STEAM Actually comming to FRC, and im not happy

[Fusion_Clint]

I don't know about you guys; but I am less worried about art getting some stem money, than I am excited to start applying for art grants for my stem programs.

The money should be a two way street and making "art" with our cool toys could excite the traditional art crowd.

We pride ourselves in that no matter what a student is interested in, we have a spot for that on our team.

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

We pride ourselves in that no matter what a student is interested in, we have a spot for that on our team.

+1 to this.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

I don't know about you guys; but I am less worried about art getting some stem money, than I am excited to start applying for art grants for my stem programs.

The money should be a two way street and making "art" with our cool toys could excite the traditional art crowd.

We pride ourselves in that no matter what a student is interested in, we have a spot for that on our team.

Can you provide me any links towards art grants that are now accepting STEM applicants? The vast majority of this movement is happening in the other direction, including the Arts in STEM funding. The websites, literature, and rhetoric used is all about making sure Art is included in STEM, not allowing existing money for the Arts/Humanities to branch into STEM fields. Your robotics team suddenly isn't going to get to apply for a grant that's targeted for public murals or community theater, but graphic design programs are going to be able to compete against your robotics team for STEAM grants.

Here's some examples:
http://stemtosteam.org/
http://steam-notstem.com/
https://learningforward.org/learning...-stem-to-steam

And if you need more proof, here's House Resolution 51 (2014), which is explicitly about adding the Arts into Federal STEM funding.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...-resolution/51

This is real. This is not a trivial matter. This isn't just an acronym change.

[DCA Fan]

I'm unconvinced that this thread itself is not a performance art piece.

[Fusion_Clint]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Can you provide me any links towards art grants that are now accepting STEM applicants? The vast majority of this movement is happening in the other direction, including the Arts in STEM funding. The websites, literature, and rhetoric used is all about making sure Art is included in STEM, not allowing existing money for the Arts/Humanities to branch into STEM fields. Your robotics team suddenly isn't going to get to apply for a grant that's targeted for public murals or community theater, but graphic design programs are going to be able to compete against your robotics team for STEAM grants.

Here's some examples:
http://stemtosteam.org/
http://steam-notstem.com/
https://learningforward.org/learning...-stem-to-steam

And if you need more proof, here's House Resolution 51 (2014), which is explicitly about adding the Arts into Federal STEM funding.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...-resolution/51

This is real. This is not a trivial matter. This isn't just an acronym change.

Thanks that is very enlightening, you convinced me.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

you convinced me

I've been on Chief Delphi for a long time (not as long as some others, of course), and I think this might be the first time I've seen these words.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Basel A

I've been on Chief Delphi for a long time (not as long as some others, of course), and I think this might be the first time I've seen these words.

+1

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Can you provide me any links towards art grants that are now accepting STEM applicants? The vast majority of this movement is happening in the other direction, including the Arts in STEM funding. The websites, literature, and rhetoric used is all about making sure Art is included in STEM, not allowing existing money for the Arts/Humanities to branch into STEM fields. Your robotics team suddenly isn't going to get to apply for a grant that's targeted for public murals or community theater, but graphic design programs are going to be able to compete against your robotics team for STEAM grants.

Here's some examples:
http://stemtosteam.org/
http://steam-notstem.com/
https://learningforward.org/learning...-stem-to-steam

And if you need more proof, here's House Resolution 51 (2014), which is explicitly about adding the Arts into Federal STEM funding.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...-resolution/51

This is real. This is not a trivial matter. This isn't just an acronym change.

The point these sources seem to be making is that arts related education should take place in programs focused on promoting STEM higher education and careers.

Your concern is that these initiatives will allow programs solely focused on the arts and not promoting STEM higher education and careers, to receive funding meant for STEM programs.

Correct?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by jman4747

The point these sources seem to be making is that arts related education should take place in programs focused on promoting STEM higher education and careers.

Your concern is that these initiatives will allow programs solely focused on the arts and not promoting STEM higher education and careers, to receive funding meant for STEM programs.

Correct?

The dilution of STEM funding into a broader spectrum is indeed a concern I have. While hopefully the initiatives funded have at least a tertiary connection to the "Technology" portion of STEM (such as funding a computer-based graphic design program over a interpretive dance program), changing from STEM to STEAM unquestionably represents a widening of the spectrum. But that's not the entirety of my concerns. As I have voiced in previous posts, I see little separation between "STEAM" and "Education" in general, and the precise scope and meaning of a STEAM-focused education is unclear to me. Where-as STEM has a concrete objective of increasing participation in particular majors and career fields, STEAM is lobbying for the hiring of other majors into STEM careers and for vague increases in "innovation" and "creativity."

This isn't to say anything in the STEAM agenda is outright incorrect or detrimental. But to me, STEM funding represents a specific subset of education, while STEAM is diluting that subset into broader education funding as a whole. I have zero issue with increasing education funding (it's actual something I care about deeply), but if we want to increase education funding as a whole, let's not do so by diluting funding already in the system.

Now obviously, the individuals involved in FIRST HQ have much more experience regarding STEM funding, both private and public. Perhaps this battle is already lost, and they can sense the political winds shifting and are sailing into what is going to be more smoother waters in the future. I hope their reasoning on this issue is robust, and not just playing into a "STEAMpunk" theme.

[Andrew_L]

I see merit to both sides of the argument, and I'm not about to say which is right, but I think where the disconnect lies is with what the definition of "art" is, and what should / should not be included in a program related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Art is a fantastically and purposefully broad term to describe an enormous range of personal expressions. I would actually argue that it's so broad, that the term "art" can find a way to be relevant to every endeavor we undertake as human beings. Anything, from paintings, to geological formations, to computer-generated music, and yes, even robotics, can be artful.

I do not think anyone here disagrees with the fact that robotics is an art - a thing of beauty when executed correctly, with just enough method to the madness to allow purposeful and deliberate choices of expression to stand out above others. I would also go as far as to say that most people agree that the FIRST Robotics program contains aspects that are not related to the scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical side of study, and that those aspects of the program are just as important as those that are relating to STEM.

Where I'm finding a disagreement is on how much of the arts we should include within our program. Those in favor of STEAM seem to be advocating for all of arts to be recognized within our program, or at least a majority of them, on the grounds that all if not most arts are underrepresented and should be recognized as legitimate efforts made by our teams. On the other hand, those against STEAM argue that with "art" being such a generic term, including all types of art invites a large range of activities that have little relevance to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to be associated with what we're doing in these programs, therefore diluting our image and our mission. Some argue for all arts, some argue for none, and some argue for some, but not others.

One could make the argument that, in some way, every skill is related to every other skill by some means, so by that logic every art is relevant to STEM. Others may say that while the relation is there for everything, the application of many is different enough to merit their own separate categories, and therefore only the arts most relevant to STEM should be included, lest we lump everything into one giant category.

Everything we do in FIRST Robotics, from CAD design and machining to logo making and the Chairman's Award, is art. The questions we need to ask ourselves are:

1: If everything is an art, how do we define what art sets us apart from everyone else?

2: Do we even want to be separate from everything else as our own entity, or do we want to be associated with everything as an all-inclusive entity?'

3: Is there a happy middle ground?

[Taylor]

RIBMEATS is nice, but it dismisses a very important part of what we do. I cannot imagine a Robot Competition without Dance; Dance simply will not be ignored. So with a slight readjustment of the RIBMEATS acronym:

I B D MASTER

[Jessica Boucher]

Thanks to everyone who cleared it up for me earlier.

Now, raise your hand if you remember the "Featherweight in the Finals" award. How about "Most Photogenic" or "Play of the Day"?

No one? Just me?

Awards come and go. Funding comes and goes. That's why many Junior Highs in the US were replaced by Middle Schools. It's fine to show concern about the direction of the program, but after 17 seasons I can assuredly tell you the only thing certain in FIRST is change.

Change is a good thing. If we stay stagnant, we are no longer relevant. The best teams know this, and FRC knows this as well.

And if you don't like it, that's okay (and you're welcome to voice that), but I suggest that you just wait it out a few years. We'll have something new to complain about in five years, I'm sure.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Now, raise your hand if you remember the "Featherweight in the Finals" award. How about "Most Photogenic" or "Play of the Day"?

Who could forget "Against All Odds" or "Autodesk Design Your Future", "Compelling Creativity", "Content Communication"

Want to know who won?

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Now, raise your hand if you remember the "Featherweight in the Finals" award. How about "Most Photogenic" or "Play of the Day"?

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

Who could forget "Against All Odds" or "Autodesk Design Your Future", "Compelling Creativity", "Content Communication"

Want to know who won?

Were these official FIRST awards, or were they given out by teams? If the latter, I can add "Best Button Design", "Weight Watchers", "Best Defense", and "Best Balancing Act" to my teams' repertoire.

[Mark McLeod]

Those were all official FIRST awards.
Some stuck around longer than others, Featherweight-4 years, Most Photogenic-8 years, Play of the Day morphed through Best to Incredible-11 years.
As Jess said, awards come and go-change is constant or we've stagnated.

Here's one...