captain? Not all teams assign a captain (ie 148), but all teams have to assign a driver.

If I was going to phrase that, I would use "high-visibility position".

I would then define that "high-visibility position" to include the drive team, the team captain(s), the team representative for alliance selections, and possibly Chairman's presenter/outreach lead. I would NOT include head scout, business team, or other similar roles, because they work in the background for the most part. Any one female in any one high-visibility position would work (at least, the way I see it).

Just assuming that the drivers are the most visible isn't necessarily the case-I would say that unless the drivers are actually getting camera time and that feed is actually displayed, the team representative for selections might actually get more if they make it to the field.

[Chris is me]

Think about it this way.

Sponsorships and grants make it easier for teams to compete. That's what they exist for. People try to get them in order to lower their burden of entry.

If the SWE wants to make it easier for a subset of teams to compete, it seems completely reasonable that the subset of teams they want to help are the ones that are demonstrating that they actively engage many women. If it's a bar you can't or won't meet, the grant isn't for you.

Think less as the grant trying to force an 80/20 team to become a 50/50 team and more a reward for those teams that are doing well with gender equality. It's not perfect; I think the terms and conditions have some problems, but we don't need to act like the sky is falling because one grant of thousands isn't for us.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

What if your recruitment is inherently off-putting for people of a certain type (race, gender, religion, etc)? Why would it be bad for a team to look at themselves and explore why they are not diverse? Lets say a high school is 60% female (not unlikely) and a robotics team is 80% male (also not unlikely). Why is it absurd that the diversity of a team reflect the diversity of the school/community that the team pulls from?

I don't disagree. I think that everyone should take an objective look at their practices and employ them fairly, not tailor them to gain a specific demographic. I think the most we should do is not put anyone of then make sure the message is spread as widely as possible. Theoretically even if a team was perfectly fair with team roles and recruitment exsternal factors (parents, peer pressure, media, etc.) can offten (not always) prevent it from evenly representing the community it is in.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Arpan

During the Summer of 2013, I worked at NASA's goddard spaceflight center as an intern. One engineering intern I knew had been contacted for her role specifically because of her gender to keep her project in a 50/50 split. Knowing this made her feel like an impostor in her field- she was just as qualified as the men, but knowing that she had been picked for her gender made her feel otherwise.

If NASA (or any other organization) believes that the "team" they are creating will be the better for having a more diverse membership, aren't they justified in hiring anyone who adds to the diversity of the team?

If you disagree with the idea that more diversity does not create better teams, that is fine, many don't. However, if you accept that some organizing bodies believe this, then their implementations make perfect sense.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Think about it this way.

Sponsorships and grants make it easier for teams to compete. That's what they exist for. People try to get them in order to lower their burden of entry.

If the SWE wants to make it easier for a subset of teams to compete, it seems completely reasonable that the subset of teams they want to help are the ones that are demonstrating that they actively engage many women. If it's a bar you can't or won't meet, the grant isn't for you.

Think less as the grant trying to force an 80/20 team to become a 50/50 team and more a reward for those teams that are doing well with gender equality. It's not perfect; I think the terms and conditions have some problems, but we don't need to act like the sky is falling because one grant of thousands isn't for us.

My complaint was more along the lines of they could modify their terms somewhat, and achieve what I assume to be their goals for more teams. Granted, my assumptions may be incorrect (that their goals is to have a net increase in female involvement).

For those that are complaining that this isn't morally right, or that jobs should be chosen independent of gender (I agree with that point, I'm sure everyone does)... This is a special interest group that is well within their rights to alocate money how they choose. It's not like NASA passing money out along these lines. I think they could modify their rules somewhat to get better results, but I don't think they should move away from rewarding teams for promoting female involvement.

I don't see how anyone can be bothered by an organization called "Society of Women Engineers" choosing to support females... in engineering.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by inkling16

If NASA (or any other organization) believes that the "team" they are creating will be the better for having a more diverse membership, aren't they justified in hiring anyone who adds to the diversity of the team?

If you disagree with the idea that more diversity does not create better teams, that is fine, many don't. However, if you accept that some organizing bodies believe this, then their implementations make perfect sense.

Let me put it this way:

You are competent for job X. You are hired for job X. But, if you KNOW that you were hired for job X because you were the nationality you are (and the workplace that has job X specifically needed more of your nationality), and NOT necessarily because you are the most qualified candidate for job X, is that a compliment or an insult? And, regardless of which it is, who is it directed at?




Do not take this to mean that I disagree with the idea that more diversity creates better teams. On the contrary, I agree with that idea. I choose to disagree with the point of view that forcing diversity on the teams (or other organizations) is a good thing in all cases. I could go into some cases in point, but that goes into at least one of the two areas not discussed in polite company. Suffice it to say that I like the Rooney Rule--you HAVE to consider at least one "person of different characteristics" for any open position above a certain level, but hiring them is not required. Once their foot is in the door, it's up to them to apply the leverage to finish opening it.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by inkling16

If NASA (or any other organization) believes that the "team" they are creating will be the better for having a more diverse membership, aren't they justified in hiring anyone who adds to the diversity of the team?

If you disagree with the idea that more diversity does not create better teams, that is fine, many don't. However, if you accept that some organizing bodies believe this, then their implementations make perfect sense.

That is a very good and noble reason for promoting diversity in a group. I think, however, you will find that that altruistic motivation is rarely the one at play. In every instance of a less qualified applicant being selected based on minority status that I have witnessed (admittedly small sample size), the reasoning has not been that the presence of certain genitals or skin coloring will improve the effectiveness (or "betterness") of that group.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Think about it this way.

Sponsorships and grants make it easier for teams to compete. That's what they exist for. People try to get them in order to lower their burden of entry.

If the SWE wants to make it easier for a subset of teams to compete, it seems completely reasonable that the subset of teams they want to help are the ones that are demonstrating that they actively engage many women. If it's a bar you can't or won't meet, the grant isn't for you.

Think less as the grant trying to force an 80/20 team to become a 50/50 team and more a reward for those teams that are doing well with gender equality. It's not perfect; I think the terms and conditions have some problems, but we don't need to act like the sky is falling because one grant of thousands isn't for us.

FRC 4607 could easily qualify for this grant this year. However, after careful (and LONG conversations) we decided that the grant is not fitting for our team. We could fit every segment of the grant's requirements - outside of #10 - we haven't decided on a drive team as of yet.

However, it goes against how we have developed our team - by allowing all members equal access to all segments of our team. We have been working closely with our sponsors to create an environment that enables all students equal opportunities and we feel that by accepting this we may limit qualified candidates from reaching their potential.

I have to state - we have great sponsors, great mentors, and great kids - as all programs do. However, if a possible sponsor/grant limits the potential achievements of the membership as a whole, it is not for us. We are already working closely with our sponsors to allow for achievement in a different manner for different segments of our population.

And as of this post, we have 5 members of our 8 person leadership team (and our strongest leader that encapsulates what our team is striving to be) that are females. On a note, our team captain is not the most outspoken; quite the contrary, she is very thoughtful and soft-spoken. Yet she is able to bring all leaders together and can create a consensus. She has been a part of our marketing team, our electrical team, and is now in charge of the whole team as her demeanor and communication skills have allowed her to rise to the top.

If we had determined leadership positions with certain criteria I do not think that we would be in the spot that we are in now. If the mentors and coaches laid out a master plan - chances of our team captain to rise to the level that she did would be near zero.

Through it all - it is just that the grant does not fit our team. We hope that other teams find that this grant fits them - but for us it would go against our ideals altogether.

So through my reasoning, Chris is me, I agree with your post. It is not for every team - but some teams will benefit greatly from the offering.

[JesseK]

Did they sneak-update the grant requirements? I swear yesterday that having a female driver wasn't optional. Maybe I mis-read it.

[Lil' Lavery]

To those arguing against "affirmative action" or that this grant is somehow "discriminatory," consider why it exists in the first place and who is funding it. I recently attended dinner with a large group of volunteers from a FIRST event. There were 18 of us present, only two of which were females. There is a real issue of gender representation in both engineering and FIRST. Like in many other areas of society, work needs to be done to help correct these cultural biases. Everyone would prefer an egalitarian solution, but currently that selection process only perpetuates the issues.

I had (and have) my issues with the requirements process for the grant, but that doesn't mean the grant is somehow morally wrong.

Originally Posted by JesseK

Did they sneak-update the grant requirements? I swear yesterday that having a female driver wasn't optional. Maybe I mis-read it.

It definitely was not optional yesterday.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Did they sneak-update the grant requirements? I swear yesterday that having a female driver wasn't optional. Maybe I mis-read it.

Don't think it was optional. Looks like they're taking feedback, even if it isn't acknowledged. That's a good thing!

Edit: This seems to have been updated as well: "At least 50% of the team is female" vs "Demonstrates 50:50 male-to-female-ratio". This defines the requirements better, but also opens the door to all-girls teams. Steps in the right direction!

Edit 2:

Teams must identify a current female driver outlining her experience in the role. This driver will perform that role at the event(s) where the team is registered for the 2015 FRC season.

This wording confuses me a bit. So someone who's already been a driver, and then she still has to be a driver next season?

[Shrub]

The requirements look a lot more concise now. Like Chris/Pinecone said, this grant is available for a specific type of team, and the requirements aren't exactly perfect. Although I'm really glad they include follow-up and observation during a meeting and event. That is really indicative of team climate.