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?
+1
It’s like we should replace the A for Art with Architecture. And we don’t mean just buildings, UX, and design are included too.
I’m on the RIBMEATS train too.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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…
Personally I think we need to change it to SCTEAM.
With more of an emphasis on COMMUNICATION, perhaps we’d solve the problem of terrible capitalization and grammar habits on the internetz.
Please for the love of the English language, use apostrophes and capitalize “I”
I’m kind of mixed about this. On one hand, FIRST depends equally on art or photography. Yet, STEM is a very small part of a FIRST team. FIRST clearly is in favor of teams doing more outside of STEM, such as the Chairman’s Award. Also, there is a certain weight about the term “science”. Science is the laws of the universe. These laws have no room for error. Gravity isn’t about 10m/s^2, it is 9.8, and will always be as long as the planet stays a closed system. The same can’t be said for arts. Art is purely objective. The STEAM issue is like behavioral science; science is definite, but human behaviors aren’t.
That being said, our team (Bionic Blackhawks) is very dependent on our student’s concerted effort to produce a public image of our team at every event. I think that the art field is worthy of recognition, but I would not put it on the same plane as science and mathematics.
It’s NOT 9.8. It’s ABOUT 9.8. Surprise, gravity isn’t uniform across the globe. There’s small variations depending on where you are. As you can assume this does horrible things with things like accelerometers when you need precision.
It just feels like, of all the things FIRST does and can continue to do, we have so much more to worry about than the letters in our acronym or if we have to share a little grant money with a chronically underfunded portion of our educational system. I know it’s possible to worry about several things at once, so this isn’t really an argument, but we have some inspirin’ to do.
Personally, if this leads to even a little bit more respect, appreciation, and incorporation of the arts into FIRST teams, I’m happy for the change. I’m done with edgy kids who think they’re better than people with artistic sides, and who think they can just ignore that entire branch of human expression and still be the most effective scientists and engineers they can be.
This spawned a thought for me… FIRST’s acronym is, well, FIRST. STEM and STEAM are not FIRST acronyms. They aren’t ones FIRST created or controlled. They are ones FIRST can use to help achieve its goals, though.
Underrated post.
While I don’t speak for everyone, I don’t think people who are opposed to STEAM are against Arts, just concerned that moving in the direction of including fields that aren’t directly related to STEM is a slippery slope and could result in a loss of focus in STEM as a whole.
As s_forbes pointed out, in addition to Arts, Business could certainly be added as it directly affects STEM (while the other two items he listed make a fun acronym, I don’t really see them as “fields of study”), but why stop there? Much of STEM draws from historical examples and research, so why not add History? What about adding Social Sciences since STEM has a profound impact on society? People in STEM fields also take a lot of notes and write technical papers, why not add English/Language Arts? Lots of “STEM” goes in to modern physical fitness, lets add PE too while we’re at it. Throw in Foreign language too since, in the modern global economy many things are manufactured in other countries.
STEAMFLELAHPESS
Eventually you end up with this all encompassing mass of fields that is almost indistinguishable from General Education.
Also, this:
This is what I get from reading up on the links provided by Lil’ Lavery:
STEAM initiatives promote art education as a method of improving skills critical to modern and future STEM fields.
I think that goal is fine and believe FIRST does this now even if we need to improve it.
My problem with them:
They seem to lack concern for increasing the number of K-12 students who pursue STEM degrees and carriers in the first place. If more money is pushed to programs that don’t do this then I am against these initiatives. Furthermore to the existent that the acronym is used to promote such programs I am against its use.
If the above isn’t the case then I wouldn’t worry about STEAM initiatives or the use of the acronym.
True, I just couldn’t think of a better example.
I personally think we should officially call it Communication Harp-playing Intelligence Education Fundraising Design Elevation Liberation Painting Harmonics and Imagination.
This way we incorporate all aspects of FIRST :]
STEAM could mean we have game peices that are artsy or it could mean that they are going to add an award. If they add an award i think it would be something based on your robot design OR it could mean they are going to recognize the mascots by having an award for the best costume for mascots. thats just what i think i would love to hear other peoples opinions:)
