STEM vs. STEAM

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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.

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.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

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.

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.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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.

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.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

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.

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

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

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

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

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

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.

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 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.

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.

[Drivencrazy]

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

[IndySam]

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.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

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.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

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."

Disclaimer - I've always been pro the STEAM label and this is one of those topics I'm irrationally passionate about.

I don't think it's because "we don't care enough about art" I think it's because art makes people better. And no, I don't mean in some general sense "knowing art makes you more rounded" that some guidance counselor will justify making engineering students take an art history class [1]. I mean in the sense that it makes you genuinely think about things in a different way.

Let's use music as an example, it teaches fractions in a really interesting way because most folks don't realize it's fractions even though it's right there in the names (quarter note, eight note...). It teaches basic coding concepts (what is sheet music except a language for defining how to perform a task?) But it does all this without triggering the "that's too hard" reaction in most folks. I've seen folks who panicked whenever they saw "add these fractions" but music and rhythm all made sense to them. That sound is simply air vibrating isn't just a piece in a lecture when you play an instrument, you can see it and feel it. It's an incredibly powerful experience to learn something that isn't just words on a board but is something you can create and feel.

What I'm trying to say is that art is, for the most part, intrinsically linked to engineering. They are two sides of the same coin. And instead of fighting over a stupid acronym we should be figuring out how we can use art to explain concepts in engineering rather than just the other way around. Yes, to me I understand that overlapping two frequencies just right can cause a new sound. But I can feel it when I play an instrument.

Maybe we can stop thinking of art as a separate thing and more of Applied STEM. Bonus, we can keep the STEAM acronym. (Science Technology Engineering Application and Math)



[1] For the record - I've taken Art History classes and actually really enjoy them.

[epylko]

I, as a carnivore, think we should call it MEATS.

All kidding aside, I really agree with Andrew's comment from earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

...
What I'm trying to say is that art is, for the most part, intrinsically linked to engineering. They are two sides of the same coin. And instead of fighting over a stupid acronym we should be figuring out how we can use art to explain concepts in engineering rather than just the other way around.
...

My son, when he was in 8th or 9th grade, submitted a C program to the school literary magazine because he felt programming was an art. I agree with him. The advisor called him down to his classroom to have a chat. Benjamin made his case. It's a creative outlet for him. If the magazine is about creativity, his program should be there too. The advisor agreed. His program was in the literary magazine.

I just did a "define:art" in google. It says:

"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Building and designing robots is exactly the expression and application of human creative skill. But FIRST is not just building and operating robots. It's a business so you have accounting, sales, marketing, writing, competing interests, drawing, painting, project management, team building, personality conflicts, and more that is not directly related to STE or M. I could easily classify/justify all of those functions as an "Art" and that's why A should be included.

To me, FIRST Robotics is a perfect fit for STEAM. I don't think anybody is suggesting that all the art programs in school get moved to the technology department, or vice versa. The addition of A is just recognition that art is an important part of FIRST Robotics. It's not "Art is important" but "Art is important too".

I will close with this thought. Changing to STEM to STEAM will bring in more students and it will create diversity within FIRST Robotics teams. Who wouldn't want that? Diversity is power. Different people with different backgrounds and interest generate different points of view. If our team could get more business students and more art students, I think we would be a better team.

When I saw the title for this thread, I thought almost everyone would support this change. I'm surprised by the pushback that I see. I need to think more about the opposing viewpoints to try and understand them better. The 10 minutes reading the thread hasn't done it yet

Cheers!

-Eric