Describe some of the problems she discusses regarding implicit bias in STEM and Maker Ed.
- Who are the makers? Who are shown as makers on magazine covers? 85% men and boys, 15% women and girls, 0% people of color.
- Underrepresented minorities.
- Editorial staff- men 87%, women 13%, people of color 0%
- Article authors- men 85%, women 15%
- Audience- men 80%, women 20%, median age 44, 97% college degree
- Money- Robot kits (100-200$)- a particular type of people who can afford these kits.
- Responders had a median income of $106,000, more than 82% of American households make
- Basically, makers are “rich, white guys”
- Projects- electronics 56%, vehicles 31%, robots 26%, rockets 8%, music 5%
- 2013 Computer science degrees- women 14%, Hispanic 6%, African American 4%
- Google tech employees- 17%, Hispanic 2%, African American 1%
- Make promises to celebrate making in all forms, open to everybody, accessible for everyone.
- “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”
- So much promise to bust up these typical patterns, connect people, promise not fulfilled.
- Money- received funding, people getting all this money are the same old suspects.
- Every child a maker- this ecosystem is not reaching every child.
- Tired of telling young women and children, Hispanic, African American to be like rich white men.
- The biggest problem is what you don’t see, so many awesome things that don’t get showcased.
Describe some of her counter-examples.
- Showing these maker projects that we don’t get to see on the cover of the maker magazines.
- She uses an example of low rider cars and the engineering behind them but their magazine does not get the funding that maker magazine does.
- An artist who uses environmental studies makes basket weaving sculptures.
- Grand Master Flash- hip hop- genius maker story
- Pottery made of dirt- what it takes to decorate a structure like that/ STEAM education
- Electronics and paper, pop up book