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

[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).

[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.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by Tim Sharp

The girls started working with a robot that the boys had initially built. Almost immediately, they solved problems that the boys couldn’t. One example: the robot wouldn’t drive straight. The boys tried to correct for this by over-steering, but it wasn’t a real solution. The girls took the robot apart, identified a problem in the drivetrain, and fixed it. Now when the robot needed to operate autonomously, it could complete its tasks without of veering off course.

I agree that its really lame that the author threw the boys under the bus, but I think the real point is to show that girls CAN and DID solve hard* problems, and they didn't short-cut when solving the problem (unlike Computer Engineering Barbie where Barbie "programs"... but actually doesn't).

*I have no idea how challenging of a problem this is to find/diagnose/solve. My field is more 1's and 0's.

This also stuck out to me:
They developed competition strategies without loud-mouthed boys and repaired the robot on the fly without having to defer to the strongly held opinions of the male members of the team.

Imagine the reaction if someone said, "they developed a bold competition strategy despite the timidity of the girls and made mid-competition changes despite the risk averse attitudes of the female members" .
The girls would be offended and rightly so.

Stereotypes are a really weird thing when talking about gender issues, because discussing gender studies relies on stereotypes, while also saying that they are bad for everyone involved. By explicitly calling out the domineering male stereotype they are implying the submissive female stereotype, and using the two to demonstrate why leaving-the-boys-at-home was beneficial for the girls.

Maybe it would have been better stated as
"The 'timid' girls had to develop their competition strategies, and were able to do so in a place where they would not be ignored or talked over. Additionally they had to overcome their risk-aversion and make changes to the robot -which would not have been made if the boys were around- learning more about the mechanics as they were not the ones who built it"

This version distributes the stereotypes a more evenly while outlining why the event was beneficial to the girls. But now its not really in-your-face, we-use-swears-in-our-titles journalism anymore, and it is boring to read. They both get the message across, but one is using its "edgy" factor to entertain as well as inform.

[JamesCH95]

I emailed my mom (my PhD, PE, patent-holding, former US national XC ski racer, former head coach of 95, civil-engineer-of-a-mom) to talk about this article as I had some mixed feelings about it. Here is some of what she had to say:

It is hard to describe the "get out of the way, I'll drive" experience of ALL women in the United States today to someone who has not had that experience.

In the article, there are a few disparaging remarks about boys (that didn't need to be there)--but the article is more about getting girls to see that they can learn things than it is about girls being better than boys. Do you think your boys would be discouraged by those comments? (angry maybe, but not discouraged...)

As you know, there are still some "all girl" options for high school and university, and all women that I know that did those are now well-integrated in a co-ed workplace (otherwise, I wouldn't know them) in the Air Force, Army, etc.... Having an all-girl techie experience would be a very cool developmental phase for some people. (And, I'm envious...) So the comments about [an all-girls team] being "unrealistic" don't apply in my opinion.

Interestingly, I had an Iranian-born professor in my Master's Program (as the male high school teacher is) who was ahead of his American counterparts in dealing with women engineering students. He expected me to be as good as the men--and was one of the first people who treated me as an equal "achiever." [IMO this is what we (meaning all of us in STEM/FIRST/etc) need to strive for.] I remember the day he told a story about a husband and wife having an argument about heat transfer--and how the wife was right, and why she was right. This sounds silly, now, but it was THE FIRST time I had ever had that experience of a professor telling a story in which a woman did anything technical! I remain grateful to this day for that kind-hearted, fair-minded man. One of my first experiences of being included... [This is the power that one person can have on a student, my mom remembers this story 30 years later.]

Speaking of which, the year that I was "lead coach" for Team 95 it was really hard for me that I could not be involved technically. What the team needed most was someone to hold it together, but what I really wanted to do was learn more about the robot! I was working so hard, and I'm glad that it helped the team stay together; but, I would have preferred a different role. I was nervous that if I tried to learn anything technical about the robot, it would take too long and slow the team down. [This is one thing that we, as FRC teams, need to avoid at all costs. I think this is why some young women (and even some guys) don't express their desire to be involved technically in their teams. This is why team leaders need to provide opportunities for even the timid students to feel comfortable stepping up.]

Did I tell you about making one of my teams in my Intro Engineering class all girls? [My mom is currently an engineering prof] They were really nervous that they couldn't do anything "because they had never done it before." But in the end, they were so happy when every single one of their group projects worked (while being painted pink). I will definitely repeat that in the future. [Sometimes forcing timid students to step up can be the best solution!]

I hope this perspective is a little enlightening and adds another dimension to the article's theme. I don't really like how the author phrased a few of their comments about males in the article, but that is really just a small blemish in the articles overall message: we need make some drastic changes in order to foster the shift in attitude of both men and women with regards to women in STEM that will allow more people (both men and women) to excel in STEM fields.