Be a Nerd Girl

[DonRotolo]

I just got this from an IEEE newsletter:

Casting Call: Nerd Girls
MPH Entertainment, producers of the Emmy nominated, hit TV show "Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan," is now casting its new reality pilot, "Nerd Girls." Developed by IEEE Fellow Dr. Karen Panetta, a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Tufts University, the "Nerd Girls" brand concept builds on Panetta's initiative to encourage women to change their world through science, technology, engineering and math, all while embracing their feminine power. MPH, along with "Nerd Girls" partners Paola di Florio, Karen Johnson, Stephanie Davis and Dr. Panetta are beginning a nationwide search for talented female engineering and science students who defy stereotypes and have a multi-faceted life beyond the books. Women ages 18-23 who are interested in becoming a Nerd Girl are encouraged to visit www.nerdgirls.com for application and submission information. The "Nerd Girls" brand has received funding and support from the IEEE foundation.

Um, if you happen to be female and you are reading this, you're most likely qualified.

[KelliV]

I've been working with casting agents and producers for reality TV shows for the last two years at school, if you are interested in applying to this show and would like me to look over your submission prior to sending it in please PM me, I would be more than happy to help you out.

-Kelli

[wendymom]

Why is the low age 18 instead of say....15?

[DonRotolo]

My speculation is that 18-year-olds can enter into contracts themselves. 15-year-olds need a parent or guardian, and are subject to different laws.

But I repeat that it is speculation.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

My speculation is that 18-year-olds can enter into contracts themselves. 15-year-olds need a parent or guardian, and are subject to different laws.

But I repeat that it is speculation.

And all of those different laws create problems for producers and such that it is easier to hire 18+ since it isn't that hard to pass off older teens as younger kids in high school.

[JaneYoung]

This looks like it is targeted towards college age women to me. That's very cool. Although, I think it should say Nerd Women - not girls. It's hard to say this age group is a group of girls.

Jane

[Madison]

Fill out an application and submit a photo?

Yuck.

[Mikell Taylor]

I work with Karen Panetta (she runs the IEEE Women in Engineering magazine) and have met some of the original Nerd Girls. Assuming this new reality show follows the same formula as the original program at Tufts, the show casts college-aged female engineers, but the audience is middle or high school students. The types of projects the Nerd Girls work on require at least some basic college-level engineering education, so I'm guessing that's the motivation for the age range.

I definitely encourage anyone who's interested to apply! I think this would be a blast!

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Mikell Taylor

Assuming this new reality show follows the same formula as the original program at Tufts, the show casts college-aged female engineers, but the audience is middle or high school students.

The intended audience may be middle or high school students but who is to say who the actual audience will be? Some of us recently voted in a competition for Barbie's next career. Look at the website. See any similarities? There is a lot of potential with a concept like Nerd Girls. At this point, it is showing some of the sameness that we, the viewing public, are used to. Barbies. Hopefully, the show will be innovative in helping girls and women break out of the Barbie mold that is shaped for them and about them.

Jane

[Madison]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

The intended audience may be middle or high school students but who is to say who the actual audience will be? Some of us recently voted in a competition for Barbie's next career. Look at the website. See any similarities? There is a lot of potential with a concept like Nerd Girls. At this point, it is showing some of the sameness that we, the viewing public, are used to. Barbies. Hopefully, the show will be innovative in helping girls and women break out of the Barbie mold that is shaped for them and about them.

Jane

Jane's touched upon the part that most disappoints me about this program.

Instead of demonstrating to young women that there are alternative avenues of success that do NOT rely on unrealistic expectations of beauty, body type or an ability to own designer clothes, these folks are piling those expectations in front of the important stuff -- changing the world -- and sending a confusing message.

What does this concept demonstrate, exactly? Is it that engineers can be normal people, too? Is it that it's possible for women to be intelligent and remain desirable?

Maybe I just don't get it.

[JaneYoung]

When MythBusters came out, it was clear from the start that the show was going to be fun, interesting, and nerdy at its best. Dirty Jobs is a show that you know is going to be dirty and nerdy and eww. There's a trust there built in from me - a woman who doesn't trust what tv is capable of doing with manipulating stereotypes in exaggerated and ridiculous ways. On MythBusters, I typically learn something and I have a respect for the hosts. They present themselves as charming and intelligent nerds, making science, technology and how things work = cool.

It would be incredible to have a trust like that in a show that features women who are nerds. It would be incredible to have a trust like that in a show that features women who are nerds and are role models because of their interest in science, technology, and math for young children watching the program at home. I know a few women/role models like this and the important thing is - so do the students on our team, other students, and the folks that have the opportunity to meet these women.

Jane

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Madison

What does this concept demonstrate, exactly? Is it that engineers can be normal people, too? Is it that it's possible for women to be intelligent and remain desirable?

Maybe I just don't get it.

Wouldn't both goals be desirable? I know that I am constantly fighting the stereotype that you have to be "smart" to be interested in engineering. Showing that engineers are just every day people would be extremely beneficial. As for the second possible goal, have you seen Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs? If you haven't I suggest you do. Either way, in it the lead female character, a weather girl, is actually quite intelligent but acts dumb because that is the only role that is expected of her. I have heard some stories from a friend of mine that during high school another student asked her why she was in a physics class by saying, "Why are you here, girls can't do physics?" I am proud to say that he was smacked, multiple times (and she hits really hard) for his ignorant statement. And for the record, this young lady is currently studying to be an Electrical Engineer at KU, many of you have probably met her if you come by KU's booth in Atlanta.


As for having to submit pictures, I'm sorry, it is the same as submitting a resume to a job. For television work your looks are an asset you posses.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Madison

Fill out an application and submit a photo?

Yuck.

To be fair, any performance gig on any level in the entertainment industry requires a photo. I don't exactly get the feeling that they're doing it for formalities' sake, though.

[RyanCahoon]

Originally Posted by Madison

Fill out an application and submit a photo?

Yuck.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

To be fair, any performance gig on any level in the entertainment industry requires a photo. I don't exactly get the feeling that they're doing it for formalities' sake, though.

I totally agree, but to be fair as well, we're part of a program that creates a sports(something we're trying to de-emphasize, according to Dean Kamen)-like environment in order to promote science and engineering. How much different is it to create a Hollywood(also on Kamen's list of overhyped parts of our culture)-like environment to promote science and engineering? To a certain degree, if you want to convince people to change, you have to connect with something that is significant to them as they are now. Unfortunately.

--Ryan

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by RyanCahoon

I totally agree, but to be fair as well, we're part of a program that creates a sports(something we're trying to de-emphasize, according to Dean Kamen)-like environment in order to promote science and engineering. How much different is it to create a Hollywood(also on Kamen's list of overhyped parts of our culture)-like environment to promote science and engineering? To a certain degree, if you want to convince people to change, you have to connect with something that is significant to them as they are now. Unfortunately.

When we adopted the sports model, we've used Gracious Professionalism to try and leave the worst of the model behind. I don't think we need to wholly accept the looks are everything, thin is the only way in in order to get a Hollywood presence, if that was what we were after. At least, I'd hope not.