There's an internet hullabaloo about the Carnegie Science Center 's signage about available STEM opportunities and camps for Boy Scouts and their exceptionally short list of similar opportunities and camps for Girl Scouts.
Much of the discussion has focused on the horrors of a long list of options for Boy Scouts, with only one choice for Girl Scouts, ' Science With a Sparkle.'
Educators and advocates for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education for girls are in an uproar. How can there be so few options for our young women? How will we ever get them interested in STEM-related fields if we only offer them this drivel? Carnegie Science Center addressed some of these concerns in a great Facebook post.
However, what many of those in the uproar are missing is that for some children - maybe mostly girls, but certainly not all - learning about the science behind sparkly things is what gets them excited. This is what makes their gears turn and gets them asking questions. Why do some materials stay on the skin and others absorb in? What are the melting points of different solids used in cosmetics? What kinds of natural materials can be used to safely tint or dye? I'm here to stand up loud and proud for sparkle science.
There are institutional and social barriers to girls getting serious about STEM work. But I want to talk about embracing your passions, even if they're not scientific enough or serious enough to meet some arbitrary cultural standard. Similar to another internet commotion of a few years ago about fake geek girls, it's not necessary to run a divide between those interested in 'real' science and science's more frivolous side.
We can't only offer opportunities for kids to learn about curing cancer, that's not the whole picture of science and technology in the world. There are food scientists, graphic designers, video game designers, usability experts, nuclear engineers, and yes, cosmetic scientists. There are entire degree programs for cosmetic science. Just ask Joanne Manaster, self-proclaimed science goddess, about combining her love of science with her interest in cosmetics.
I have a sparkle-science-interested daughter who is 10 years old. My daughter regularly conducts kitchen experiments mixing beeswax, petroleum jelly, coconut oil, shaved crayons, and essential oils to make her own personal lip balms. She likes to watch fashion and beauty-oriented YouTube videos and has spent countless hours honing her own camera handling techniques making how-to videos of her lip balm efforts. She edits the videos in iMovie where she adds effects, titles, captions and transitions. I went to grad school to learn much of what she does on a Saturday afternoon.
Don't tell me for a moment she's not learning about science and technology. Don't tell her for a moment that the things she's interested in aren't serious enough. Aren't science-y enough. Aren't technical enough. If lip gloss is her gateway to organic chemistry and editing videos is how she gets exposed to the complexities of computer software, she's well on her way into a STEM-rich education.
I don't dispute the need for STEM education for all children, with an emphasis on encouraging young women into these courses. I don't disagree with the need to focus robotics education and astronomy and computer programming on children, girls in particular. I even coached my daughter's Girl Scout team in a FIRST Lego League robotics competition a few years back. It landed us on the local news. My daughter and her teammate were fascinated to learn that the cameras used to film the anchors in the newsroom were controlled by, wait for it, robots! Side note: You honestly haven't lived until you've driven a crowd of 8- to 10-year-old girls on a field trip to a local veterinary practice when a Taylor Swift song comes on the radio.
We need STEM opportunities for all kids. The mistake the Carnegie Science Center made, if it made one, was in language limiting sparkles to girls (but then, it was a specific Girl Scout program). The mistake the enraged internet seems to be making is to suggest that there's only one right way to STEM, the serious nonsparkle way. We need to meaningfully engage girls and young women in all kinds of STEM opportunities. But don't disparage my daughter and kids like her for their interest in sparkle science. There is space enough in STEM-related fields for sparkle.
Entities 0 Name: Carnegie Science Center Count: 3 1 Name: Joanne Manaster Count: 1 2 Name: Taylor Swift Count: 1 3 Name: Boy Scouts Count: 1 Related 0 Url: http://ift.tt/1nNi3ss Title: This Science Museum Has Royally Pissed Off a Bunch of Girl Scouts Description: Wanna see the STEM gender gap illustrated so starkly that Marie Curie may very well rise from her grave to gnash her teeth? The Carnegie Science Center offers one workshop explicitly for Girl Scouts, and it's about the science of beauty products. Like plenty of institutions, the Carnegie Science Center has webpages with information explicitly for scouting groups.
Post a Comment for "In Defense of Sparkle Science - New York Times (blog)"