STEAM Actually comming to FRC, and im not happy

[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.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Cole Cyr

would you want any aspect of the game to be subjective and have an effect on the points system. you gain extra points if the judges deem your robot good looking... thats the path were on.

The Alliance Selection Process (which I love) is quite possibly the most subjective part of any competition I've seen. Teams are given the power to choose who participates in the elimination rounds based on whatever criteria they wish.

Originally Posted by Ogehsim

Artists do more than just paint. Many of them create works of art that rely on construction and material properties that engineers are familiar with and use frequently. Think sculptures, think kinetic art. They use welders and power tools and are concerned with structural integrity and Newtonian physics.

Leonardo Davinci designed mechanical contraptions and did art. The skills can be very complimentary. Engineers express their ideas not just through math but by drawing sketches and conceptual illustrations. Engineers are creative and so are artists. Artists often look to question the world and pose those questions to society through their art. Engineers may not like that the questions are not straightforward and often do not have answers (and yes, a lot of art is really dumb, but a lot of engineering is really dumb too, let's face it) but that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose.

A diversity of viewpoints is critical to coming up with new and novel solutions. We should welcome the inclusion of these new viewpoints. And if "artists" learn a new appreciation for STEM through that process, how does that hurt us? It hurts us more if we act like superior, cliquish snobs, insisting on our own superiority.

Try listening to this episode of the Embedded.fm podcast: http://embedded.fm/episodes/142 It features Sarah Petkus who is a kinetic artist who also works with robots. It's really cool.

Why not encourage that sort of crossing of disciplines rather than denigrating it?

I'm just quoting this post for visibility; it's by far one of the smartest things I've read on this site in a long time.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by Cole Cyr

you gain extra points if the judges deem your robot good looking... thats the path were on.

Presumably you have more "evidence" for this claim?

I'm not seeing a lot of real evidence for the claims you are making. This seems like another one.

[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."

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Cole Cyr

Music game... would you want any aspect of the game to be subjective and have an effect on the points system. you gain extra points if the judges deem your robot good looking... thats the path were on.

I assume you meant refs or zebras. They wear the striped shirts and their territory, the field, is shared with the FTAs. Judges wear the blue shirts (or red shirts for Safety Judges[1], I'm pretty sure that color is used in Canada too) and tend to have little to do with the field.

Judges have nothing to do with points but it may surprise you to know that if the judges like how your robot looks it's more likely you end up with a judged award. (which I guess counts as points in Districts). "BUT THATS UNFAIR RAWR ART SHOULDN'T COUNT" I can hear you screaming now. But it's fairly obvious, judges are people and tend to better recall things they liked seeing.

Top tips for talking to judges - clean pit, clean appearance, and be confident about your stuff. I KNOW I've given awards to teams over other teams because the students articulated things better or because I didn't see literal garbage strewn about a pit.

So, no, we're not ON that path, we've gone down that path and are now having a nice picnic.


[1] Which I've always found kinda funny, isn't it the red shirts in star trek that always die?

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

[1] Which I've always found kinda funny, isn't it the red shirts in star trek that always die?

In the original series, yes (red shirts were worn by operations, which included security personnel, so it makes sense they were on the front lines). That changed in later series, though, as the uniform colors changed (and there were significantly fewer deaths in the later series as well).

And now we return to your regularly scheduled topic...

[Lil' Lavery]

There seems to be a jump in logic that I'm not following from many of the "STEAM advocates." Why must the "A" be included in order for the connection between "the Arts" and STEM to be emphasized? Why must the "A" be included in order to encourage multi-disciplined actions?

STEM education organizations (including FIRST) have long had the stated goal of increasing students entering into STEM professions, typically with an angle that stresses on fixing the shortage of professional talent in STEM fields.

That doesn't mean they exclude Art fields or discourage multi-disciplined actions. In fact, FIRST is proof in the pudding that multi-disciplined fields are important within STEM. FIRST has long encouraged the importance of integrating design, imagery, entrepreneurship, industrial arts, vocational training, creativity, language arts, and cultural engagement. We've seen FIRST push for videography with their Chairman's video requirements. We've had awards for computer animation. We've had FIRST HQ sanctioned musical parody contests. All of this has occurred under a "STEM" banner with a concrete and definite focus on increasing cultural valuation of STEM disciplines. The arts were never excluded, but the end goal was a definite vision for culture change towards STEM.

When someone advocates for STEM, they're not advocating against the Arts or any other discipline. They aren't saying the Arts aren't important or that they're not applicable to STEM fields. Just the same as when someone advocates to "Save the Rainforest" they aren't saying you should burn down the Pine Forests and Sequoia Forests. There's no reason you have to change the "Save the Whales" slogan to "Save the Marine Mammals." Similarly you don't need to change STEM to STEAM, as it does not help the end goal of STEM. It only dilutes the message. Are STEAM advocates now pushing for more Humanities majors in addition to Computer Science majors? Is a STEAM center of an educational campus supposed to have pottery studios in addition to the machine shop? Is a scholarship for specific Bachelor of Science degrees no longer be applicable to STEAM because it doesn't include "the Arts?"

Inspiration isn't a zero-sum game. Just because we're working to inspire STEM leaders doesn't mean we're working to take away their passion for the Arts.

TL;DR - STEM already encompasses the cross-discipline aspects of the Arts (and business and other fields) with Engineering and other aspects. STEAM is not necessary, and clouds the explicit end-goals of a STEM movement.

[Jessica Boucher]

Why is this a discussion? Can someone TL;DR this for me?

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Why is this a discussion? Can someone TL;DR this for me?

TL;DR: the OP is unhappy that FIRST in Canada is implementing an award based on the concept of STEAM, not STEM, so they posted about it here. They seem to disagree with the integration of art in to the concept of STEM and believe it is essentially watering down FIRST.

[Cothron Theiss]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Why is this a discussion? Can someone TL;DR this for me?

This award was announced. OP believes the creation of this award signifies that the objective nature of FIRST will be degraded by the inclusion of Art into FIRST. The rest is people arguing about an acronym.

There are some gems of wisdom here and there though, so I'd encourage you to read it when you get a chance.

EDIT - Sniped.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

There seems to be a jump in logic that I'm not following from many of the "STEAM advocates." Why must the "A" be included in order for the connection between "the Arts" and STEM to be emphasized? Why must the "A" be included in order to encourage multi-disciplined actions?

I don't know if I'm seen as a STEAM advocate... but I will say while I personally prefer STEM, I've felt a need to post about the importance of Art, not because I think it should be included in the acronym, but because I've seen so many people make posts indicating that Art is not a part of engineering. Removing Art completely from Engineering does us all a disservice. We can argue the merit of it standing alone next to Engineering within the acronym, but we shouldn't just dismiss it as unrelated... and that's the problem I have with so many of the people who come in as anti-STEAM - many of the arguments say that art has nothing to do with engineering. Argue instead about the relative merits of STEM versus STEAM programs and what the kids get out of those programs within their schools. Argue about how inclusion or exclusion of Art in the acronym benefits a student or the program in the long run.

I'll leave this with one more note for everyone to think about... Jony Ive is well known for his product design work at Apple. In that role, he's gotten numerous accolades, including:
- Royal Designers for Industry from the British Royal Society of Arts
- a Knighthood
- Honorary Fellowship of the Royal Academy of Engineering

Did he get all of that because he built the fastest computers? The most powerful smartphones? The easiest devices to build and repair? No, he got recognized because he built truly beautiful devices. His designs and devices have changed entire industries because of the beauty and simplicity of his designs. If you need proof of that, just look at the criticism leveled after the iPhone 7 was introduced - it had significant improvements in many areas, but carried the same old "boring" design as the previous two iterations... and that design was pretty much all everyone talked about. If that's not proof of the presences of art within engineering, I don't know what is.

[D.Allred]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Why is this a discussion? Can someone TL;DR this for me?

It's a territorial dispute. STEAM dilutes STEM resources. Or as Clint Eastwood would put it... "Get off my lawn."

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The problem I have with STEAM is that it strikes me as a money grab....

[asid61]

I think STEM should remain STEM. Of course there are aspects of Art in STEM, just as much as there is business, community service, writing, etc. - there are hundreds of things that go into STEM or complement it, and to include everything that might have an impact on it in the acronym would make for a very long acronym.
I view the acronym as different fields of majors. Few colleges require a mechanical engineer or a physicist to take an art course, or otherwise place a major focus on art as part of the degree. Including the very broad field of "art" is saying that we should include the humanities in the acronym as well, which takes up the remaining majors, which defeats the purpose of having the STEM acronym in the first place.
Just my opinion on the subject.

P.S. I'm not sure why people are arguing over the word "subjective". I get that you disagree that there are no subjective elements in FIRST, but there's no point in spending half a page over trying to convince one person of that.

[GaryVoshol]

To which aspects of STEM do the Entrepreneurship and Imagery awards belong? These are "official FIRST awards" at competitions.

The inclusion of STEAM is not to say, "We need to add Art to FIRST". I see it as saying, "Art has already been part of FIRST and that needs to be recognized."

And has already been said, what does it harm?

If we realize that we need more than technical skills to thrive in a technical environment, that's a good thing. It's about being well-rounded.

[gblake]

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...0&postcount=27

Also:

Question: Do Chief Delphi discussions about the acronym "STEAM", often resemble the fable about the blind people describing an elephant?
Answer: Yes - Lots of truths are written, but it's difficult to piece them together into a comprehensive result.