STEAM Actually comming to FRC, and im not happy

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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?

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by bkahl

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.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by 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."

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.

[KosmicKhaos]

Originally Posted by Siri

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.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by KosmicKhaos

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?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by bkahl

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."