STEAM not STEM
STEAM not STEM
(OP)
Where is engineering going? Down the tubes is the only place I can guess.
Some in the USA are trying to put the arts on par with engineering:
Oregonian STEAM Article
STEAM not STEM website
-So, should we water down our engineering education even further so we can be more artistic?
-Are arts really as important as the science and math portions of an education?
-Is this just an attempt by those with a less technical education to justify themselves?
-Does congress really need a STEAM caucus?
Some in the USA are trying to put the arts on par with engineering:
Oregonian STEAM Article
STEAM not STEM website
-So, should we water down our engineering education even further so we can be more artistic?
-Are arts really as important as the science and math portions of an education?
-Is this just an attempt by those with a less technical education to justify themselves?
-Does congress really need a STEAM caucus?





RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
At the end of the day, the actual accomplishments are generally zero to negative, but lots of meetings are held.
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
Regards,
Mike
RE: STEAM not STEM
I can only think that politicians having a direct influence on engineering education will be a bad thing. I can't think of any benefits it will have.
RE: STEAM not STEM
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: STEAM not STEM
but then i guess that's the objective ... to make it more "inclusive"
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: STEAM not STEM
http://www.objectifiedfilm.com/about/
If you want to learn more, go to...
http://www.objectifiedfilm.com/stream/
...where you can watch the 'trailer' as well as rent or buy the movie itself.
And if you like this film may I also suggest the other two films in Gary Hustwit's so-called 'design-trilogy', 'Helvetica' and 'Urbanized':
http://www.helveticafilm.com/about.html
http://urbanizedfilm.com/about/
And if you're a real 'gearhead', you'll love 'Linotype: The Film' by Doug Wilson:
http://www.linotypefilm.com/about.html
Anyway, enjoy.
DISCLAIMER: I have NO financial interest in any of these films. They are offered solely based on my opinion that they are interesting enough that more people should see them for their insight into our world and how we've put our mark on it.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: STEAM not STEM
I don't think there is any lack of "creativity" these days. What I think there is, is a lack of practical consideration of living with the product. With the advent of solid modelers and CNC manufacturing everything is swoopy, curvy, colorful and overmolded. Everything looks like a bug.
Ever try stacking up your bug-like objects? They don't, and if they do there is a lot of wasted space. The swoopy, curvy, overmolded toothbrush handles are too big to fit in a normal holder. I've got cordless tool chargers that the battery hangs over the edge of the charger, takes up unnecessary space. Why not turn the battery around?. The off-grey 1/16" lettering on my black electronics is only readable in the mid-day sun. The LCD screen on my cell-phone is not readable in any kind of daylight at all.
How about puzzling out the minor controls in the next rent car you're in? Why are they not standardized? "Travel mugs" are so top heavy and small at the base that they need to be in a cup-holder even in the house.
Never mind the cost pressures applied. I could go on I suppose...
Regards,
Mike
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
Then you DEFINITELY would enjoy watching the documentary 'Objectified' mentioned in my previous post since that's the basic message of the film.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
Richard A. Cornelius, P.E.
WWW.amlinereast.com
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: STEAM not STEM
I like art: I would like to be an artist. I think that encouraging young people to look at destinations off of the beaten path is not a bad idea. Engineering only solves certain types of problems, and only in a certain way. There are too many people to have all of us/them go into engineering, so why not present alternatives that could keep the engineering ranks more "pure"? I believe it is a better idea than encouraging young people to blindly charge into the medical professions.
RE: STEAM not STEM
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: STEAM not STEM
I'm not sure that liberal arts are an actual art.
I know that "sports science" isn't actual science. It's a fancy name for PE teacher.
RE: STEAM not STEM
Who is the artist? The architect who designs a building of steel and glass, or the structural engineer who builds it?
Example building
You don's see many people interviewing structural engineer Yasutaka Konishi, but everybody is in awe of the amazing architect "who designed the building".
But I guess the engineer got paid enough ;)
RE: STEAM not STEM
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
Carl Sagan, as he so often did, said it best:
"We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both."
However, I don't believe the current problem is that there is not enough right-brain education but that science and math is currently taught to students in such a soulless, sterile, fact-memorization-to-pass-a-test manner. We wring out any natural curiosity and sense of wonder that kids come into the science classroom with. It’s a sad truth but our science education system is the single greatest deterrent to kids wanting to become scientists and engineers (note: I don’t blame teachers, at least not all of them as a whole, but the current curriculum).
The body of science is, to me, the crown jewel of human accomplishment. Our ability to comprehend concepts on astronomic and atomic scales, which are so far beyond what our naturally evolved senses are tuned to, is such a marvelous tribute to our species. The science classroom should be a place where these accomplishments are celebrated and the awe and wonder of science is instilled in kids. Instead we beat formulas into them, with no context of how they were developed or why they are beautiful and important.
Oddly enough, the history classroom is trying to make in-roads into this for us. There is a concept of teaching history, called Big History, which describes the story of our past from the big bang, through stellar evolution, planet formation, biological evolution and human development. Not only does this foster a profound sense of interest in science, it also has sociological benefits as well. Teaching kids the concept that not only are we related to all other humans biological, we are connected to our planet chemically and our universe atomically (paraphrased from a Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote). This gives a sense of place and purpose to the lost, a sense of connectivity to the lonely and a sense of grandeur to the meek, three things that kids struggle with.
A couple lines after the Sagan quote I gave above he says, “The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths; of exquisite interrelationships; of the awesome machinery of nature.” Statements like that are what we need more of in our science education...
RE: STEAM not STEM
Business and Law, the two most populous colleges at most major universities in the US.
That's a couple hundred thousand (my guess) new graduates each year whose career goals are to either limit our income (MBA) or take our income away completely (JD, LLD). Both groups, of course, will be pocketing the lion's share of what they suck from our wallets.
Best to you,
Goober Dave
Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies
RE: STEAM not STEM
So he had to teach Physics without using formulas, otherwise students would complain. I wonder if more Art could help…
RE: STEAM not STEM
I can see it happen: Archimedes discovered how buoyancy worked (works) by taking a bath, where some of the water was displaced by some of the volume of hos body...
and yet could separate pure gold from a gold-silver alloy by measuring the difference in overflowed water. if he was raised without formulae, the King would still be wearing a cheap, knock-off crown! (remember, greater-than and equal-to and such are formulae!)
RE: STEAM not STEM
That's the engineering equivalent of a "recipe" for cooks. Don't understand why it works, but willing to use it anyway.
To teach physics, you need to teach relationships and let the students derive formulae from them whenever required.
- Steve
RE: STEAM not STEM
No wonder there are more good recipes than good cooks...
RE: STEAM not STEM
“The science classroom should be a place where these accomplishments are celebrated and the awe and wonder of science is instilled in kids. Instead we beat formulas into them, with no context of how they were developed or why they are beautiful and important.”
Math and science is a very dry subject. It is either you have some passion for the subject or you don’t. Life both in school and as a professional you have to pass some sort of test be it an exam or your boss’s expectations on a quarterly basis. Life as a professional is about getting the job done, getting the innovation to work, and at the end, brings in the revenue. If we spend more time flowering and perfuming the subject than regimenting formulas and theory, the more we (USA) will fall back on the math, science, and engineering world stage. The leading countries kids know the subjects inside out. I’ve been at one of my daughter’s middle school math competition and guess what the majority nationality (who were American born) of the kids, yes Asian whose parents are from countries like Indian, China, and Japan. The parents who grew up with this regiment way of learning from their country instilled it into their American born children and outperforming American born parent’s children. While speaking with these parents, I have learned from them that the more hard work of solving math and science problems, the better you understand the subject versus dressing the subject up and hoping your child understands. In other words, every child is smart; it’s the hard work and regiment dedication that will set them apart.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
“Luck is where preparation meets opportunity”
"People get promoted when they provide value and when they build great relationships"
RE: STEAM not STEM
Your point seems to be focused on developing those with an interest and aptitude in science/math to their full potential. My point was far more general; it was gauged towards increasing the scientific understanding/critical thinking capacity of the populous. I come from this more general viewpoint because it relates very closely to what I feel is the crux of many societal issues but that is another, much longer, story.
When it comes to training someone to mastering any skill, repetitive training or intensive exposure is important; I don’t disagree with you here. However, there is a disconnect between repetitive training of mental math problems and a good engineer, just as there is between shooting 1000 free throws a day and being an NBA all-star. Mathematical proficiency is a tool that good engineers need but a good engineer needs other tools as well as the capacity to bring them all together in an effective manner.
The problem that I have with promoting proficiency through repetition is that it yields prescriptive problem solvers. They are great for handing a difficult, yet formulaic, problem to and having them grind through it. However, they require a prescribed problem to solve; they rarely have the imagination and creativity to ask what problem should be solved and why. This, to me, is crucial to an innovative society, which is crucial to a successful society.
Now, I don’t actually think that you are saying if we get engineering students to do 1000 math problems a day, and only that, they will be better engineers. However, you do seem to, rather flippantly, dismiss the concept of promoting scientific awe in the classroom as fluff. I think you do this partly because you extrapolate my comments to mean that I want all fluff and no hard, chalk-to-board, pencil-to-paper style math and science. This is not what I’m saying. I think subjects should be structured as such:
1) Introduction to the topic
2) History of the topic, going through past mistakes and developments which lead to the current understanding
3) Why the topic is important and interesting
4) pencil-to-paper style problem solving
Currently, we skip steps 2 and 3. So when you say “math and science is a dry subject”, I understand why you say that. Step 4 may not be “fun” however it’s downright painful without steps 2 and 3. Beyond being painful, it’s also futile. Napoleon said “The more I study the world, the more I am convinced of the inability of brute force to create anything durable”.
Sure, I could get a good grade in the subject, but I can do so by doing enough problems to develop a formulaic way of solving the problem without understanding any of the content. F=ma can be solved without really understanding what “F” is.
Not teaching kids why the subject is important and beautiful is to withhold the single greatest factor in them being interested and successful in that subject. I can’t begin to guess at the number of brilliant students we’ve pushed out of math and science (and into finance…) because of our “brute force” method of teaching (as well as an ill-placed notion that monetary wealth is the ultimate form of success…but that’s another topic).
Having said all this, I think we are actually closer to agreeing with each other than it appears. We both want an educated, scientific literate society (at least enough so to make an informed vote), we both want qualified, passionate teachers educating our youth (and should agree that teachers should make more money and have more prestige) and we both see scientific development as intrinsically linked to a prospering society. Where we appear to differ is the method. I enjoy differing opinions on this subject because it gets me thinking about it and I feel it is one of the most important topics to discuss.
RE: STEAM not STEM
With that said, I do believe that the teachers do put their own spin on how to make the subject come alive and not come across in a monotone way. I’m sure they are doing what you have suggested in all four of your bullets. However, I can see this at the beginning of their teaching career, but maybe after five or ten years, they lose their enthusiasm. But, being parents, we are ultimately responsible for our children’s up bringing especially their education. I do not assume that my child’s teachers will give their one hundred percent effort to make sure my child understands the topic let alone instill passion. It is up to the parents to make up the slack. For myself, I don’t necessarily push my kids, but make sure they complete and understand all of their homework and projects. I take them to science based museums when I can. I do enjoy watching documentary shows based on math, science, and history. Since there is one tv in my house, my kids watch with me. Also, because of my work, I do show my own passion of the math and science in everyday situations and explain them to my kids. I guess that is why many children follow their parent’s career path. The parent’s passion for their career, such as engineering, will be exposed and absorbed by the child. I guess at the end, we cannot depend on our teachers to do more than what they have been trained.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
“Luck is where preparation meets opportunity”
"People get promoted when they provide value and when they build great relationships"
RE: STEAM not STEM
This discussion was giving me sense of déjà vu. I think I found where it’s coming from:
“'Two bodies attract each other directly as the product of their masses and inversely as the square of their distance.' It sounds like a rule for simple physical facts, does it not? Yet it is nothing of the sort; it was the poetical way the old ones bad of expressing the rule of propinquity which governs the emotion of love. The bodies referred to are human bodies, mass is their capacity for love. Young people have a greater capacity for love than the elderly; when they are thrown together, they fall in love, yet when they are separated they soon get over it.”
The future sure looks bright.
RE: STEAM not STEM
Your kids are very fortunate to have a parent so invested in their education; I was as well. I do agree that it is ultimately the responsibility of the parent (and not the teacher) to ensure their children are being raised properly.
However, I believe that a teacher does (or should) have a responsibility to motivate children to learn and not just make sure they pass a test. It's like saying that a sports coach is solely responsible to develop technical ability and tactical awareness in players. Although those things are important, an equally important (if not increasing more important) responibility of a coach is to motivate and focus players, in order to squeeze out their full potential. This is done through exuding a passion and love for the game, which the players reciprocate; it kindles their passion. (I say this from experience, I coach high level youth (soccer) players)
Like a coach, a teacher's love for the subject is contagious. Kids have a natural sense of curiosity, they thirst for understanding. A teacher's job is not just to educate on the subject but to cultivate that intrigue.
I would agree with you that, in reality, this does not happen all the time. I just believe that it should or ought to. I don't blame teachers as a whole, the education system needs work. One of the major problems is that curriculums are restrictive and outdated. They are geared towards the bare minimum and leave little room for good teachers to flourish. This leads to frustration which dulls their passion (along with crappy parents that blame teachers for their crappy parenting).
However, I see a lot of positive change in the education system where I'm from. Educators and curriculum developers are trying to be more progressive but it is meet with resistance. This resistance comes from a confusion that progressive education is "airy" and "full of fluff". People fear that the new approaches will lead to a "hippy-dippy", more entitled society (this is pretty much the same thing that the political right says about any attempt at improving social programs...).
Certainly there are extremely "open" forms of education that are just as detrimental as extremely regimented forms of education, however I don't see what is being purposed as the former. What I see is a renewed attempt to foster creativity, imagination and critical thought at the younger ages, which leads into more open-minded, eager, analytical high-schoolers (where their education is still very much so a "pencil-to-paper" style of learning).
I understand that I can come across as being rather naively idealistic at times (and I suppose I am to some extent). However, sometimes I find we, as a society, resist change purely on the, rather dogmatic, grounds that it's non-traditional.
RE: STEAM not STEM
"On the human scale, the laws of Newtonian Physics are non-negotiable"
RE: STEAM not STEM
His premise was that in the late Renaissance, when the sciences started to become more specialized and to start separating from the arts was when things started to go adrift. He makes a good case in the example of Leonardo Da Vinci. It was the Renaissance and the transition from spiritualism/emotionalism to a more empirical view of the universe that scientific progress really started to accelerate. This however wouldn’t have been possible without the foundations that were built by many generations of artisans who practiced their trades and passed down knowledge of their craft, that was built on empirical learning’s from previous generations.
I think the arts bring a sense of the romantic and passionate that is lacking in the modern practice of science and engineering. The creativity needed to solve the big hairy problems that are facing us as humans, won’t be found in formulas and equations. They will be found by those labeled as Renaissance Men (or Women). Those that have a firm understanding of the physical sciences, but can step back and appreciate the emotional/spiritual/cultural impact of the knowledge and technology that they are seeking.
Rich.....
Richard Nornhold, PE
http://www.personna.com
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
Regards,
Mike
RE: STEAM not STEM
I watched it with complete awe when it was first shown on BBC TV (I was only 11 at the time). James Burke followed it up with a number of other programs aimed at explaining the world of science, engineering, the human mind, perception and others. A great presenter, who is still with us.
- Steve
RE: STEAM not STEM
Note that they issued a companion book for this BBC series, which I've got a copy of. While I don't know sure I suspect that they may have issued one for the 'Connections' series as well.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: STEAM not STEM
http://momath.org/
I'm planning to take my kids there this summer.
Well, we can go on with different philosophies’ of teaching our kids math and science; however, I can give my observation of how the math / science charter school my daughter goes to teaches and may agree with both of us. From a well rounded perspective, math, science, english, art and history will try to coordinate around a common theme in which math and science set the lead. For example, when math and science goes into Greek inspired theory, the other subjects like english , art and history will try to coordinate Greek language, art, and history at the same time. This does not happen thru out the year, but the teachers will try to coordinate common themes in each subject. To add this holistic teaching, there is a separate (which means more money) week long class trip/camping apart from the school called Nature’s Class Room (http://www.naturesclassroom.org/) where they take math and science into the woods.
Now for the regiment side of the school, let’s start with the uniforms. Uniform is mandatory, everything from outer wear to the shoes. There is a uniform check every day at morning homeroom. If the child does not have the proper clothing, the child will be sent home to change. At the beginning of each class, the students stand up and greet the teacher and then the teacher greets the children. At the start of class there is a “to do now” work on the board in which the kids have to do for the first 10 minutes and will be graded. The lessons are straight forward. And then at the end of class, homework is assigned and each child has to write it down in their school supplied calendar book. Trust me; there is a lot of homework especially in math and science. For the parents, the teachers will post homework, projects, and standing grade on line for viewing. To make it feel like more like college, the teachers even have after school office hours once a week so that if the student needs more time, they can come in. As for the teachers, they are serious professionals in their own respective field of study. As said before, my daughter’s math teacher is a Mechanical Engineer and her biology teacher is a Biologist who worked for colleges and industry. They are not education generalist with a degree in Education. These teachers go more in depth in the subjects and they expect the kids to absorb and understand.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
“Luck is where preparation meets opportunity”
"People get promoted when they provide value and when they build great relationships"
RE: STEAM not STEM
So now we see that the term STEM actually has no unambiguous meaning.
A STEM job is... whatever we say it is.
Regards,
Mike
RE: STEAM not STEM
Wow that is one stupid article.
They appear to be stretching the 'technology' part to include anything.
This guy must be a lobbyist for the 'for profit' colleges.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/06...
""Culturally, too, the sub-bachelor’s level STEM jobs are afforded little respect. Professional STEM workers receive presidential medals and Nobel prizes. The closest thing for sub-bachelor’s level STEM workers might be the Craft Professional of the Year award, given out by the Associated Builders and Contractors. This year’s winner, an electrician named Michael Arledge, received a pickup truck, but neither national press nor a Wikipedia entry.""
RE: STEAM not STEM
So I'm digging a hole. It is important to apply the concept of leverage to break up the dirt, and remove it from the hole. The concept of leverage involves at least the M, if not the S,T and E. So its a STEM job...
Yeah.
Regards,
Mike
RE: STEAM not STEM
Taken from the originator's link...
“The President's proposal to commit resources to a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Master Teacher Corps was encouraging, but we can’t ignore the importance of engaging both halves of the brain,” she said.
"Creative, critical thinking leads to innovation and will help us remain competitive in a global economy.”
...
I think people are spending too much time in a fantasy land thinking that art classes teach anything. Art classes are indoor playgrounds providing busy work for kids that lack work ethic and only want to do "fun stuff". Art doesn't focus on critical thinking. Engineering/Math/physics focuses on critical thinking. I'm a mechanical engineer. My brain often hurts from thinking so hard. I love it. I have to think critically and make decisions for myself. I can't find the answers to my problems on Google. In contrast to the engineers and physicists I work with, the "A" majors that I work with spend their time pondering on where their next vacation will be, which restaurant has the best happy hour, should we get Pete's coffee instead of Starbucks in the break room, or did that person spell that word correctly. They rarely see the big picture or focus on the intent or ramifications of things. They are not thinkers. They push paperwork around and kill time until they can go home and play. Work is a nuisance for them.
I never found art classes in high school or college to generate creative thinkers (or anything for that matter). I don't remember seeing close minded, linear people signing up for art classes, and then next semester, see them creatively thinking about anything. I dated a few in college. It doesn't happen like that. If you want creative thinking, drink a beer or three. If you want inspiration, go out into the world. You do not need to waste your time in a classroom for that. It's far from the best approach. The most creative people I know are STEM majors. They think outside the box. They live life that way. I think its because they understand the world around them better then the "A" majors; therefor, they are empowered to manipulate it for what it could be.
"Creative, critical thinking" does lead to innovation. Its acquired by STEM courses and having a hobby or two. Please don't dilute STEM any more than it already has over the past 20+ years. If detracting from STEM and adding A had merit, wouldn't we have seen the benefit of this for the past 20+ years?
RE: STEAM not STEM
When industry started clamoring for hard sciences to fill the workforce and STEM became the catchphrase, the "A" people went into panic mode trying to re-establish their relevance.
From my seat, I think they have more than a fighting chance. A lot of policy (read law and regulation) is made by people of the "A" persuasion, where the only 'science' is political 'science'. Those people control the rules that control the purse strings.
It's time to read Sons of Martha again. Kipling is prescient.
old field guy
RE: STEAM not STEM
1) To put it lightly (much more so than what I first wrote down), we are “encroaching” on engineering elitism. It is fine to take satisfaction in your field of study, I’d encourage it. However, never think that, by some sort of celestial right bestowed upon you by your field of study, you are superior to other fields of study. To quote Hemingway, “There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self”.
2) Confusion on or ignorance of the benefit of arts education in general curriculums (more towards Jhakes post)
3) The purpose of education (more towards oldfieldguy’s post but also general commentary)
Arts Education
If you want to say, so stridently (and ignorantly), that arts education offers little to no benefit to students (and, by extension, society), you’ve got a bit of an uphill battle. You see, most education professionals, cognitive development scientist, neuroscientists and psychologist would disagree with that. These professionals don’t write papers based off anecdotally stories or observations from people they dated, they do so based off careful study in both controlled experiments and from real-world statistical results. The result: art education is instrumental in cognitive development. Just a few references to support this statement. Also, read or watch anything by Ken Robinson.
There is also a common conflation of the ease/difficulty of a class and its uselessness/importance. People see the move away from route memorization testing to more modern, exploratory learning as a means of catering to this “lazy” generation of “entitled” children/parents (they said that about my generation, my parents generation, my grandparents generation...). You hear statements like “back in my day we had to memorize X by age Y. Now a days, kids just do finger painting and get a smiley face for a grade”. Well guess what, the former was an ineffective way of teaching and the latter is just patiently false and purposely hyperbolic. This is not about getting students to work less hard, it’s about using the hard work of educators (in both academia and in the classroom) to get students to work more efficiently. It’s this conflation that prevents educators from moving in a progressive, positive direction.
Let’s also make it quite clear that I’m not defending (the absurd) No Child Left Behind Policy or other such short sighted attempts to artificially boost artificial grades. What I am advocating is progressive attempts to improve the learning and testing process from the traditional route memorization “learning” method and standardized, fact regurgitation testing. This comic perfectly encapsulates the problem in our current system, the problem that some people seem to argue tooth and nail to maintain.
Purpose of Education
I believe that part of the reason for the conflation stated above is due to a confusion over the purpose of grade school education (in addition to a quasi-sadistic notion that if my education was an awful experience then it should remain that way for other generations – I’m, sadly, only slightly kidding). The purpose of grade school education is (or ought to be, and I’d be glad to debate this) to develop global citizens NOT employable workers. By global citizens, I mean critical, skeptical, worldly, informed people. The latter is a natural by-product of the former (with the aid of additional job specific training) but the former is not a natural by-product of the latter.
For example, there is a push to teach computer coding in grade school. I’m ok with this as long as the focus is on developing logical reasoning in children and not so that they are more employable as computer programmers. The job of grade school is to develop the mind and make students capable of reasoning, critiquing and evaluating what comes at them in the real world; it’s about teaching students how to learn, not what to learn.
I need to also address the absurd claim that the powerful Arts Lobby “control[s] the purse strings” of the government (I rechecked to see if it was said sarcastically...). What? Since when do you see a group of historians, philosophers, anthropologists and sculptures put on their pin-stripe suits and go marching up to Capitol Hill to use their mighty influence to twist the arms of politicians. The only group less relevant to (and in) government than the science community is the arts community. And if you think politicians are political science majors, you couldn’t be further from the truth. Political science majors (especially those that remain in academia) are the biggest dissenters against the political system, because they understand its faults better than most, and are therefore the last people to be given positions of political prowess. Instead, they’re given to lawyers, accountants and businessmen (those that are able to bring in big donor money). And to say that law is part of the arts (in the sense being discussed here) is like saying that theology is part of the sciences.
Now, there is an interesting connection between who actually “control[s] the purse strings” (and owns the purse as well) and the education system. The various corporate lobbies, the actual owners and controllers of the purse and the ones with actual political muscle, don’t really care about developing global citizens, they want employable (pre-trained) workers. Furthermore, this could be extended to say that the powers that be (which is not the arts lobby) don’t just want to encourage educating towards employment but they also want to actively discourage educating towards an informed, critical, skeptical, reasonable populous. It’s a lot more difficult to get away with some of the more ethically or rationally questionable decisions when you have a more informed populous critiquing them. This is why I have an issue with the nationalistic approach to our education with minimal exposure to global issues (especially global issues from THEIR prospective); it trains our youth to think that “our” way of life is the “right” way and the concerns of “others” are less important. However, I'm starting to get a little off-topic
RE: STEAM not STEM
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: STEAM not STEM
However, we had this discussion not too long ago and didn't make any headway so why bother again.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
RE: STEAM not STEM
I found it a little troubling that after my post criticizing jhake’s and oldfieldguy’s posts, they received stars with no attempt to discredit some of my challenges. My issue is NOT that others agreed with a view that I didn’t, my issue is that they did so well ignoring uncontested criticism. I’d love to know why they feel my criticism is unfounded as I feel this could be a worthwhile discussion.
But maybe your right SnTMan, maybe this thread has ran its course (and others like it).
RE: STEAM not STEM
I find it slightly amusing that some of the people most strongly espousing the benefits of a 'well rounded' education/"education for educations sake" approach are totally ignorant about the education system of other times & places to the point that they denigrate attendees of those systems/institutions as having attended 'trade school' and hence being inferior to those who attended 'universities'.
However, now you've gone and got me abusing Sea Biscuit.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?