STEAM Actually comming to FRC, and im not happy

[Cole Cyr]

Logging onto facebook today i found a post by FIRST Robotics Canada about a new award Called "STEAM Horizon Award" you can check it out on the page here:https://www.facebook.com/FIRSTRoboticsCanada/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

There has been alot of talk over whether adding Arts to the fold would be good and i just don't see how it could be. Let me start off by saying that Art is necessary in the world and has alot of impact on culture but it is also the most subjective field there is. I can take a photo that i think is great and others think is bad and there is no truth, both of us are right and wrong. I believe there should be no place for this type of subjectivity in the almost entirely objective fields of Science Technology Engineering and Math. Design is probably the only aspect of the Arts that could be useful and i think its already covered under the label of Engineering

The importance of art does not lie in any association with STEM, and arts are important for their own reasons unrelated to the the importance of STEM. STEM was created because of a shortage of people in these fields especially important for women, as there are still severe shortages in the number of women who pursue them. Arts suffer no shortage of women. The move to add Arts was probably to incise more women to join STEM but what it also does is make it so they can exit the programs not going into a STEM field but to an arts field where we don't need more women. If the idea is to bring more arts people into STEM then we should focus on making those fields more attractive to the Arts but keeping the exit from the program still a STEM field.

Robotics has been my passion for the last 4 years and i will stick with it no matter where it goes and i believe that we as a community can shape the environment to better it.

So i ask you, since this seems to be happening no matter what now, how do we incorporate such a subjective field into the FRC enviroment?

And what are your thoughts on this shift in direction?

[bkahl]

https://media.giphy.com/media/qVyrWRVaFoP7O/giphy.gif
-----------------------------------

In all seriousness, please do a simple search for 'STEAM'.

This is probably the 5th thread this summer on the subject.

[frcguy]

Been there, done that: https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151443&highlight=steam

[Akash Rastogi]

Art has personally attacked my family and my way of life. It should not be tolerated in STEM.

For real though, "Art" has a certain beauty to it BECAUSE it can be subjective. This allows it to be conceptual and can mean something different for everyone. Art is all around us, especially in engineering.

Modern art can mean many different things. Industrial Design is a great example of this; you blend art, design, engineering, and even social benefit into creating something.

I implore you to think about this a little differently.
Check this out for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/education/edlife/putting-art-in-stem.html?_r=0

Additionally, VEX uses Art as a division, and I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing. Da Vinci was an artist and engineer too.

There are many blurred lines here, I suggest you think about them and explore them deeply.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Art made some pretty cool stuff... https://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/28105

[Cole Cyr]

I realize that there have been post on this subject but now there is actual evidence of it happening

[wilsonmw04]

is there really?
looks like it's a 3rd party prize that CAFIRST is promoting. Much Ado About Nothing.

[Akash Rastogi]

http://i.imgur.com/7drHiqr.gif

STEAM is your friend.

As a fan of photography, I'll use that as an example. The average person would probably consider photography to be a form of art, but took a look at the inside of any DSLR (or any camera) and just think about the engineering that went into this creative expression. It's pretty remarkable if you understand how cameras work! There are so many technologies that have used art as their motivation for creation and innovation :) Think outside the box!

[Monochron]

I realize that there have been post on this subject but now there is actual evidence of it happening

Well, there is evidence of FRC Canada publicizing a STEAM award. It isn't their award though, and it isn't associated with FRC in anyway which you insinuate in your OP.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I realize that there have been post on this subject but now there is actual evidence of it happening

Oh, this was serious... I thought this was gonna turn into a gif thread cuz that'd be art.


Ok, fine...

how do we incorporate such a subjective field into the FRC enviroment?

I know folks like to say "oh engineering and science has RIGHT answers" and all that. You'd like to think you could look at two solutions and objectively say which one is better. I hate to break it to you but that's not real. Heck, that's not even real in the microcosm that is FRC.

All fields are subjective. Yes traditional art has a little more wiggle room but it's not like we don't have teams who have demonstrated that their robot cannot in fact handle a game piece and then claim they shoot 14 high goals a match with 100% accuracy.

But, you want a real example? I'm a judge, I see team A that is really well controlled, great robot. Then I see team B that is, maybe not as effective on the field but is using new sensors. Who gets the Innovation in Control award? I know who I would give it to but I also know there were folks who would disagree. And that's an engineering award. I've had team attribute award discussions that I was pretty sure were going to end in furniture being thrown. [1]

Look, you can be unhappy all you want but this isn't even a shift in direction. If you REALLY think STEM/FIRST is all subjective decisions you're wrong.[2] Finally admitting that teams need the Arts (writing, public speaking, graphic design) to succeed is going to do wonders to transform the culture and build more successful, sustainable teams.


[1] There's a reason I refer to deliberation as chair throwing time, this is why. Rarely does furniture ACTUALLY get thrown. Jess hasn't even thrown a clipboard at anyone to my knowledge.

[2] And before the regular slurry of messages about how I'm being too harsh, consider that I initially instead wanted to use the words delusional or ignorant.

[FrankJ]

But is it Art?

[Cole Cyr]

Well, there is evidence of FRC Canada publicizing a STEAM award. It isn't their award though, and it isn't associated with FRC in anyway which you insinuate in your OP.

is there really?
looks like it's a 3rd party prize that CAFIRST is promoting. Much Ado About Nothing.

A large majority of prizes are by 3rd party groups and the promotion of STEAM is a shift in marketing that has to be attributed to some decision made, and im guessing its the slow introduction of STEAM

[bkahl]

Oh, this was serious... I thought this was gonna turn into a gif thread cuz that'd be art.


Does that make me an Artist?:rolleyes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways. Let's toss up a hypothetical situation.

Let's say I am a member of an Artist's Forum. On this forum, a thread gets created entitled 'STEAM Award Com(m)ing to local Art Fair'. Let's also assume that a member of the community begins an outrage that Art is superior to everything related to STEM and that the two are completely unrelated and should never be used in the same sentence, acronym, or anything.

I dunno 'bout you, but that would rustle my jimmies a bit.

One of my good friends, a fellow 125 mentor, is an Art Teacher at a local elementary school. This Art Teacher just recently received a grant to get a 3D printer in her art classroom to help expose her students to using Technology to create Art. This teacher, who majored in Art in college, also now mentors elementary robotics teams across the Boston Area, bringing her creative and artistic mind to use when helping her students.

I won't speak for her, but I can only assume that if she read the sentiment about Art not having a place in FRC, it would come across offensive.

There is a place for Art in robotics, especially in FIRST. Art is used in digital media, Design of robots, and I know all of us have referred to a robot or two as a "Piece of Art". Various awards available to teams scream Art to me. Even technical awards, where a preferred mechanism is 'Elegant', means to me that some sort of creative artistic process must have happened to make the mechanism even just look good.

[D.Allred]

Well, there is evidence of FRC Canada publicizing a STEAM award. It isn't their award though, and it isn't associated with FRC in anyway which you insinuate in your OP.

Cole,
Could you explain your apprehension? As I read it, the award is designed to provide scholarship money for student leaders / innovators. The "art" portion opens the opportunity to a broader group.

I would say all the FIRST CA students have gained an opportunity. Win-win. Where is the loss?

Snip from the website...
Are you often described as a leader, an achiever, or an innovator? Do you have limitless drive, ambition, and determination? If so, there’s an opportunity to receive a $25,000 prize towards your post-secondary education.

The STEAM Horizon Awards, a newly funded prize program, invites Canada’s youth to promote positive changes throughout their community using science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM).

Up to seven students will each be awarded a $25,000 prize for their post-secondary education. Two of the seven prizes will go to Indigenous youth. The prizes will be funded by the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation Foundation, alongside eight Founding Partners. We are confident that these recipients will act as role models and ambassadors for future STEAM generations.

[Jon Stratis]

Have you ever looked at a robot or a mechanism and thought "wow, that's beautiful"? You might have 30 other teams at the event that accomplish the task the same way, but none of them will look as good. That's art, expressed through engineering. As we see every year, any team that tries can field a robot that plays the game. But some teams have a certain elegance in their design that makes you stop and look, while others are kludges that, while functional, aren't pretty.

At work, I implement solutions to problems every day. Sometimes, when I review those solutions before delivering them, I think "wow, that's ugly". Other times its "wow, that's really nice". The nice, elegant solutions I want to go crow about. The ugly ones I just hope no one else notices. Yet both of them solve the problem and become part of the product.

Art is integral to engineering, even if we don't like to think so.

[Cole Cyr]

Cole,
Could you explain your apprehension? As I read it, the award is designed to provide scholarship money for student leaders / innovators. The "art" portion opens the opportunity to a broader group.

I would say all the FIRST CA students have gained an opportunity. Win-win. Where is the loss?

Snip from the website...
Are you often described as a leader, an achiever, or an innovator? Do you have limitless drive, ambition, and determination? If so, there’s an opportunity to receive a $25,000 prize towards your post-secondary education.

The STEAM Horizon Awards, a newly funded prize program, invites Canada’s youth to promote positive changes throughout their community using science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM).

Up to seven students will each be awarded a $25,000 prize for their post-secondary education. Two of the seven prizes will go to Indigenous youth. The prizes will be funded by the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation Foundation, alongside eight Founding Partners. We are confident that these recipients will act as role models and ambassadors for future STEAM generations.

I am not saying that the award is bad im just commenting on the awards impact on the environment. any award that we can get is great and if there wasn't so much talk about steam already i would think nothing of this award. but with STEAM being thought to be the new STEM im using it as evidence of the legitimacy of these claims.

[s_forbes]

I think they really need to add more terms to make it a more forward thinking acronym. Art is important, but Business is just as important, if not more, for sustaining a team. Another core tenant of FIRST is teaching students Responsibility as it applies to project management, and Inclusion of team mates to make a highly functional team.

The new acronym should really be RIBMEATS.

[bkahl]

I think they really need to add more terms to make it a more forward thinking acronym. Art is important, but Business is just as important, if not more, for sustaining a team. Another core tenant of FIRST is teaching students Responsibility as it applies to project management, and Inclusion of team mates to make a highly functional team.

The new acronym should really be RIBMEATS.

https://media.giphy.com/media/XtMtTxSDcZkQw/giphy.gif

I love it.

[JesseK]

almost entirely objective fields of Science Technology Engineering and Math
...

So i ask you, since this seems to be happening no matter what now, how do we incorporate such a subjective field into the FRC enviroment?

Some artists call a few swipes of a paint brush art.

Some engineers call a barely-tested, half-wired, slow-moving amalgamation of metal and electricity a competitive robot.

Don't kid yourself: it's all subjective. They're both application of and execution on the creative process, where "completed product" means different things to different people.

[Cole Cyr]

Have you ever looked at a robot or a mechanism and thought "wow, that's beautiful"? You might have 30 other teams at the event that accomplish the task the same way, but none of them will look as good. That's art, expressed through engineering. As we see every year, any team that tries can field a robot that plays the game. But some teams have a certain elegance in their design that makes you stop and look, while others are kludges that, while functional, aren't pretty.

At work, I implement solutions to problems every day. Sometimes, when I review those solutions before delivering them, I think "wow, that's ugly". Other times its "wow, that's really nice". The nice, elegant solutions I want to go crow about. The ugly ones I just hope no one else notices. Yet both of them solve the problem and become part of the product.

Art is integral to engineering, even if we don't like to think so.


A solution to a task that solves it with beauty and elegance is not thanks to Art it is thanks to STEM and a robot that looks good while doing it is Art. it is true there is something to be said about a good looking bot but at the end of the day you dont get to finals for having a good looking bot, infact ive seen alot of ugly bots get to finals and win so what do u value more, a robot that can accomplish a task well or one that looks better but performs worse. do you think that on the ISS that would install an arm that performed worse just because it looks better. the point being that Art compliments STEM but has no OBJECTIVE purpose

[chapman1]

Art has always been a part of FIRST; it's an important part of marketing the Team. Art is evident in T-shirts, banners, logos, buttons, costumes and dance.

It also serves a wider purpose, putting kids with different abilities and interests together so that they might learn from each other. Art provides a creative outlet for those team members who aren't inclined to either program or to turn a wrench, but at the same time, they see how mechanics and programming are creative endeavors. In turn, the gear heads and nerds are put into direct contact with kids who might be a bit more creative. Everybody gains, and everyone contributes to the overall success of the Team.

Part of the brilliance of FIRST is that it provides a way for almost ALL students to be a part of a team effort, regardless of athletic or intellectual ability. To degrade or diminish any part of the spectrum of possible student contribution would ultimately detract from the FIRST experience.

[bkahl]

Art compliments STEM but has no OBJECTIVE purpose

You compliment STEM, do you (or this thread) have an OBJECTIVE purpose?

[Cole Cyr]

Some artists call a few swipes of a paint brush art.

Some engineers call a barely-tested, half-wired, slow-moving amalgamation of metal and electricity a competitive robot.

Don't kid yourself: it's all subjective. They're both application of and execution on the creative process, where "completed product" means different things to different people.

LOL, but the robot has to a accomplish a task where its effectiveness can be rated and therefore Objectively accessed where a piece of arts only task is to be appealing and that is subjective

[Monochron]

A large majority of prizes are by 3rd party groups and the promotion of STEAM is a shift in marketing that has to be attributed to some decision made, and im guessing its the slow introduction of STEAM

What do you mean a majority of prizes are by 3rd party groups? There are lots of awards that organization other than FIRST gives out? Well yes, there are plenty of contests unrelated to FIRST. Prizes for FIRST awards are provided by 3rd party groups? Very few FIRST awards come with tangible prizes to begin with.

If you were just mistaken about FIRST CA's involvement in the prize, that's fine, mistakes are easy to make. But them promoting a single contest that VERY closely overlaps with FIRST's goals doesn't indicate a slow replacement of STEM with STEAM within FIRST.

They are definitely promoting STEAM, possibly due to the theme of this year's game. What would really be interesting is evidence that FIRST promoting STEAM will continue after this year's game. I haven't seen anything like that yet.

[Lil' Lavery]

The problem I have with STEAM is that it strikes me as a money grab. STEM education has a clear and concise goal of increasing certain professions with a pretty well defined set of subject matters it caters to. STEAM is far less defined and is rapidly approaching education as a whole. It may be cynical of me, but STEAM just seems like a way for Arts educators/lobbyists to compete for funding and attention that was going towards STEM (grants/sponsorships/scholarships/etc). To me it seems like "the Arts" felt left out of STEM, and rather than advocate their own set of merits and interests, they latched onto STEM initiatives to get their slice of the pie.

Did this CA FIRST Scholarship exist before the switch from STEM to STEAM? Would it have existed without the switch from STEM to STEAM? Did it struggle for applicants as a STEM scholarship? Or are good STEM-field applicants going to be passed over for the scholarship in favor of BA majors?

None of this is to say that Arts aren't important or that the Arts aren't applicable to STEM fields. However, others have pointed out that Business and other fields are also applicable to STEM. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and the relationship between STEM and other fields can be stressed even within the confines of STEM.

[Monochron]

A solution to a task that solves it with beauty and elegance is not thanks to Art it is thanks to STEM and a robot that looks good while doing it is Art.

You are defining art as aesthetic quality only? I don't think many people would agree with you there.

[waialua359]

Blame FIRST for coming up with this year's game "STEAMWorks.":]
We used the term over 8 years ago as I found some old documentation of ours.

[Jon Stratis]

A solution to a task that solves it with beauty and elegance is not thanks to Art it is thanks to STEM and a robot that looks good while doing it is Art.

What exactly is the difference between "beauty and elegance" and "looks good"? Because you seem to say that one is not Art while the other is, yet I would say the two are very similar. A beautiful and elegant robot is one that looks good.

[Cole Cyr]

What exactly is the difference between "beauty and elegance" and "looks good"? Because you seem to say that one is not Art while the other is, yet I would say the two are very similar. A beautiful and elegant robot is one that looks good.

the distinction is in the task, the term beauty for instance.

The robot performed the task beautifully. the word speaks to its level of performance

the robot looked beautiful as its performing the task. speaks to the look of the robot but not the preformance

[bkahl]

You compliment STEM, do you (or this thread) have an OBJECTIVE purpose?

...

Soooooooooo..... Safe to assume the answer is no?

[Cole Cyr]

Soooooooooo..... Safe to assume the answer is no?

The purpose is to generate meaningful discussion on the potential transition from STEM to STEAM

I could attack you with the same thing, whats the purpose of you Derailing conversation? (dont answer that as it would only derail this further)

[bkahl]

The purpose is to generate meaningful discussion on the potential transition from STEM to STEAM

I could attack you with the same thing, whats the purpose of you Derailing conversation? (dont answer that as it would only derail this further)

Meaningful discussion
=\=
The importance of art does not lie in any association with STEM

------

and you can't derail a thread that had no "rails" to begin with.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Meaningful discussion
=\=


------

and you can't derail a thread that had no "rails" to begin with.

That's just like, your opinion man.

[Monochron]

That's just like, your opinion man.

Subjective!

[bkahl]

If we want a meaningful discussion, I'll pose a question.

Is Computer Aided Design (CAD) an Art?

[Jon Stratis]

the distinction is in the task, the term beauty for instance.

The robot performed the task beautifully. the word speaks to its level of performance

the robot looked beautiful as its performing the task. speaks to the look of the robot but not the preformance

No. Beauty does not denote performance. The definition of beauty is

the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).


Even saying something was done beautifully is subjective, not objective. And as you stated in your original post,
I believe there should be no place for this type of subjectivity in the almost entirely objective fields of Science Technology Engineering and Math.

If you want to objectively compliment a robots performance, you talk about the number of times it scored, the speed with which is manipulated the game object, or its consistency across matches. Those are all objective facts that can be determined, stated, and compared. Saying it completed the task beautifully implies a subjective opinion on the method of implementation, there is nothing at all objective about it.

[KosmicKhaos]

I think the broad use of the term "Art" is what makes people not like it to be included in STEM including myself. Art does not belong in the STEM acronym. "Art" is a far too broad term to include with the other subjects. I understand that parts of art can be used in STEM like design but I don't think its right to classify all of art with STEM.

Interesting perspective from another source-
"Art is often touted as a method of adding creativity to STEM—but keep in mind that engineers are rarely lacking for creativity and ingenuity. Just look at the world around you for proof."

Does art belong in STEM? No, but parts of it certainly do like design. However in my opinion those that do already fall under engineering. There is no reason to bring them together.

"en·gi·neer·ing
ˌenjəˈniriNG/
noun
the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures."

[efoote868]

If we want a meaningful discussion, I'll pose a question.

Is Computer Aided Design (CAD) an Art?

The human part of it sure can be.


OP:
FIRST had the imagery award long before they announced STEAM. I don't think it's "coming" to FRC, it's already here and it's been embedded for a very long time.

[tjf]

Building a good robot *is* an art, and some of the stuff people make for FIRST is definitely artsy. But to add art, being the arts, to the aspects that they try to preach, it enables FIRST to be a surrogate educator in every traditional class.

Is it such a bad thing? #musicgame2018

[mman1506]

If anything the switch from STEM to STEAM open up additional sponsorship opportunities. When a corporation donates to FIRST they can now say that they support both arts and technology in schools. Two birds one stone. It's obvious that arts are a big part of FIRST so why not?

[Cole Cyr]

Building a good robot *is* an art, and some of the stuff people make for FIRST is definitely artsy. But to add art, being the arts, to the aspects that they try to preach, it enables FIRST to be a surrogate educator in every traditional class.

Is it such a bad thing? #musicgame2018

Music game... would you want any aspect of the game to be subjective and have an effect on the points system. you gain extra points if the judges deem your robot good looking... thats the path were on.

[Ogehsim]

Artists do more than just paint. Many of them create works of art that rely on construction and material properties that engineers are familiar with and use frequently. Think sculptures, think kinetic art. They use welders and power tools and are concerned with structural integrity and Newtonian physics.

Leonardo Davinci designed mechanical contraptions and did art. The skills can be very complimentary. Engineers express their ideas not just through math but by drawing sketches and conceptual illustrations. Engineers are creative and so are artists. Artists often look to question the world and pose those questions to society through their art. Engineers may not like that the questions are not straightforward and often do not have answers (and yes, a lot of art is really dumb, but a lot of engineering is really dumb too, let's face it) but that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose.

A diversity of viewpoints is critical to coming up with new and novel solutions. We should welcome the inclusion of these new viewpoints. And if "artists" learn a new appreciation for STEM through that process, how does that hurt us? It hurts us more if we act like superior, cliquish snobs, insisting on our own superiority.

Try listening to this episode of the Embedded.fm podcast: http://embedded.fm/episodes/142 It features Sarah Petkus who is a kinetic artist who also works with robots. It's really cool.

Why not encourage that sort of crossing of disciplines rather than denigrating it?

[RoboChair]

I like well designed things that serve a function. I like things that look good. You can have both in an aesthetically pleasing package and it's beautiful when done right. It just depends on how you choose to incorporate the two and balance them.

http://i.imgur.com/L4wo71el.jpg

I made this cryptex. Was it a test of my abilities as an engineer and machinist? Absolutely! Was it a test of my ability to design an aesthetically pleasing product within the bounds of material selection and ability? You bet it was! It isn't perfect, but I learned a great deal from making it. If I make others they will be designed better and look nicer. Engineers that design ugly products won't be selling very many of them.

[Siri]

I think the broad use of the term "Art" is what makes people not like it to be included in STEM including myself. Art does not belong in the STEM acronym. "Art" is a far too broad term to include with the other subjects. I understand that parts of art can be used in STEM like design but I don't think its right to classify all of art with STEM.

Interesting perspective from another source-
"Art is often touted as a method of adding creativity to STEM—but keep in mind that engineers are rarely lacking for creativity and ingenuity. Just look at the world around you for proof."

Does art belong in STEM? No, but parts of it certainly do like design. However in my opinion those that do already fall under engineering. There is no reason to bring them together.

"en·gi·neer·ing
ˌenjəˈniriNG/
noun
the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures."I certainly agree there's enough art encompassed in engineering for engineers' purposes, as this ought to be a tautology for any field. But using that as a reason to keep an A out of STE(A)M is clearly internally inconsistent: under that logic, the acronym should just be "E". I no more need to be reminded or compelled to have art in my engineering than I do math. While I won't pretend to know any objective purpose for the original STEM acronym, but it clearly isn't that.

[Cothron Theiss]

the point being that Art compliments STEM

STEM blushes, and asks if Art would like to go out for a date.

[KosmicKhaos]

I certainly agree there's enough art encompassed in engineering for engineers' purposes, as this ought to be a tautology for any field. But using that as a reason to keep an A out of STE(A)M is clearly internally inconsistent: under that logic, the acronym should just be "E". I no more need to be reminded or compelled to have art in my engineering than I do math. While I won't pretend to know any objective purpose for the original STEM acronym, but it clearly isn't that.

You bring up a good point. I also think I could have worded my last post better so I will try to in this one.

I believe the STEM acronym was created to lump closely related fields together. Art is not one of those fields and therefore should not be included. Yes STEM does use some art but I believe the art STEM uses is already covered under engineering aspect of STEM.

[Karthik]

would you want any aspect of the game to be subjective and have an effect on the points system. you gain extra points if the judges deem your robot good looking... thats the path were on.

The Alliance Selection Process (which I love) is quite possibly the most subjective part of any competition I've seen. Teams are given the power to choose who participates in the elimination rounds based on whatever criteria they wish.

Artists do more than just paint. Many of them create works of art that rely on construction and material properties that engineers are familiar with and use frequently. Think sculptures, think kinetic art. They use welders and power tools and are concerned with structural integrity and Newtonian physics.

Leonardo Davinci designed mechanical contraptions and did art. The skills can be very complimentary. Engineers express their ideas not just through math but by drawing sketches and conceptual illustrations. Engineers are creative and so are artists. Artists often look to question the world and pose those questions to society through their art. Engineers may not like that the questions are not straightforward and often do not have answers (and yes, a lot of art is really dumb, but a lot of engineering is really dumb too, let's face it) but that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose.

A diversity of viewpoints is critical to coming up with new and novel solutions. We should welcome the inclusion of these new viewpoints. And if "artists" learn a new appreciation for STEM through that process, how does that hurt us? It hurts us more if we act like superior, cliquish snobs, insisting on our own superiority.

Try listening to this episode of the Embedded.fm podcast: http://embedded.fm/episodes/142 It features Sarah Petkus who is a kinetic artist who also works with robots. It's really cool.

Why not encourage that sort of crossing of disciplines rather than denigrating it?

I'm just quoting this post for visibility; it's by far one of the smartest things I've read on this site in a long time.

[Monochron]

you gain extra points if the judges deem your robot good looking... thats the path were on.

Presumably you have more "evidence" for this claim?

I'm not seeing a lot of real evidence for the claims you are making. This seems like another one.

[Chris is me]

If we want a meaningful discussion, I'll pose a question.

Is Computer Aided Design (CAD) an Art?

It is a tool that can create art, yes. It's a bit like saying "Is a pencil and paper art", though.

"Art is what you can get away with."

[Andrew Schreiber]

Music game... would you want any aspect of the game to be subjective and have an effect on the points system. you gain extra points if the judges deem your robot good looking... thats the path were on.

I assume you meant refs or zebras. They wear the striped shirts and their territory, the field, is shared with the FTAs. Judges wear the blue shirts (or red shirts for Safety Judges[1], I'm pretty sure that color is used in Canada too) and tend to have little to do with the field.

Judges have nothing to do with points but it may surprise you to know that if the judges like how your robot looks it's more likely you end up with a judged award. (which I guess counts as points in Districts). "BUT THATS UNFAIR RAWR ART SHOULDN'T COUNT" I can hear you screaming now. But it's fairly obvious, judges are people and tend to better recall things they liked seeing.

Top tips for talking to judges - clean pit, clean appearance, and be confident about your stuff. I KNOW I've given awards to teams over other teams because the students articulated things better or because I didn't see literal garbage strewn about a pit.

So, no, we're not ON that path, we've gone down that path and are now having a nice picnic.


[1] Which I've always found kinda funny, isn't it the red shirts in star trek that always die?

[Jon Stratis]

[1] Which I've always found kinda funny, isn't it the red shirts in star trek that always die?

In the original series, yes (red shirts were worn by operations, which included security personnel, so it makes sense they were on the front lines). That changed in later series, though, as the uniform colors changed (and there were significantly fewer deaths in the later series as well).

And now we return to your regularly scheduled topic...

[Lil' Lavery]

There seems to be a jump in logic that I'm not following from many of the "STEAM advocates." Why must the "A" be included in order for the connection between "the Arts" and STEM to be emphasized? Why must the "A" be included in order to encourage multi-disciplined actions?

STEM education organizations (including FIRST) have long had the stated goal of increasing students entering into STEM professions, typically with an angle that stresses on fixing the shortage of professional talent in STEM fields.

That doesn't mean they exclude Art fields or discourage multi-disciplined actions. In fact, FIRST is proof in the pudding that multi-disciplined fields are important within STEM. FIRST has long encouraged the importance of integrating design, imagery, entrepreneurship, industrial arts, vocational training, creativity, language arts, and cultural engagement. We've seen FIRST push for videography with their Chairman's video requirements. We've had awards for computer animation. We've had FIRST HQ sanctioned musical parody contests. All of this has occurred under a "STEM" banner with a concrete and definite focus on increasing cultural valuation of STEM disciplines. The arts were never excluded, but the end goal was a definite vision for culture change towards STEM.

When someone advocates for STEM, they're not advocating against the Arts or any other discipline. They aren't saying the Arts aren't important or that they're not applicable to STEM fields. Just the same as when someone advocates to "Save the Rainforest" they aren't saying you should burn down the Pine Forests and Sequoia Forests. There's no reason you have to change the "Save the Whales" slogan to "Save the Marine Mammals." Similarly you don't need to change STEM to STEAM, as it does not help the end goal of STEM. It only dilutes the message. Are STEAM advocates now pushing for more Humanities majors in addition to Computer Science majors? Is a STEAM center of an educational campus supposed to have pottery studios in addition to the machine shop? Is a scholarship for specific Bachelor of Science degrees no longer be applicable to STEAM because it doesn't include "the Arts?"

Inspiration isn't a zero-sum game. Just because we're working to inspire STEM leaders doesn't mean we're working to take away their passion for the Arts.

TL;DR - STEM already encompasses the cross-discipline aspects of the Arts (and business and other fields) with Engineering and other aspects. STEAM is not necessary, and clouds the explicit end-goals of a STEM movement.

[Jessica Boucher]

Why is this a discussion? Can someone TL;DR this for me?

[frcguy]

Why is this a discussion? Can someone TL;DR this for me?

TL;DR: the OP is unhappy that FIRST in Canada is implementing an award based on the concept of STEAM, not STEM, so they posted about it here. They seem to disagree with the integration of art in to the concept of STEM and believe it is essentially watering down FIRST.

[Cothron Theiss]

Why is this a discussion? Can someone TL;DR this for me?

This award (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1348453121886404&id=125661567498905) was announced. OP believes the creation of this award signifies that the objective nature of FIRST will be degraded by the inclusion of Art into FIRST. The rest is people arguing about an acronym.

There are some gems of wisdom here and there though, so I'd encourage you to read it when you get a chance.

EDIT - Sniped.

[Jon Stratis]

There seems to be a jump in logic that I'm not following from many of the "STEAM advocates." Why must the "A" be included in order for the connection between "the Arts" and STEM to be emphasized? Why must the "A" be included in order to encourage multi-disciplined actions?

I don't know if I'm seen as a STEAM advocate... but I will say while I personally prefer STEM, I've felt a need to post about the importance of Art, not because I think it should be included in the acronym, but because I've seen so many people make posts indicating that Art is not a part of engineering. Removing Art completely from Engineering does us all a disservice. We can argue the merit of it standing alone next to Engineering within the acronym, but we shouldn't just dismiss it as unrelated... and that's the problem I have with so many of the people who come in as anti-STEAM - many of the arguments say that art has nothing to do with engineering. Argue instead about the relative merits of STEM versus STEAM programs and what the kids get out of those programs within their schools. Argue about how inclusion or exclusion of Art in the acronym benefits a student or the program in the long run.

I'll leave this with one more note for everyone to think about... Jony Ive is well known for his product design work at Apple. In that role, he's gotten numerous accolades, including:
- Royal Designers for Industry from the British Royal Society of Arts
- a Knighthood
- Honorary Fellowship of the Royal Academy of Engineering

Did he get all of that because he built the fastest computers? The most powerful smartphones? The easiest devices to build and repair? No, he got recognized because he built truly beautiful devices. His designs and devices have changed entire industries because of the beauty and simplicity of his designs. If you need proof of that, just look at the criticism leveled after the iPhone 7 was introduced - it had significant improvements in many areas, but carried the same old "boring" design as the previous two iterations... and that design was pretty much all everyone talked about. If that's not proof of the presences of art within engineering, I don't know what is.

[D.Allred]

Why is this a discussion? Can someone TL;DR this for me?

It's a territorial dispute. STEAM dilutes STEM resources. Or as Clint Eastwood would put it... "Get off my lawn."

The problem I have with STEAM is that it strikes me as a money grab....

[asid61]

I think STEM should remain STEM. Of course there are aspects of Art in STEM, just as much as there is business, community service, writing, etc. - there are hundreds of things that go into STEM or complement it, and to include everything that might have an impact on it in the acronym would make for a very long acronym.
I view the acronym as different fields of majors. Few colleges require a mechanical engineer or a physicist to take an art course, or otherwise place a major focus on art as part of the degree. Including the very broad field of "art" is saying that we should include the humanities in the acronym as well, which takes up the remaining majors, which defeats the purpose of having the STEM acronym in the first place.
Just my opinion on the subject.

P.S. I'm not sure why people are arguing over the word "subjective". I get that you disagree that there are no subjective elements in FIRST, but there's no point in spending half a page over trying to convince one person of that.

[GaryVoshol]

To which aspects of STEM do the Entrepreneurship and Imagery awards belong? These are "official FIRST awards" at competitions.

The inclusion of STEAM is not to say, "We need to add Art to FIRST". I see it as saying, "Art has already been part of FIRST and that needs to be recognized."

And has already been said, what does it harm?

If we realize that we need more than technical skills to thrive in a technical environment, that's a good thing. It's about being well-rounded.

[gblake]

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1608080&postcount=27

Also:

Question: Do Chief Delphi discussions about the acronym "STEAM", often resemble the fable about the blind people describing an elephant?
Answer: Yes - Lots of truths are written, but it's difficult to piece them together into a comprehensive result.

[Lil' Lavery]

To which aspects of STEM do the Entrepreneurship and Imagery awards belong? These are "official FIRST awards" at competitions.

The inclusion of STEAM is not to say, "We need to add Art to FIRST". I see it as saying, "Art has already been part of FIRST and that needs to be recognized."

And has already been said, what does it harm?

If we realize that we need more than technical skills to thrive in a technical environment, that's a good thing. It's about being well-rounded.

There have been Entrepreneurship awards in FIRST for a long time. Should we add a B for business to the acronym as well? STEBAM?

The Chairman's Award is our highest honor, and places high emphasis on cultural impact, civil service, and community relations. Should we include a C for Culture in the acronym? STEBAMC?

We have a Volunteer of the Year Award, and themes of volunteerism ring true in several other awards FIRST gives out. Should we include a V in the acronym? STEVBAMC?

What does it hurt? The end goal of STEM. When there's more competition from the "A" fields for STEM grants, or money from STEM programs starts getting siphoned into "A" programs, it takes away from the resources dedicated to STEM. FIRST giving legitimacy to this is not a positive move for STEM advocacy.

[bkahl]

There have been Entrepreneurship awards in FIRST for a long time. Should we add a B for business to the acronym as well? STEBAM?

The Chairman's Award is our highest honor, and places high emphasis on cultural impact, civil service, and community relations. Should we include a C for Culture in the acronym? STEBAMC?

We have a Volunteer of the Year Award, and themes of volunteerism ring true in several other awards FIRST gives out. Should we include a V in the acronym? STEVBAMC?


I think they really need to add more terms to make it a more forward thinking acronym. Art is important, but Business is just as important, if not more, for sustaining a team. Another core tenant of FIRST is teaching students Responsibility as it applies to project management, and Inclusion of team mates to make a highly functional team.

The new acronym should really be RIBMEATS.

Not gunna lie- I REALLY like the RIBMEATS acronym.

[Siri]

You bring up a good point. I also think I could have worded my last post better so I will try to in this one.

I believe the STEM acronym was created to lump closely related fields together. Art is not one of those fields and therefore should not be included. Yes STEM does use some art but I believe the art STEM uses is already covered under engineering aspect of STEM.The idea that the STEM fields are uniquely closely related is itself a subjective political construct. This isn't to say it's wrong or that I want to change it, merely that it's not sacrosanct. We have no objective way to measure how "close" "technology" is to "math" versus "art" in absolute terms.

Our concept of STEM exists because we've decided to group these topics together. That certainly has its benefits. But in using it, remember that the term you use influences the thoughts you think. Don't forget that a pure mathematician may well laugh at your joke if you claim her entire field is closely related to engineering. So too might a primate researcher or a clinical psychiatrist--they could laugh as hard as a sculptor. This laughter isn't because geologists or biostatisticians or stochastic analysts or thespians are on the "far edge" of their fields or are particularly clueless as to the scope of engineering. Rather, it's because this isn't just an "art" gap; different people see different gaps between different topics in "science" and "math" versus "engineering" or "technology".

I'd advise anyone listening that there's really no reason to define huge topics as "closely related" or not in absolute terms. Just use a delineation that fits whatever situation you're facing. Do you want to help subjects whose funding was cut by at least N% in M school districts? Then I suspect you want STEAM. Is it departments with underrepresentation of scholarship dollars to minorities? Then maybe it doesn't include art, but I'd guess it includes kinesiology. Is it jobs in which we have more national vacancies than graduates? etc, etc. The question is simply: what is FIRST trying to accomplish, and does including Art help do that?

[frcguy]

Not gunna lie- I REALLY like the RIBMEATS acronym.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bkahl again.

...

[Gravity]

Nobody is telling you to make a good-looking robot. Just let the people who enjoy art have fun with it. No harm done there.

[Liam Fay]

While the award in question and the addition of the A in STEAM may make it seem like art is suddenly being added to FIRST, that is not the case. Instead, think of it as the 'A' finally being recognized.

Even if your interpretation of art is limited to things that are aesthetically pleasing, then it still makes sense to include 'A' in the mantra for a competition where teams paint their robots to branding standards, produce emotional Chairman's videos, and create elaborate pit displays. Art has always been a part of FIRST.

It goes the other way, too. Graphic design, for example, is as much math as it is aesthetics! The Swiss school of graphic design is based upon ratios and grids, and even plays with the Fibonacci sequence. Focus testing for logo and layout design uses the same scientific method that many inventors do.

In summation, art is in no way a new addition to FIRST, and it only makes sense to finally recognize it as part of the set of ideals and aspirations under which we operate.

[Amanda Morrison]

FIRST has had written award submissions for decades. They've emphasized presentation skills, effective communication, and creativity (for the robot and via projects such as animations). In words and actions, they've promoted a well-rounded education that stresses the importance and influence of science and technology alongside other staples.

I imagine it is very difficult to make it through college and into a successful engineering career without these elements of effective communication. There are even awards, such as the Woodie Flowers Award, that champion individuals who are exceptionally gifted at this trait:

The Woodie Flowers Award celebrates effective communication in the art and science of engineering and design. Dr. William Murphy founded this prestigious award in 1996 to recognize mentors who lead, inspire and empower using excellent communication skills. ... This award recognizes an individual who has done an outstanding job of motivation through communication while also challenging the students to be clear and succinct in recognizing the value of communication. As such, it is very important that this be a student-led effort and a student decision.

You could literally be the world's foremost expert at anything - anything at all! - and that would be meaningless without the ability to share with others what you've learned. Referring to "the arts" covers just about everything else that isn't in the typical STEM acronym, but let's not forget that it covers at least the basic communication skills which are vital to everything that IS within the STEM acronym. "The arts" doesn't cover only music and paintings, but even basic composition in its purest form.

The inclusion or exclusion of the extra letter is irrelevant - it is already present. Best to just let this one go.

[euhlmann]

At your first competition this season, do take a look around you. Look at teams' decked out pits, beautiful robots, and stylish costumes. Imagine how much goes into the graphics and branding on teams' flyers, website, and videos. Look again and tell me that art is not a huge part of being an FRC team. Adding the A to STEAM isn't anything new; it's simply acknowledging what is already here.

[Ringo5tarr]

I see a lot of people asking what's the point of adding the A even if art deserves top be part of FIRST, and while this is just my opinion, I have to say that it's probably because some higher ups where running through ideas of themes and realized that steam was only a letter off from stem, so they simply asked themselves, what can go into stem and starts with an "A"?

Now, since this thread is also about arts new inclusion and not just the controversy of the letter, I want to say, that FIRST is not the end all be all of STEM, and just because FIRST is adding an A doesn't force everyone to, and FIRST is proooooooobably going to include some art challenge within the game itself considering the paintbrush found in the logo (but I guess we'll just see in {Insert days until kickoff here} days). So hey, robots doing art is still engineering, right? So can we all maybe get along for another couple of weeks before we're ripping each other to shreds about sticking cameras on sticks? Please?

[Bryce2471]

I don't have much to contribute in the way of debate, but I'd like to take a second to call attention to important themes that have largely been left out of this thread.

The question at hand is "Should A for art be added to STEM?"

To me, the important points that should be discussed in order to generate any good answer to this question are as follows:

1. What is art?
If anyone can post a definition of "art" or "the arts" that everyone can agree on. I'll give them rep.
But seriously. I have read a broad range of definitions, and I have yet to decide witch is the best working definition to me.

2. What is STEM?
Same problem here. There are an enormous variety of definitions out there for technology and engineering especially.

3. What is the purpose of STEM?
Not of the fields, but of the acronym. In the end, art should be added to the acronym if and only if it helps the acronym achieve its purpose. This is again something I have no good answer for, as I was not listening in when the acronym was created.

4. Does STEAM aid in FIRST's mission?
This has been discussed in depth already, but it is an important question. The reality is that STEAM already exists as an acronym and is somewhat widely used. So maybe a better question is whether or not FIRST should use it.

So if future posters to this thread could either read and answer these questions or let me know what I'm missing; maybe we could begin to construct a mostly agreed upon conclusion. (or maybe not)

[artdutra04]

Art has personally attacked my family and my way of life. It should not be tolerated in STEM.:(

Does art belong in STEM? No:(


Removing Art completely from Engineering does us all a disservice.:)

The question is simply: what is FIRST trying to accomplish, and does including Art help do that?I'd like to think that I'm at least a sometimes useful mentor.

[MrForbes]

But is it Art?

My Edsel asks the same question.

http://selectric.org/59edsel/art.jpg

[Fusion_Clint]

I don't know about you guys; but I am less worried about art getting some stem money, than I am excited to start applying for art grants for my stem programs.

The money should be a two way street and making "art" with our cool toys could excite the traditional art crowd.

We pride ourselves in that no matter what a student is interested in, we have a spot for that on our team.

[frcguy]

We pride ourselves in that no matter what a student is interested in, we have a spot for that on our team.

+1 to this.

[Thayer McCollum]

Not gunna lie- I REALLY like the RIBMEATS acronym.

I like RIBMEATS period.

[EricH]

You know what...

I find it totally hilarious that FIRST CA simply shares a link to what would best be described as "a chance for college money", and somebody goes totally off the rails about how they don't like art in STEM.

Let's take this in context, folks. If we are only focusing on STEM, I think there's a few scholarships that need to come off the table because they're "not STEM". And we don't want that, now, do we?

[Lil' Lavery]

I don't know about you guys; but I am less worried about art getting some stem money, than I am excited to start applying for art grants for my stem programs.

The money should be a two way street and making "art" with our cool toys could excite the traditional art crowd.

We pride ourselves in that no matter what a student is interested in, we have a spot for that on our team.

Can you provide me any links towards art grants that are now accepting STEM applicants? The vast majority of this movement is happening in the other direction, including the Arts in STEM funding. The websites, literature, and rhetoric used is all about making sure Art is included in STEM, not allowing existing money for the Arts/Humanities to branch into STEM fields. Your robotics team suddenly isn't going to get to apply for a grant that's targeted for public murals or community theater, but graphic design programs are going to be able to compete against your robotics team for STEAM grants.

Here's some examples:
http://stemtosteam.org/
http://steam-notstem.com/
https://learningforward.org/learning-opportunities/webinars/webinar-archive/from-stem-to-steam

And if you need more proof, here's House Resolution 51 (2014), which is explicitly about adding the Arts into Federal STEM funding.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/51

This is real. This is not a trivial matter. This isn't just an acronym change.

[DCA Fan]

I'm unconvinced that this thread itself is not a performance art piece.

[Fusion_Clint]

Can you provide me any links towards art grants that are now accepting STEM applicants? The vast majority of this movement is happening in the other direction, including the Arts in STEM funding. The websites, literature, and rhetoric used is all about making sure Art is included in STEM, not allowing existing money for the Arts/Humanities to branch into STEM fields. Your robotics team suddenly isn't going to get to apply for a grant that's targeted for public murals or community theater, but graphic design programs are going to be able to compete against your robotics team for STEAM grants.

Here's some examples:
http://stemtosteam.org/
http://steam-notstem.com/
https://learningforward.org/learning-opportunities/webinars/webinar-archive/from-stem-to-steam

And if you need more proof, here's House Resolution 51 (2014), which is explicitly about adding the Arts into Federal STEM funding.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/51

This is real. This is not a trivial matter. This isn't just an acronym change.

Thanks that is very enlightening, you convinced me.

[Basel A]

you convinced me

I've been on Chief Delphi for a long time (not as long as some others, of course), and I think this might be the first time I've seen these words.

[jman4747]

Can you provide me any links towards art grants that are now accepting STEM applicants? The vast majority of this movement is happening in the other direction, including the Arts in STEM funding. The websites, literature, and rhetoric used is all about making sure Art is included in STEM, not allowing existing money for the Arts/Humanities to branch into STEM fields. Your robotics team suddenly isn't going to get to apply for a grant that's targeted for public murals or community theater, but graphic design programs are going to be able to compete against your robotics team for STEAM grants.

Here's some examples:
http://stemtosteam.org/
http://steam-notstem.com/
https://learningforward.org/learning-opportunities/webinars/webinar-archive/from-stem-to-steam

And if you need more proof, here's House Resolution 51 (2014), which is explicitly about adding the Arts into Federal STEM funding.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/51

This is real. This is not a trivial matter. This isn't just an acronym change.

The point these sources seem to be making is that arts related education should take place in programs focused on promoting STEM higher education and careers.

Your concern is that these initiatives will allow programs solely focused on the arts and not promoting STEM higher education and careers, to receive funding meant for STEM programs.

Correct?

[jman4747]

I've been on Chief Delphi for a long time (not as long as some others, of course), and I think this might be the first time I've seen these words.

+1

[Conor Ryan]

Can you provide me any links towards art grants that are now accepting STEM applicants? The vast majority of this movement is happening in the other direction, including the Arts in STEM funding. The websites, literature, and rhetoric used is all about making sure Art is included in STEM, not allowing existing money for the Arts/Humanities to branch into STEM fields. Your robotics team suddenly isn't going to get to apply for a grant that's targeted for public murals or community theater, but graphic design programs are going to be able to compete against your robotics team for STEAM grants.

Here's some examples:
http://stemtosteam.org/
http://steam-notstem.com/
https://learningforward.org/learning-opportunities/webinars/webinar-archive/from-stem-to-steam

And if you need more proof, here's House Resolution 51 (2014), which is explicitly about adding the Arts into Federal STEM funding.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/51

This is real. This is not a trivial matter. This isn't just an acronym change.

It's like we should replace the A for Art with Architecture. And we don't mean just buildings, UX, and design are included too.


I'm on the RIBMEATS train too.

[Lil' Lavery]

The point these sources seem to be making is that arts related education should take place in programs focused on promoting STEM higher education and careers.

Your concern is that these initiatives will allow programs solely focused on the arts and not promoting STEM higher education and careers, to receive funding meant for STEM programs.

Correct?

The dilution of STEM funding into a broader spectrum is indeed a concern I have. While hopefully the initiatives funded have at least a tertiary connection to the "Technology" portion of STEM (such as funding a computer-based graphic design program over a interpretive dance program), changing from STEM to STEAM unquestionably represents a widening of the spectrum. But that's not the entirety of my concerns. As I have voiced in previous (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1608292&postcount=69) posts (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1618462&postcount=25), I see little separation between "STEAM" and "Education" in general, and the precise scope and meaning of a STEAM-focused education is unclear to me. Where-as STEM has a concrete objective of increasing participation in particular majors and career fields, STEAM is lobbying for the hiring of other majors into STEM careers and for vague increases in "innovation" and "creativity."

This isn't to say anything in the STEAM agenda is outright incorrect or detrimental. But to me, STEM funding represents a specific subset of education, while STEAM is diluting that subset into broader education funding as a whole. I have zero issue with increasing education funding (it's actual something I care about deeply), but if we want to increase education funding as a whole, let's not do so by diluting funding already in the system.

Now obviously, the individuals involved in FIRST HQ have much more experience regarding STEM funding, both private and public. Perhaps this battle is already lost, and they can sense the political winds shifting and are sailing into what is going to be more smoother waters in the future. I hope their reasoning on this issue is robust, and not just playing into a "STEAMpunk" theme.

[Andrew_L]

I see merit to both sides of the argument, and I'm not about to say which is right, but I think where the disconnect lies is with what the definition of "art" is, and what should / should not be included in a program related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Art is a fantastically and purposefully broad term to describe an enormous range of personal expressions. I would actually argue that it's so broad, that the term "art" can find a way to be relevant to every endeavor we undertake as human beings. Anything, from paintings, to geological formations, to computer-generated music, and yes, even robotics, can be artful.

I do not think anyone here disagrees with the fact that robotics is an art - a thing of beauty when executed correctly, with just enough method to the madness to allow purposeful and deliberate choices of expression to stand out above others. I would also go as far as to say that most people agree that the FIRST Robotics program contains aspects that are not related to the scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical side of study, and that those aspects of the program are just as important as those that are relating to STEM.

Where I'm finding a disagreement is on how much of the arts we should include within our program. Those in favor of STEAM seem to be advocating for all of arts to be recognized within our program, or at least a majority of them, on the grounds that all if not most arts are underrepresented and should be recognized as legitimate efforts made by our teams. On the other hand, those against STEAM argue that with "art" being such a generic term, including all types of art invites a large range of activities that have little relevance to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to be associated with what we're doing in these programs, therefore diluting our image and our mission. Some argue for all arts, some argue for none, and some argue for some, but not others.

One could make the argument that, in some way, every skill is related to every other skill by some means, so by that logic every art is relevant to STEM. Others may say that while the relation is there for everything, the application of many is different enough to merit their own separate categories, and therefore only the arts most relevant to STEM should be included, lest we lump everything into one giant category.

Everything we do in FIRST Robotics, from CAD design and machining to logo making and the Chairman's Award, is art. The questions we need to ask ourselves are:

1: If everything is an art, how do we define what art sets us apart from everyone else?

2: Do we even want to be separate from everything else as our own entity, or do we want to be associated with everything as an all-inclusive entity?'

3: Is there a happy middle ground?

[Taylor]

RIBMEATS is nice, but it dismisses a very important part of what we do. I cannot imagine a Robot Competition without Dance; Dance simply will not be ignored. So with a slight readjustment of the RIBMEATS acronym:

I B D MASTER

[Jessica Boucher]

Thanks to everyone who cleared it up for me earlier.

Now, raise your hand if you remember the "Featherweight in the Finals" award. How about "Most Photogenic" or "Play of the Day"?

No one? Just me?

Awards come and go. Funding comes and goes. That's why many Junior Highs in the US were replaced by Middle Schools. It's fine to show concern about the direction of the program, but after 17 seasons I can assuredly tell you the only thing certain in FIRST is change.

Change is a good thing. If we stay stagnant, we are no longer relevant. The best teams know this, and FRC knows this as well.

And if you don't like it, that's okay (and you're welcome to voice that), but I suggest that you just wait it out a few years. We'll have something new to complain about in five years, I'm sure.

[Mark McLeod]

Now, raise your hand if you remember the "Featherweight in the Finals" award. How about "Most Photogenic" or "Play of the Day"?

Who could forget "Against All Odds" or "Autodesk Design Your Future", "Compelling Creativity", "Content Communication"

Want to know who won? :)

[Taylor]

Now, raise your hand if you remember the "Featherweight in the Finals" award. How about "Most Photogenic" or "Play of the Day"?


Who could forget "Against All Odds" or "Autodesk Design Your Future", "Compelling Creativity", "Content Communication"

Want to know who won? :)

Were these official FIRST awards, or were they given out by teams? If the latter, I can add "Best Button Design", "Weight Watchers", "Best Defense", and "Best Balancing Act" to my teams' repertoire.

[Mark McLeod]

Those were all official FIRST awards.
Some stuck around longer than others, Featherweight-4 years, Most Photogenic-8 years, Play of the Day morphed through Best to Incredible-11 years.
As Jess said, awards come and go-change is constant or we've stagnated.

Here's one...

[Carolyn_Grace]

Personally I think we need to change it to SCTEAM.

With more of an emphasis on COMMUNICATION, perhaps we'd solve the problem of terrible capitalization and grammar habits on the internetz.

Please for the love of the English language, use apostrophes and capitalize "I"

[Kartoffee]

I'm kind of mixed about this. On one hand, FIRST depends equally on art or photography. Yet, STEM is a very small part of a FIRST team. FIRST clearly is in favor of teams doing more outside of STEM, such as the Chairman's Award. Also, there is a certain weight about the term "science". Science is the laws of the universe. These laws have no room for error. Gravity isn't about 10m/s^2, it is 9.8, and will always be as long as the planet stays a closed system. The same can't be said for arts. Art is purely objective. The STEAM issue is like behavioral science; science is definite, but human behaviors aren't.

That being said, our team (Bionic Blackhawks) is very dependent on our student's concerted effort to produce a public image of our team at every event. I think that the art field is worthy of recognition, but I would not put it on the same plane as science and mathematics.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Gravity isn't about 10m/s^2, it is 9.8, and will always be as long as the planet stays a closed system.

It's NOT 9.8. It's ABOUT 9.8. Surprise, gravity isn't uniform across the globe. There's small variations depending on where you are. As you can assume this does horrible things with things like accelerometers when you need precision.

[Chris is me]

It just feels like, of all the things FIRST does and can continue to do, we have so much more to worry about than the letters in our acronym or if we have to share a little grant money with a chronically underfunded portion of our educational system. I know it's possible to worry about several things at once, so this isn't really an argument, but we have some inspirin' to do.

Personally, if this leads to even a little bit more respect, appreciation, and incorporation of the arts into FIRST teams, I'm happy for the change. I'm done with edgy kids who think they're better than people with artistic sides, and who think they can just ignore that entire branch of human expression and still be the most effective scientists and engineers they can be.

[Jon Stratis]

It just feels like, of all the things FIRST does and can continue to do, we have so much more to worry about than the letters in our acronym or if we have to share a little grant money with a chronically underfunded portion of our educational system. I know it's possible to worry about several things at once, so this isn't really an argument, but we have some inspirin' to do.

Personally, if this leads to even a little bit more respect, appreciation, and incorporation of the arts into FIRST teams, I'm happy for the change. I'm done with edgy kids who think they're better than people with artistic sides, and who think they can just ignore that entire branch of human expression and still be the most effective scientists and engineers they can be.

This spawned a thought for me... FIRST's acronym is, well, FIRST. STEM and STEAM are not FIRST acronyms. They aren't ones FIRST created or controlled. They are ones FIRST can use to help achieve its goals, though.

[cbale2000]

I think they really need to add more terms to make it a more forward thinking acronym. Art is important, but Business is just as important, if not more, for sustaining a team. Another core tenant of FIRST is teaching students Responsibility as it applies to project management, and Inclusion of team mates to make a highly functional team.

The new acronym should really be RIBMEATS.

Underrated post.

While I don't speak for everyone, I don't think people who are opposed to STEAM are against Arts, just concerned that moving in the direction of including fields that aren't directly related to STEM is a slippery slope and could result in a loss of focus in STEM as a whole.

As s_forbes pointed out, in addition to Arts, Business could certainly be added as it directly affects STEM (while the other two items he listed make a fun acronym, I don't really see them as "fields of study"), but why stop there? Much of STEM draws from historical examples and research, so why not add History? What about adding Social Sciences since STEM has a profound impact on society? People in STEM fields also take a lot of notes and write technical papers, why not add English/Language Arts? Lots of "STEM" goes in to modern physical fitness, lets add PE too while we're at it. Throw in Foreign language too since, in the modern global economy many things are manufactured in other countries.

STEAMFLELAHPESS

Eventually you end up with this all encompassing mass of fields that is almost indistinguishable from General Education.


Also, this:

The problem I have with STEAM is that it strikes me as a money grab. STEM education has a clear and concise goal of increasing certain professions with a pretty well defined set of subject matters it caters to. STEAM is far less defined and is rapidly approaching education as a whole. It may be cynical of me, but STEAM just seems like a way for Arts educators/lobbyists to compete for funding and attention that was going towards STEM (grants/sponsorships/scholarships/etc). To me it seems like "the Arts" felt left out of STEM, and rather than advocate their own set of merits and interests, they latched onto STEM initiatives to get their slice of the pie.

Did this CA FIRST Scholarship exist before the switch from STEM to STEAM? Would it have existed without the switch from STEM to STEAM? Did it struggle for applicants as a STEM scholarship? Or are good STEM-field applicants going to be passed over for the scholarship in favor of BA majors?

None of this is to say that Arts aren't important or that the Arts aren't applicable to STEM fields. However, others have pointed out that Business and other fields are also applicable to STEM. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and the relationship between STEM and other fields can be stressed even within the confines of STEM.

[jman4747]

This is what I get from reading up on the links provided by Lil' Lavery:

STEAM initiatives promote art education as a method of improving skills critical to modern and future STEM fields.

I think that goal is fine and believe FIRST does this now even if we need to improve it.

My problem with them:
They seem to lack concern for increasing the number of K-12 students who pursue STEM degrees and carriers in the first place. If more money is pushed to programs that don't do this then I am against these initiatives. Furthermore to the existent that the acronym is used to promote such programs I am against its use.

If the above isn't the case then I wouldn't worry about STEAM initiatives or the use of the acronym.

[Kartoffee]

It's NOT 9.8. It's ABOUT 9.8. Surprise, gravity isn't uniform across the globe. There's small variations depending on where you are. As you can assume this does horrible things with things like accelerometers when you need precision.

True, I just couldn't think of a better example.

[Gravity]

I personally think we should officially call it Communication Harp-playing Intelligence Education Fundraising Design Elevation Liberation Painting Harmonics and Imagination.

This way we incorporate all aspects of FIRST :]

[Awesomegamer235]

STEAM could mean we have game peices that are artsy or it could mean that they are going to add an award. If they add an award i think it would be something based on your robot design OR it could mean they are going to recognize the mascots by having an award for the best costume for mascots. thats just what i think i would love to hear other peoples opinions:)

[hutchMN]

Why don't we just build a wall to keep ART out? :D

[GeeTwo]

Why don't we just build a wall to keep ART out? :D

No way that can backfire... (http://www.myneworleans.com/St-Charles-Avenue/April-2014/The-Wonderwall/)

And OBTW, STEAMFLELAHPESS => TSHAPELESSFLAME.