[ArthurA]

Many people here have been making the point that we need to include the art acronym as some FRC Robots are 'works of art' and how not including art devalues creative effort put in to on FRC robots.

I think everybody agrees that a great deal of creativity goes into FRC robots. However does this mean that Art has to be a core component of the STEM acronym? I really don't see a reason for this, as why should art have a monopoly on creativity??? For many (most?) people, the word art means much more than applied creativity, and for that reason it dilutes the message, especially as many components of the field of art are completely separated from many components of STEM, in a way that the various subjects part of the STEM superfield are much more closely related. Additionally, the challenges faced by STEM fields are similar, whereas the challenges faced by art fields are not similar to those faced by STEM fields.

Sure, there is overlap between architectural and industrial design fields (to pick a random example), however there is also a great deal of overlap between STEM and many other fields (that are not just peripheral but vital to the advancement of STEM), yet we do not choose to include them in the STEM acronym. For example, I would argue that STEM advancements are driven by skills in the humanities - for example many of the most prominent figures in STEM fields are not just great engineers, but also great entrepreneurs or businesspeople.