STEM vs. STEAM

[ThaddeusMaximus]

Compartmentalizing is dumb. Why not go back to SET? Why not stick with STEM? or go to STEAM? SHTEAM as mentioned above? Economics is important, too, guys! SHTEEAM!

I see no line and therefore refuse the acronym. Making STEM some magic box makes blurring the lines and talking between disciplines harder than it really is. (Oh lord, this sounds like one of those "there are infinite genders" rants)

Every time I say "STEM" a little bit of me dies inside. I inspire people to be engineers, not scientists, not "technologists", rarely mathematicians, and never artists**. I teach people how to apply what they know to design and fix things.

Say what you mean, not buzzwords.

(**That isn't to say these are bad things but simply that I just... I don't exude those things)

[cadandcookies]

I think there is a place for both.

Mohammed above me defines the art in STEAM as fine arts, but I would argue that in many cases art is much broader, and more applicable than that., especially when we are including art with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. If I put in "define:art" on google, I get the following definition first:

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.

For me, the key is that first part: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination-- this is, fundamentally, what science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields are. The difference is in that last part-- producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Art is the application of the same things we value in STEM, just towards a different end. On a philosophical level, I see no issues in including art.

All this being said, I think that too often "STEAM" is trotted out when someone either wants a slice of the STEM financial pie or to pretend that a deficit in arts or STEM fields is somehow made up by an excess of the other.

I also think that in FIRST we're in a unique position to create things that can be appreciated both for their technical and performance aspects, but also for their aesthetics and emotional resonance. At champs last year, who wasn't on the edge of their seat and then cheering when 330 fell and got back up, not once, but twice? There is huge power in seeing a robot not only perform well, but also look pretty (at least from a distance, I never got a chance to look at it up close) and there is resonance in that getting back up-- we all fall, we all fail, and I think a robot doing the same can generate a similar reaction to watching an athlete do something similar in an athletic event.

At the end of the day, I can appreciate both STEM and STEAM in their appropriate contexts. What I can't stand is using one or the other to mask issues stemming from a deficit of either.

[Chief Hedgehog]

I am stealing this from another comment on a different thread, but I believe that Philip Arola stated:
STEM is objective, art is subjective

I hate to have this boil down to an argument on where FRC is heading or what is best (STEM or STEaM) - it will result in a fruitless argument. We could go down the path that if we include art, we should include Business. And if we include business, we should include Family and Consumer Sciences. In short - they all have a place in FRC if you wish to include them. It is up to each team and school to figure out what amalgamation of letters they wish to adhere to.

I am a VERY strong proponent of STEM as it relates to the fields that need to be focused on so that we can continue to place students into said fields (whether it be because of national security interest or based solely on economics). In my curmudgeonly old mind, the world is not hurting for more art majors - but we are definitely in need of more students studying in the STEM fields asap.

However, I can offer some insight from my own team. FRC 4607 CIS is not the same team if I just included the typical 'robotics kids' that may (or may not) succeed in the STEM fields. Instead, when we created this team, my former co-coach and I decided to go after the leaders of our school: the athletes, theater bugs, debate kids, NHS students, etc. We knew that the 'robotic kids' would be there - so we decided to build a team around them. And it has paid dividends.

I have been working this over in my mind for many weeks now - what is FRC and why is it so darn special? With all the other competitive robotics competitions, what is FRC and what does it mean to my school, my students, and (most importantly), to me?

To me FRC means two simple words: Opportunity and Access. I don't care what side of the argument you fall on - STEM or STEaM - the true beauty of FIRST is the fact that it offers students many opportunities to fail and succeed; it also allows a great many students access to areas of their community or personal skills/talents that they did not know were available.

The OP can attest to this. Without the opportunities that FRC offered, Ginger Power most likely would not be one of the most prolific members on this site. He would not have started NDSU's Bison Robotics or the GreenHorns Ri3d. His life was changed by 4607 - and because of his opportunities, he has changed the landscape for many FRC teams in ND and MN. His access to this program in his junior and senior year of high school were a catalyst of change in his life. I am sure if you have talked with him he has gone on and on about the robots and the many failures and some of the successes he has experienced.

But he may (or may not) have mentioned our Propogandanistas - the all-female marketing squad from our rookie season - a group of 4 sophomore girls that were instrumental in developing FRC 4607 from a strictly 'Robotics team' to the multi-faceted team we are today. Of those 'nistas, one would go on to be our captain her senior season, another would become the VP of the State NHS program, a third would fully develop our Marketing and PR department, and the last would forever change how we conduct our business department on 4607.

They joined on a whim and were interested in the arts as well as STEM. So if I went my own way and was hell-bent on STEM only, they would not be included and FRC 4607 would look (sadly) different today. It was the artistic flair that Emma, Dani, and Sydney-squared brought to our team that first season (and I swear to this day they were the reason we were drafted onto the winning alliance back in 2013 at NorthStar).

So STEM or STEaM - it is how you make it relevant to the students. Whichever you choose, put the students first and give them opportunities and allow them access to success!

For me - FRC was created to offer students such as Ginger Power the access to many, many opportunities. And this young man has gone on to create a great life for himself and countless others!

[evoluti1]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

STEM is objective, art is subjective

I really like the point you bring up about the opportunities that can arise from studying art. I think a lot of this discussion revolves around whether Art or STEM provides a more realistic and fruitful career path, and so it's important to understand just how important Art can be in that respect, even if you're not pursuing a career in the arts.

In these discussions it's natural to emphasize the differences between "Art" and "Science" - but I think a much more interesting question is what they have in common. For those who haven't seen Adam Savage's talk from SXSW a couple years ago, I highly recommend you watch it. If it doesn't change your perspective, it may at least help you understand the other side of this discussion.

[GKrotkov]

I wasn't watching the recently released trailer until this morning, because I was going to a Columbia admissions event. It's interesting to note that the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Sciences requires all Freshman Engineering students to take a class called "The Art of Engineering".

I suppose that that could be taken in two ways, either, "Engineering is already incorporating art, leave the acronym alone" or, "Art is essential to engineering but still distinct and thus should be included in the acronym"

Has anyone on this forum taken the class and could you comment?

[Steven Smith]

I'm not close enough to the source to understand exactly what is taught, so perhaps I could use some education from folks that have gone from STEM to STEAM in the classroom.

Part of my spiel to students, most of whom come from poor backgrounds has always been "STEM careers are in strong need. If you want to have a solid job that pays well enough for you to not have to worry about rent, having a car, middle class basics, most any job in engineering will get you there." Including Art (STEM>STEAM) might include it as a "valid career choice", which waters down that message at first glance. The only thing worse in my mind would be to add an extra S for sports and tell students we need more professional athletes in the world, and it is perfectly OK to plan on not needing school because you will get a $1M+ contract playing sports.

That being said, there are a lot of lesser paying jobs within STEM, though arguably still better than the average pure artistic career. I'm also careful to always note... at the end of the day, once you make enough money to pay for the absolute basics, it is more important to be happy with what you do than be wealthy.

All that being said, should we as STEM students and professionals value art and the importance of aesthetics? Absolutely. I think within 30 minutes of the FRC game release, our team had 10 ideas floating around on SteamPunk related art projects we wanted to do. The same way STEM professionals need to know management, economics, history, geography, and all the other basics, we need to have an appreciation for art. I don't know if it warrants extra emphasis over the other humanities, nor is it important to include as STEAM instead of STEM. If the powers that be think that by overemphasizing STEM we lost the creativity that comes with art, sure?

[mathking]

As a teacher, the appeal to me of STEAM over STEM is twofold. The first is purely pragmatic. Aesthetics matters when you design and build things you want to sell. Teaching students that it is a completely separate issue from the engineering is putting them at a disadvantage. Just look at the markets for phones, computers and cars and tell me the Art part of design doesn't matter. A friend who is an engineer for a car company told me recently they ask a question of new hires designed to elicit their views on the importance of aesthetics, and they have decided against candidates who were dismissive of aesthetics as unimportant or not part of their job as an engineer.

The second big part of the appeal is that including Art makes developing creativity easier. In the last few years I have been an avid reader of the research available about teaching students to be more creative. The general consensus seems to be that students will become more creative if they are given more opportunities to be creative. Having open ended projects, or open ended parts of projects, is very important in providing these opportunities. I did some research myself about two and a half decades ago about visual perception. I found that some of the techniques used in art classes to teach students about perspective and shading enhanced students' visual perception skills. As an example, students who had taken drawing classes were able to more quickly and reliably figure if a particular set of shapes could fit together and how they would fit together.

[Barry Bonzack]

The original question worded "do you like A or B" and I am choosing C.

If I had to choose between the three, I prefer BEST the most. Business, Engineering, Science, and Technology.

[Ginger Power]

Is there a difference between the creativity that goes into the form and function of the Tesla Model S, and the creativity used to form the Mona Lisa? Does the beauty of the Tesla Model S come from something in the arts? Or would we call it good engineering? Many people are saying that arts should be included in STEM because form matters in engineering. I would argue that form is included in engineering already.

To borrow an example used earlier, when I look at 118's robot I see an engineering masterpiece. The tradeoffs they make, and the way they fit so much into such a clean package is beautiful.

Great engineering is often viewed as a work of art. The difference, to me, between an engineering masterpiece and a work of art is the science and math that determines the form of the engineering.

[maddog175]

It's good to have these dialogs.

In FIRST, aren't we applying science, technology, art, and math to engineering projects? Isn't engineering a combination of all of the others - or the application of them all? It is to me, anyway.

Math is a science. Applied math and art ( one can argue ) can result in more science, other sciences. Applied math, art, and science produce technology. And somewhere technology and engineering feed each other, along with math, art, and science.

[Hgree56]

I am personally in the opinion that adding "Arts" to STEM makes it seem more like a "Let's include everyone ever" instead of a "Focus on these four, broad topics" that it has been. At our school, the Science, Math, and Tech departments are all near each other, but the Art department is on the whole other side of the school. Our school has murals made by the Art students on one side of the main hallway and on the other is posters for Science Olympiad and Robotics. The Art kids and the Tech kids do NOT cross paths. We are two totally seperate groups in our school.

Just my personal opinion, but it should be STEM, not STEAM.

[Jon Stratis]

I think everyone has, so far, focused on what's contained in STEM and STEAM. But to me, I want to know what the purpose of the acronyms are.

Why are we concerned with STEM? The general argument I've always heard is that we need more scientists and engineers. That the world is moving forward with technology and we need to adjust our education system to create students well suited to take advantage of that path. In other words, STEM is important because we want to bring those fields to the forefront of our educational system and make sure they don't get ignored.

What about Arts? What could we gain by including them in this push? Well, for one many Arts pursuits are grounded in Math and science. Think of music, how you can create harmonics and dissonance, beats and patterns defined and made beautiful through the math and physics involved. Think of art, how some wavelengths of light are complementary on a pallet while others aren't, how certain ratios are found pleasing to the eye and the difficulty of achieving the balance needed to draw a beautiful human face.

But that's a lot of what others have said - what's contained within the Arts category. If we look at the purpose of including Arts, it's to give students creative and artistic outlets in class. Unfortunately, art programs are some of the first ones to be cut in our schools when they face budget cuts. Millions of students are going through their k-12 programs without having the option to join choir or band, or to pursue painting or theater.

We all have our passions, and many of those who frequent CD are passionate about STEM, not the Arts. But when I look at teams and students across FIRST, some of the best one's I've seen achieve a balance. Yes, they love the robot, but they also participate in sports, engage in artistic pursuits, and do stuff outside of FIRST to grow other parts of their mind and personalities. Being well rounded, in my opinion, is much more important for personal health than being solely focused and dedicated to one pursuit. And that's why adding a focus on Arts in our schools can be an important part of our society.

[Linkathon1986]

In regards to STEAM and the thought of Arts being added, I am all for it. Unfortunately, we have reached an age where the importance of the arts is vastly under rated. Musical and Visual Arts programs around the US are getting cut down, or even completely taken out, due to over all budget cuts in the education system, and the "unimportant" nature of these programs. I may be in robotics here, but my dream is to become a high school band teacher. Art is m whole goal in life, so I am happy to see it gain a bit more recognition.

In regards to the Robotics side of STEAM: art is still a valuable asset. between the average Gary Busey "Gingerdead Man" Photoshop tutorials, to the actual application to photography, advertisements, and many other aspects, Art is a big part of our goal as an organization.

P.S. FRC Rhapsody

[xjschwen]

I have not read every post in this thread but it seams that some of you seam to have missed the point. Art complements the STEM subjects... it is not a replacement of, but a complement to them. Art is the secret sauce that takes competent engineers and scientists and makes them truly great.

From Leonardo Da Vinci to Steve Jobs the greatest engineers and scientists are those that blended art into the STEM subjects to create designs and ideas that move mankind forward.

Art does belong in STEM, Art belongs in our schools and it belongs in the First Robotics Programs.

[BenDSterling]

As many people have said, I also believe the important part is how we define "art". I believe the art in STEAM is not art lie painting, but instead art like architecture and design. Just imagine if only people from STEM fields built a building. It would be very functional, but man would it look awful. Or imagine any of apples products without design, it would be an android (jk not trying to start another debate). Architecture and design are just as important as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.

Ther for, I personally support STEAM over STEM.