High school girls build kick-### robots | The Verge

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Tim Sharp

We don't have any girls on our Fabrication team due to the simple fact that none of them was interested in it. If they had expressed an interest, they would be on the team without reservation.

With due respect, this is passing the buck. You're foisting the burden of developing an interest in this part of STEM upon someone else. It's not enough to let girls do what they want (although that's certainly better than NOT letting them do what they want) -- you have to encourage them to do things that every other part of society is telling them that they cannot or should not do.

It's on us to step in and fill the gap that society creates. Simply being neutral here is not good enough. I don't mean to go after you, specifically, since I don't know you at all; I just see this sort of comment around here a lot and it's frustrating. Being gender agnostic will be a laudable thing someday, but I don't think that day is here yet and we should acknowledge that.

[Tim Sharp]

That sounds good in theory, but is problematic in practice. If I were to insist that certain members of the team participate in something other than their favored area while others are allowed to work on the team of their choice, I would soon find myself on the receiving end of a "favoritism" charge (this is not conjecture, it's happened).
What would I tell a student when confronted with the situation? "You can't do what you want like everyone around you, because you're a girl"?
It comes down to a choice. Do I dictate how everyone participates, or do I allow them to choose. In my opinion, a more productive and harmonious environment is achieved by allowing everyone to match their interests to their contributions. This, in my opinion, allows students to develop a sense of ownership in the project, which is the real key to unlocking potential.
Not to say that I haven't moved students around when the need arose. However, when I did there was always a clearly articulated reason for it and little room for argument that it was done for any reason other than what was good for the team. It is also understood that the younger members of the team will have less autonomy as to their designation (but not none), and earn the right to choose their specialty as they gain experience.

I would also argue that the girls on the CAD, Controls and Electrical team are as deeply embedded in STEM as anyone on the team. They are certainly cut no slack and are expected to contribute as equals. And they do.

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by Tim Sharp

That sounds good in theory, but is problematic in practice. If I were to insist that certain members of the team participate in something other than their favored area while others are allowed to work on the team of their choice, I would soon find myself on the receiving end of a "favoritism" charge (this is not conjecture, it's happened).
What would I tell a student when confronted with the situation? "You can't do what you want like everyone around you, because you're a girl"?
It comes down to a choice. Do I dictate how everyone participates, or do I allow them to choose. In my opinion, a more productive and harmonious environment is achieved by allowing everyone to match their interests to their contributions. This, in my opinion, allows students to develop a sense of ownership in the project, which is the real key to unlocking potential.
Not to say that I haven't moved students around when the need arose. However, when I did there was always a clearly articulated reason for it and little room for argument that it was done for any reason other than what was good for the team. It is also understood that the younger members of the team will have less autonomy as to their designation (but not none), and earn the right to choose their specialty as they gain experience.

I would also argue that the girls on the CAD, Controls and Electrical team are as deeply embedded in STEM as anyone on the team. They are certainly cut no slack and are expected to contribute as equals. And they do.

I think it's problematic in practice if guys on the team are uneducated in this kind of matter. When I first joined 842 as a freshmen, I thought it was a little off putting at first that girls on the team received "favoritism" because they seemed to be pushed more to leave their comfort zone and do the jobs that society has deemed they can't do as Madison put it. At first I was a little off put at this but veteran members of the team and mentors quickly broke this mindset of mine by explaining to me challenges girls face in terms of breaking stereotypes. From there I started thinking about how my whole life, girls were constantly divided from boys in what they should play with, what they should like, and what they should be when they grow up. It's especially bad in the area of Carl Hayden where many families have the stigma that girls should only stay at home and take care of kids. It's an awful truth but the truth nonetheless. As I went through high school with the team, I started to realize why mentors and veteran members pushed girls more. Maybe they didn't delve into aspects like Mechanical as fast as the guys but the closer and closer it got to senior year, the more the idea of being whatever you want to be in life became the norm. Stereotypes were broken down and is what I believe to be a key reason as to why girls on our team go on to do pretty amazing things along with guys. Don't get me wrong too, no one on the team was forced to do anything they didn't want to do. Things were simply highly encouraged and at the end of the day, people did their jobs because they wanted to do it.

As far as your first point though about degrading the guys in the article, perhaps the wording of that could be better but as a guy who was on the team for four years, I was taught extensively that the only validation you need is from yourself so the article doesn't bother me at all. I know I worked hard and dedicated my life to the team and don't really need anyone to validate that for me. I also understand why articles like these need to exist and why stories like these need to get out. Like Madison said we can't just pretend these problems don't exist. Of course every area in the country and the world are different and these problems may not even exist at all in some of these areas, but for many others they do. Just my thoughts and of course people have different experiences and thoughts.

[cglrcng]

Are we missing the HUGE part of the story here of "Girls can also build kick ### Robots!" The journalist re-writing his story of "The Carl Hayden High School Robotics History" concerning former & current female team members in Robotics (if only a minor part of their particular entire CHHS history), and he the author, will certainly use his own words in writing said story...He chose to show, that given the chance, young ladies of High School age, can and will "if invited to participate," or / and "even if pushed outside" of their normal comfort zones initially, will sometimes, can & do often, go on to an area of career path & further education, that personally may not have normally interested them initially. But, do to the path taken or directed to, may just become interested in STEM & Further Education and going on to related careers like Engineering, and the like.

We can easily judge later how that all came about....It just shows only "one GREAT JOB DONE & very successful path taken by mentors and students alike"...Please don't armchair judge the nuances of the particular path later (or part out the words a non-directly involved author uses to relate the story)....It was an idea that worked. Enjoy the successful idea, implement what worked for them, that you think will work for your team, dump the rest...Enjoy the mission they took on and completed, and the path taken..."Getting Girls Also Involved in the Building of Robots!...And many of them going on to careers in STEM RELATED INDUSTRY & EDUCATIONS!"

The article wasn't aimed at diminishing the male robotics team members....It celebrated the involvement of the female team members, and some amazingly GREAT RESULTS to those involved females, to STEM, and our society as a whole.

Our team is a mixed community team, and when I see a new female team member (sometimes even some of the male members), that I didn't quite expect to get involved (from short pre-season observations only), in actually fabricating hard parts, and building the new robot(s), who is right after kickoff, running a lathe or a mill, or wiring up an electronics board, or the like.

I just smile and think...There may be, a future engineer or inventor, in just a few short years. (Out of the normal comfort zone is exactly where we should be pushing each student, male or female, at least once.....They just may discover something deep within themselves, that they never even knew existed).

[FrankJ]

My first thought is they should be wearing safety glasses & tie their hair back.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

& tie their hair back.

WITH ZIP TIES!

[Whippet]

The method we have found to work is to require that all team members receive training in all available fields, and then choose what they want to do. We have found that more people will choose to go into the fabrication areas of the team after receiving training than before, because it seems less intimidating. These results occur with most members of the team, regardless of gender.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

My first thought is they should be wearing safety glasses & tie their hair back.