STEM vs. STEAM

[Yo5hii]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

I have a feeling this will be a hot topic throughout the year, so I'm curious to hear what people think about the inclusion of Art in STEM. With the release of the 2017 FRC game "FIRST STEAMworks", it's pretty clear where FIRST stands on the topic.

I'm personally of the opinion that adding Art to STEM waters things down*. At some point it makes sense to draw the line on the number of topics included or else there is just too much. If you asked people which of the following is not like the other, I'm pretty confident Art would be the most popular choice.

There are also very creative/artistic elements already built into Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Design Engineering is basically using physical principles and creativity to build products to serve a need. The creativity needed to be a design engineer is much like the creativity needed to be an artist. The difference is the application of physics, and math. With that said, where does art fit into STEM?

I'd love to hear what everybody thinks!

*This doesn't mean I don't think there is value in the arts. I absolutely do.

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.

[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.

[Philip Arola]

One overlooked detail here is that FIRST does not have a monopoly on STEM outreach. School districts in my area advertise their STEM programs as well, and sometimes even tried to advertise STEAM, to little effect. The whole point to STEM is to be a focused path of education, and when STEAM is mentioned, it reaches well beyond CAD or design. So perhaps I'm just a bit jaded from my prior experience with STEAM. Again, not that art school is useless; as I and others have said before, art can be extraordinarily complex if rigor is applied. STEAM becomes too broad and meaningless, and devolves into a buzzword.

And this is what I hear from parents, mind you, not just my singular opinion.

Originally Posted by 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.

Stereotypes about engineers looking down upon art majors is also an exaggeration. Sure, I've made jokes about it, and I cannot for the life of me understand the utility of some specific degrees, but I and many engineers love Steve Vai, of Frank Zappa fame, who attended the Berklee College of Music. Or Quincy Jones, or Joey Kramer of Aerosmith, both of whom also went to that institution.
Or Jimmy Page, who has no musical education.
Or Brian May, who actually went to university as a physics major.

By the way, prejudice based on what major you have does cut both ways, believe it or not. I've heard plenty of art majors scoff at engineers.

[Ginger Power]

Does adding Art to STEM blur the focus of the acronym? To me, the purpose of STEM is to highlight a need in our society for more people in STEM related fields.

An example that shapes my opinion on this subject: My team is working to build a STEM Center at our high school. The purpose of this STEM Center would be to house technical education classes like: Mechanical Drafting (CAD), Architectural Design, General Tech, etc. Our robotics team would also have a permanent facility in the building, and we are also pushing for more robotics based curriculum.

Now if my robotics team were pushing for a STEAM center we would presumably need to share the space with the art classes. We would also need to share funding with the art classes. People/Businesses in the community who are donating to build the STEAM Center wouldn't know if their money is going to Robotics or Art. In my mind the A in the acronym blurs the focus.

[Jon Stratis]

As another interesting tidbit... I went to lookup the origin of STEM, and it turns out that there are a dozen different acronyms for it. Originally, it was METS.

Anyways, while doing so, I noticed one of the other acronyms was STEAM - Science, Technology, Engineering and Applied Mathematics. Not Art.

With the release of STEAMworks, do we know which STEAM acronym FIRST is using? Are they referring to Arts or Applied Mathematics?

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

As another interesting tidbit... I went to lookup the origin of STEM, and it turns out that there are a dozen different acronyms for it. Originally, it was METS.

Anyways, while doing so, I noticed one of the other acronyms was STEAM - Science, Technology, Engineering and Applied Mathematics. Not Art.

With the release of STEAMworks, do we know which STEAM acronym FIRST is using? Are they referring to Arts or Applied Mathematics?

Given the paintbrush in the logo I think it's safe to assume they mean Art. That's a very interesting piece of history though.

[Barry Bonzack]

I am going to take a couple of lines out of a December 2013 Wall Street Journal article. These few lines are out of context, please read the whole story to see the WSJ viewpoint, but I am using them to raise a question of my own.

Earlier this year, a handful of members of Congress formed a bipartisan STEAM caucus, with the goal of drafting and passing legislation to incorporate arts into STEM efforts.

This fall, Stanford University began requiring all undergraduates to take two units of "Creative Expression" classes, including design, dance, music, fine arts, drama or creative writing.

"The arts is part of their being—they're singing, they're dancing, they're moving their bodies," Ms. Truglio said. "It became apparent that there are so many science and math lessons as they're using the performing arts."

The push to incorporate arts into STEM comes as some districts see cuts to arts education. An analysis by The Center for Arts Education, a nonprofit and advocacy organization that promotes arts programs in New York City public schools, found that city schools lost 69 art teachers from 2006 through 2012—even though the system grew by 304 schools during that time.

So here is the question I propose: There is a bill in your state legislature to create a $500,000 fund out of tax-payer money. It has been written to support STEM education, which includes after school science programs and clubs for k-12 students. A senator suggests using identical wording for the bill, but making it say STEAM, so that all after school arts programs can also pull from the same pot of funding. Which bill would you support?

[GaryVoshol]

I think the push to change STEM to STEAM is a reminder to us. Don't cut out the arts in an attempt to expand STEM education. All to often art and phys ed are the first on the cutting block when money gets tight.

Another discipline that was somewhat mentioned is what often is called Liberal Arts. Writing, languages, history, social sciences, etc. These too are very important to have well-rounded individuals. But they're not as often targets for eliminating from schools.

Another area is vocational education. While some of these classes are tech-related - and more and more of them are - we still need people who want to learn mechanics, welding, plumbing, carpentry, and a host of other trades.

And I agree with someone above that business education needs to be available. While many engineers and other tech types decry the "bean counters", someone needs to keep projects on track financially, needs to market the products once they are engineered, and needs to evaluate consumer demand for new products.

OK, someone come up with an acronym that adds A, L, V, and B to STEM.

TLDR: We need access to all disciplines in education. We can't focus just on STEM.

[bstew]

Some people have some questions as to whether the STEAM acronym was intentionally included and whether it refers to art. While I was looking through the DLC, I found this on the recruitment posters:

FIRST® Robotics Competition is the ultimate Sport for the Mind,TM where imagination and innovation come together! By combining the excitement of sport and beauty of art with the rigors of science and technology, teams are challenged to design a team “brand,” hone teamwork skills, and build and program robots to perform tasks against a eld of competitors.

This seems to indicate that FRC is trying to attract and include art more, which means that the A in STEAMWORKS probably refers to art.

[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.

[MrForbes]

What is art?

and how can we have this discussion, without a cultural reference?

yes, my dad got a Masters degree in Art History, later in life

My LeMons Rally car:

[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

[Siri]

I think the below (both versions) is true, but can't we make a similar case for mathematics? A la:

Originally Posted by ArthurA

I think everybody agrees that a great deal of creativity mathematics goes into FRC robots. However does this mean that Art Math 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??? why should mathematics have a monopoly on quantitative analysis? For many (most?) people, the word art math means much more than applied creativity engineering/science quantification, and for that reason it dilutes the message, especially as many components of the field of art math 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 math fields are not similar to those faced by STEM fields.

If you're reading this wondering what math would be outside SET, back up and think about all of the different fields of mathematics versus what SET really uses day to day. Yes, we can pick specific examples for any area someone names, much the way we have been with artistic fields. But there's no denying there's a huge spectrum of useful mathematics outside of what springs to mind with "engineering" or "science" or "technology"--that's why it's called "math". This is true for all of them. If I say "engineering and zoology" or "science and mathematical topology", laypeople won't jump to a natural understanding other than the STEM acronym itself. On the other hand I'm sure if you talked to someone of a related background, they could easily explain both overlaps--just as we've been doing herein. I think much of this dissonance is that we're using all the terms to connote a specificity they don't actually mean, which is in part rooted in our a priori understanding of "STEM" itself.

I don't think there's a fair way to quantify these overlaps, and I'm not even really arguing that the overlap with art is as large as SET or STEM. But it's worth asking why we're drawing the floor where we are. I draw it here myself as well. But I have to ask myself how much of "A is the odd one out" is simply from the inertia of us understanding S, T, E, and M as STEM, even though their overlaps are not complete either?

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

What is art?

and how can we have this discussion, without a cultural reference?

yes, my dad got a Masters degree in Art History, later in life

My LeMons Rally car:

You're 24 Hrs. of Lemons'ing an Edsel? Yeah they have an ugly front end, but at least around here that would be a no-no given their rarity. Cool car all right, but IMHO that belongs in a shop being restored, not in a race of junkers.

(That said, more power to you).

----

Back on topic, here's how I see it: Art and Stem intermingle a lot. Some examples:

-A lot of aesthetic trends have been found to have a fundamentially mathmatical basis. Fractals, golden rectangles/spirals, and Fibonacci/Lucas sequences come to mind.

-While aesthetics are often absent in groundbreaking prototypes of new technology, it's an elegant presentation that often gets the technology into adoption (and the history books). Apple is a great example; Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive didn't invent much in the way of new technology; instead they integrated existing technology in user-friendly and eye-pleasing ways. Without the iPod mp3 wouldn't have taken off. Without the iPhone we likely wouldn't have smartphones (at least in the way we do now).

-On that same note, a well engineered product is doomed to fail in the market without good marketing. This includes advertising. Good advertising is both an art and a science, so once again they mix.

-In practice, I find that engineering can often be just as much an art as it is a science. Example: programming. One can slap some code together and make it work, that's the science side. Making it easy to understand and modify, now that is more of an art IMHO. Engineering without the art aspect is generally kludges, which sometimes is a necessity, yes, but often isn't the best way to go about making a quality product.

-Finally, I'll mention Will.I.Am as an example. He uses all sorts of technology to make the music that made him (and the Black Eyed Peas) famous. This is true for many artists; without good, artist-friendly technology their vision will never see the light of day. Likewise, without artists to use such technology the engineers and designers who make such have no customer base. There'd be no Photoshop, Wacom tablets, or Macs.

In many ways STEM and Art support each other. There are plenty of other examples (like the robots made by 254 and the like), but that's beside the point. By adding an A we don't have to make everything "artistic", be we can (and should) appreciate and celebrate the symbiotic relationship between STEM and art.

[MrForbes]

LeMons Rally. Not 24 Hours of LeMons. Big difference.

and you're welcome to buy it and restore it...but that would be a foolish thing to do, with a 1959 Ranger Sedan. They're very common as Edsels go, and have little intrinsic value. And very expensive to fix up. But the fun factor....yeah, they're fun to play with! Brings a smile to many who see it.

And according to an art teacher I encountered somewhere in California, the car is Art.