Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I like this.

STEM is important when trying to promote future careers. STEAM is important to cover everything that goes into a STEM career.

I also think that Engineering already has Art in it. As an engineering student I was and am taught to think of how a product looks. The aesthetic is always taught to us, which is technically art, which is part of Engineering.

I like STEM because it is a nice little acronym that rounds up a group of very similar fields and puts them under one umbrella. Adding art is adding a curve ball that is not like the others.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Lots of people are making statements to the effect that "STEM already incorporates a lot of art, STEM is itself an art, therefore we don't need to change the acronym". Isn't this an argument against keeping the acronym, not for it? If art is so important to STEM, it should be recognized as a part of it.

Calling it like I see it here; lots of people in STEM fields don't have respect for the arts, and that's where a lot of the pushback on this change is. Lots of STEM majors in college look down on art majors as being unemployable or unrealistic, and feel their majors are superior to theirs. This extends into the professional world as well. I think fighting this stigma that devalues art is important.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Even if it's the case that a lot of people in STEM do not respect the arts, that alone doesn't really provide any good justification for adding "art" to the acronym.

When we speak of STEM education, we are speaking of a group of things that are similar enough that they share a large number of common features and problems, and thus it is fruitful to discuss them as a single unit. Value judgments aside, "art" simply does not conceptually fit with the rest.

If you want to have a discussion about the devaluation of art in STEM fields, then have that discussion - but don't try to insert that discussion into every discussion of STEM, which is the only real end I see of using the "STEAM" acronym.

Edit: This may be a bit more contentious, but some of the advocacy for using "STEAM" instead of "STEM" also strikes me as carrying vague connotations of postmodernism, which I do not like one bit.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Mike,
Good points as always.

I would place the entire teaser and downloadable content from FIRST in the "art" category. So far, so good?

David

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

That definitely wasn't my entire argument, as evidenced by the rest of all my posts on the subject. My argument is that the combination of the lack of respect people give art, combined with its importance both outside of STEM subjects and even within STEM subjects, shows the value of recognizing art alongside STEM subjects.

Lots of people here seem to agree that STEM subjects involve art, and art subjects involve STEM. If that's really the case, yet there is a lack of respect for something this important to the rest of STEM, adding art to the acronym is a good response, which helps further imply this relationship.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I really can't agree with this. The first part, I might agree with in a loose sense of the word "art" - but the relationship between engineering and art is fundamentally nothing like the relationship between engineering and math.

As to the second part, I can't really agree, because I don't think the purpose of the acronym is to "build appreciation" - it's to provide a useful label for a collection of intimately-related subjects. "STEAM" loses that utility.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

So Art isn't intimately-related in Engineering, Architecture, Design? I have to disagree.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Not in the Bob Ross sense, in my opinion. Art is a very broad category...

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

But there's tons of examples of this. Architecture is the intersection of structural engineering requirements, and artistic / aesthetic use of space. Knowledge of both tangible and concrete math and science needs to be combined with intangible experience in spatial design and layout. Engineering also uses architectural principles in it as well - one example that comes to mind for me because it's related to my work is the layout of a shop floor in order to optimize a process. Optimizing this layout requires some artistic vision in how objects can be oriented around each other and how parts can flow through the system, combined with the hard math and science of operation times, flow control, operator steps, etc.

Music has tons of engineering in it - the production, design, and operation of audio systems, speakers, monitors, musical instruments, synthesizers, recording devices, playback devices all require heavy doses of engineering and science in the quest for artistic self-expression. There's absolutely a lot of mathematics in musical composition and physics in the entire concept of audio. This is probably the field that the connection is the most obvious in - music could not exist without STEM, and the music industry is a valid and relevant field for someone in STEM with an art interest to go into.

I'm less familiar with other forms of art, which there are obviously many, but anything from theater to cinematography to painting to sculpture, to varying degrees, involves STEM subjects, and all sorts of STEM fields incorporate the artistic lessons taught in arts fields. This is less tangible for me to explain because art is so subjective but I believe artistic design, aesthetics, culture, and society shape the kind of engineer and mechanical designer that I am, and that I'm a better engineer for my appreciation and interest in the arts (even if I'm not as good at them). I also believe that when I've worked on or completed an engineering design, I have created art.

I'm saying they ARE intimately related, and the fact that people don't observe and appreciate this is all the more reason for its inclusion in the label. The structure of our education system may not recognize them as similar concepts, and many STEM people may devalue the arts, but that does not mean there is no relationship, and it doesn't mean that it's not beneficial for us to view the subjects as related. I think it is.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

In any case, if STEAM is a direction FIRST wants to go, this page needs to be updated.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Albert Einstein played the violin, Johnny Cash was a code breaker in the Air force, Brian May (guitarist from Queen for you youngsters) is an astrophysicist, I can site example after example of artist who have math/science brains. It is very common for musicians to have mathematical/technical talent.

To me keep the tent big and open and not quibble about A's.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

None of these even begin to resemble the scale of conceptual similarity between the "traditional" STEM fields. Can we find examples of overlap between arts and STEM? Of course. Does that mean that the "STEAM" label is similarly coherent to STEM? Not even close.

For example, I can point out that some birds are aquatic - after all, look at penguins! This does not mean that I should adopt a term for "Birds and Aquatic Animals" when I mean to speak about birds. Even if it were the case that ornithologists systemically devalued marine biology, it still would not be a good idea.

I'm sorry, I'm simply not buying the argument that the "A" in "STEAM" does not stand out.

It is not useful to derail discussion of STEM, in which we discuss many things that are relevant to the subjects that fall under the STEM label but not art, by forcing ourselves to include in our discussions a subject that has a comparatively very different set of features and concerns.

I am not saying that we should never discuss "STEAM." I am saying that adopting a policy of replacing the "STEM" label with "STEAM" is a bad idea, especially if it's only out of some feeling that "we don't care enough about art."

Here's another way to think of this: how many academic subjects can you think of that clearly do not fit under the "STEAM" label? In an information-theoretic sense, a label that specifies everything is no more useful than a label that specifies nothing.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I don't really care either way but one thing I do notice is that art is generally looked down upon at least by young people. All the unemployment or useless art degree jokes/memes are very common on social media and at least in my area, engineering students generally look down on art. To claim that STEM people and students already know art is important isn't quite accurate. That said the same could be said for almost every other discipline such as communication skills, English, and business.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

David,

It's very artistic set of media indeed!

In my mind, FIRST supporting the "A" in STEAM would look more like 5-8 million in scholarships for Art Students at Art-focused colleges? Or maybe rewarding teams that graduate many college Art students from their FRC team, even if they lack promotion of Engineering or Science? If STEAM is the new way forward, I would expect Art to receive the same level of emphasis and respect program-wide as the rest of STEAM.

I haven't seen that level of support yet, but will be interested to see how this develops.

-Mike

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Hey I believe that Art's inclusion in STEM comes from the fact that many modern applications of art are heavily invested and affected by technology, such as graphic design, 3D-Modeling, animation, game design, etc (all CTE classes as well). Art encompasses much more than that obviously, but in order to include the specific tech based art forms in STEM, which I believe that the ones I've mentioned definitely do deserve to be included, the word "art" as a descriptor is pretty much the only broad word that can be used to add to the STEM acronym. Now whether or not you even need the word art to encompass these things is a different argument than whether these things deserve to be under the STEM umbrella, which I believe they do. Now my last point with the meld of art and STEM is that they are an integral part of each other in many aspects: Architecture, CAD, Industrial Design, and in general Invention and Innovation, none of which function well without equal parts critical and creative thinking. Just think DaVinci, largely considered an artist, sculptor, inventor, and engineer, and with whatever he does, his creative and analytical talents are not mutually exclusive.