Ask HN: What does HN think about adding “A” to STEM?
56 comments
The technology, engineering and applied mathematics fields have applications that benefit real-world industries, whereas theoretical science, mathematics and art are more academic pursuits with little proportional real-world investment or degree of financial assurance. If STEM is meant to be an acronym for high-paying high-demand jobs, it seems imprudent to change the definition just for inclusivity's sake. Changing the meaning of words isn't going to alter reality.
One of these things is not like the other. And it kind of defeats the purpose of the acronym. It's like changing FAANG to FAANGG because you care about and like GitHub. Even though it's not in the same genre as the others.
I'm all for promoting the arts, but this idea is silly.
I'm all for promoting the arts, but this idea is silly.
Arts are important in their own right, but STEM is about the numerate disciplines - and they include creativity as an intrinsic part. If you're going to add Arts to STEM, why not Humanities? At what point do you just get to a broad and balanced curriculum?
I'm reminded of the Sesame Street song "one of these things is not like the others...". STEM makes sense as an interconnected cluster of highly demanding but economically valuable disciplines. The arts might be equally important on a personal and social level, but they don't fit the category.
You can reasonably tell a young person "study a STEM subject and you'll probably get a good job". You can reasonably ask "why are there so few women in STEM?". You can reasonably ask "why do so many students start high school without the maths skills needed for STEM?". You can reasonably say "arts and humanities students are being used to unfairly subsidise STEM students, because STEM degrees have the same tuition fees but cost much more to teach". Add arts to the category and it suddenly becomes a much less useful term.
I understand why arts educators want parity with STEM subjects, I understand why they want a piece of the hype and the funding that goes with it, but I think that the term STEAM might have a detrimental effect by creating a meaninglessly broad category.
You can reasonably tell a young person "study a STEM subject and you'll probably get a good job". You can reasonably ask "why are there so few women in STEM?". You can reasonably ask "why do so many students start high school without the maths skills needed for STEM?". You can reasonably say "arts and humanities students are being used to unfairly subsidise STEM students, because STEM degrees have the same tuition fees but cost much more to teach". Add arts to the category and it suddenly becomes a much less useful term.
I understand why arts educators want parity with STEM subjects, I understand why they want a piece of the hype and the funding that goes with it, but I think that the term STEAM might have a detrimental effect by creating a meaninglessly broad category.
While I don't think STEM makes sense, precisely because it isn't "an interconnected cluster of highly demanding but economically valuable disciplines."
Eg, we don't see politicians who want more people in STEM calling out for more people to go into anthropology, archeology, marine biology, horticulture, or linguistics.
The US government also seems to de-emphasize an education in ecology or climatology, compared to those fields like computer science which are more economically valuable for US companies.
Eg, we don't see politicians who want more people in STEM calling out for more people to go into anthropology, archeology, marine biology, horticulture, or linguistics.
The US government also seems to de-emphasize an education in ecology or climatology, compared to those fields like computer science which are more economically valuable for US companies.
i think it's hard to get kids into these topics (beyond shallow youtube factoid videos) at an age when they're mostly into fun. for the STE part of STEM, you can engage more of them with "maker"-type projects aimed at creative enjoyment rather than at strict utility.
i would find it hard to get #1 Son to do physics experiments for fun on his own, but he's pretty happy to learn about pendulums and gears using tinker crates [0]. somehow it's more interesting when the gears are making a bird mobile flap its wings.
[0] https://www.kiwico.com/tinker
i would find it hard to get #1 Son to do physics experiments for fun on his own, but he's pretty happy to learn about pendulums and gears using tinker crates [0]. somehow it's more interesting when the gears are making a bird mobile flap its wings.
[0] https://www.kiwico.com/tinker
As someone who grew up “A” and migrated to “STEM” later: No.
1) Art is dramatically different from the math and sciences. I can do both and it is a huge context switch to go from analytical and creative and back. I always feel like the other half of my brain suffers when I pick one.
2) The addition of art means that STEAM is basically general education. So what’s the point?
3) I think one of the goals of STEM was to promote getting children into technical high paying jobs where there was a severe labor shortage. You’re not going to get more programmers or engineers with a music or art degree.
1) Art is dramatically different from the math and sciences. I can do both and it is a huge context switch to go from analytical and creative and back. I always feel like the other half of my brain suffers when I pick one.
2) The addition of art means that STEAM is basically general education. So what’s the point?
3) I think one of the goals of STEM was to promote getting children into technical high paying jobs where there was a severe labor shortage. You’re not going to get more programmers or engineers with a music or art degree.
A little conflicted, if only because if the definition expands over and over it'll eventually just mean "education".
But maybe that's not a bad thing! I really strongly believe that the coming decades are going to need engineers to think about ethics and culture a lot more than they have historically, as tech moves directly in the center of our lives.
I think STEM is fetishised a little too much, so maybe diluting it would be a net positive.
But maybe that's not a bad thing! I really strongly believe that the coming decades are going to need engineers to think about ethics and culture a lot more than they have historically, as tech moves directly in the center of our lives.
I think STEM is fetishised a little too much, so maybe diluting it would be a net positive.
This is a truly awful idea. You can't add an "A" to "STEM," you can introduce a new word, "STEAM" with a different meaning, but the word "STEM" will still exist, and will still have the same meaning. If you're talking about "adding meaning to a word" what you're really talking about is prescribing language. I.e. telling people don't express this idea "STEM," I find that idea uninclusive, express the idea I want instead. It's especially egregious in this case because STEM is the opposite of arts, so you're destroying as much meaning as possible. Down this road is a world where everyone is "included" and completely unable to communicate with each other because you've suck all the meaning out of the words to make them feel more inclusive.
I agree with the other reply - I don’t think arts and STEM are opposites. I do engineering at home outside of “work” engineering, and the work I do at home feels like a kind of techno art to me. I am personally curious about the history of art though we never studied it in engineering school.
I agree that adding an A to STEM does not spell STEM, but I think the question is more about the merits of STEAM as “the goal” versus “STEM”.
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say art and STEM are “opposites”?
I agree that adding an A to STEM does not spell STEM, but I think the question is more about the merits of STEAM as “the goal” versus “STEM”.
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say art and STEM are “opposites”?
Opposites may have been the wrong word here. But STEM expresses a concept which arts are very much not part of.
> I think the question is more about the merits of STEAM as “the goal” versus “STEM”.
Neither of these is a goal, they're words. Words enter the lexicon because they're useful. There was never hacker news post saying: "hey guys, we should have a word that encompasses all the in demand technical subjects" someone used it and others picked it up because it expressed something they wanted to express. STEAM is a perfectly well formed concept, and if people had any interest in expressing it then it would probably already be a word. Now, maybe people do have a need for this concept (I very much doubt it, but maybe) in which case I would expect to see it take off in usage. But trying to forward a goal by telling people they should change their use of language in some way is an inherently destructive process. For example, imagine a child asks you which subjects in school they should focus on, easy you say: "STEAMHLHGFS..." we've included everything in this acronym, and now there's no way for you to actually express anything to this child that provides the least bit of focus.
> I think the question is more about the merits of STEAM as “the goal” versus “STEM”.
Neither of these is a goal, they're words. Words enter the lexicon because they're useful. There was never hacker news post saying: "hey guys, we should have a word that encompasses all the in demand technical subjects" someone used it and others picked it up because it expressed something they wanted to express. STEAM is a perfectly well formed concept, and if people had any interest in expressing it then it would probably already be a word. Now, maybe people do have a need for this concept (I very much doubt it, but maybe) in which case I would expect to see it take off in usage. But trying to forward a goal by telling people they should change their use of language in some way is an inherently destructive process. For example, imagine a child asks you which subjects in school they should focus on, easy you say: "STEAMHLHGFS..." we've included everything in this acronym, and now there's no way for you to actually express anything to this child that provides the least bit of focus.
> It's especially egregious in this case because STEM is the opposite of arts
This feels like exactly the viewpoint that the "A" addition is trying to address. The arts are not the "opposite" of engineering, maths etc. at all, it's just an alien thing people don't want to admit they don't know very much about.
This feels like exactly the viewpoint that the "A" addition is trying to address. The arts are not the "opposite" of engineering, maths etc. at all, it's just an alien thing people don't want to admit they don't know very much about.
The viewpoint being addressed here is what exactly? That STEM is a useful word with a meaning? I think rather than "trying to address" this viewpoint it might be more accurate to say you're trying to squash this viewpoint and prevent people from expressing the idea that STEM allows them to express. But maybe we expanded the definition of the word "address" to include this connotation as well, I have trouble keeping up with all the linguistic prescription going on these days. It's true that the arts aren't really the "opposite" of STEM, but if you took every usage of STEM, and replaced it with STEAM I suspect you'd change the meanings of all of those sentences in a very non-negligible way, which is to say you'll prevent people from communicating what they were actually trying to communicate.
The original question said nothing about replacing anything, so I'm really not sure where you are coming from with this perspective about things being "squashed". It feels as though you're coming to this with a preconceived agenda around "linguistic prescription" that is only mildly related to the topic at hand... so I'll leave you to it.
Adding an "A" to STEM is replacing STEM with STEAM. If it wasn't about replacement the post would be about a new word, STEAM. Or, there wouldn't be a post at all, OP would just start using STEAM.
Why would a new term replace an old one? The new word means something different. Two terms that mean two different things, one does not replace the other.
Of course the OP just wouldn't "start using STEAM", do you really mean to imply that people organically started using the term "STEM" separately without ever discussing it?
Of course the OP just wouldn't "start using STEAM", do you really mean to imply that people organically started using the term "STEM" separately without ever discussing it?
Hate it. It's just an indication that we don't know how to talk about education. How is STEAM not basically just "education" itself? As someone pointed out, only the humanities are missing, so surely it will soon be SHTEAM, or METAHS or...actually METAHS sounds pretty good.
MSHEAT
I think STEAM is particularly the application of STEM create artifacts/experiences.
STEM encompasses all of science/engineering teaching, but in the context of STEAM, STEM is "how to make a thing", and STEAM additionally addresses "why to make it, how it should look" etc. I think the "A" is also likely a rather restricted subset of Art, in this context.
STEM encompasses all of science/engineering teaching, but in the context of STEAM, STEM is "how to make a thing", and STEAM additionally addresses "why to make it, how it should look" etc. I think the "A" is also likely a rather restricted subset of Art, in this context.
I think that is correct.
The STEAM idea has been around for some time. I first heard about it from John Maeda like 7 years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yc-_Ei2Yto).
"STEM" by itself lacks an emergent, creative quality. There is very much a need for that in technical curricula.
The STEAM idea has been around for some time. I first heard about it from John Maeda like 7 years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yc-_Ei2Yto).
"STEM" by itself lacks an emergent, creative quality. There is very much a need for that in technical curricula.
> "STEM" by itself lacks an emergent, creative quality
I think many would argue otherwise, there is an inherent level of creativity with regards to all four disciplines, in particular Engineering, where novel solutions to real-world problems can be both practical and creative, although you might argue this extends into the other three as well.
I think many would argue otherwise, there is an inherent level of creativity with regards to all four disciplines, in particular Engineering, where novel solutions to real-world problems can be both practical and creative, although you might argue this extends into the other three as well.
> STEM is "how to make a thing", and STEAM additionally addresses "why to make it, how it should look"
Those strike me more as philosophical concerns than artistic ones.
Art isn't about explaining things, it's about expressing things. STEM is something along the lines of how the physical world works. "Why", almost by definition, is a question of philosophy. How it should look is a question of aesthetics.
So, in my opinion, maybe the synthesis is something like: Philosophy is "why", STEM are "how", and Art is expressing our answers to those questions and our feelings about them.
Those strike me more as philosophical concerns than artistic ones.
Art isn't about explaining things, it's about expressing things. STEM is something along the lines of how the physical world works. "Why", almost by definition, is a question of philosophy. How it should look is a question of aesthetics.
So, in my opinion, maybe the synthesis is something like: Philosophy is "why", STEM are "how", and Art is expressing our answers to those questions and our feelings about them.
It strikes me as those in the Arts trying to make themselves appear more relevant by forcing themselves onto to coat-tails of STEM. The thing is, the Arts are extremely important to humanity, and heavy-handed attempts like this just serve to cheapen their image.
I also get this impression, but with my university for example, they all but shut down departments that were non STEM related. We weren't a particularly notable institution, so the administration decided to focus their efforts on engineering fields to set us apart. I don't imagine this sat well with the faculty and students outside of STEM but it may also be that there is a downward trend of people willing to spend the money on a liberal arts degree, and that threatens the livelihood of those who rely on it's existence.
Maybe it was just an assumption that I never thought about, but I had always thought STEM to mean the intersection of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. There's already a large overlap between them, so the intersection was also large. So STEAM would not be the addition of all Arts but the intersection of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and the arts. For example, something like the Mona Lisa is not a part of STEAM, but the aesthetic design of a UI would be. In that sense, the arts matter very much. If we ignore the arts, we have ugly and non-intuitive designs, which lead to lower usability.
I agree that UX is an important intersection of engineering, but I feel like - in the context of education - institutions will not stick to your informed/moderate definition. Most "artists" I know would totally suck at UX. In today's world where interface design is embedded into every team's workflow, and where we have versioned stylesheets and designers extracting CSS... I'd say modern UX designers are definitely under the T for Technology rather than arts.
Yes, my assumption was the acronym STEM existed because in university, many of the core classes are shared in STEM fields. I did not consider the intersection of those fields being the real idea.
I suppose that in that case, STEAM makes sense. Making technology beautiful is definitely something a company like Apple has always kept in mind. Thanks for the response!
I suppose that in that case, STEAM makes sense. Making technology beautiful is definitely something a company like Apple has always kept in mind. Thanks for the response!
MEETS (Mathematics, Engineering, Ergonomics, Technology, Science)
"Art" is too broad. if anything should be added, Ergonomics is a good pick.
If a tool or process made by STEM industries can be better fitted towards being used for people (regardless of if it supposed to be used by niche groups or the general public) then it's going to be better used.
"Art" is too broad. if anything should be added, Ergonomics is a good pick.
If a tool or process made by STEM industries can be better fitted towards being used for people (regardless of if it supposed to be used by niche groups or the general public) then it's going to be better used.
STEM is a meaningless buzzword used to conjure happy thoughts about careers that pay well. The reality is that many of the careers contained in STEM do not in fact pay well at all. Adding another letter seems to be fine once you have already created a set which contains careers which do not pay well.
What is the purpose of adding the arts, or any other field, to the idea of "STEM"? Or similarly, what is the purpose of the concept of STEM?
It seems like people have started thinking of "STEM" as some label that means "better or more worthy of focus than other disciplines and careers." That's probably because of the push to put more focus on STEM fields, especially in primary education.
There's nothing wrong with non-STEM fields, and I feel like this push to include more and more things in the label implies that STEM means "good" and non-STEM means "bad." It reminds me of the common recreational debate about which things qualify as "sports," as if any activity that isn't considered a sport is somehow worse than activities that are considered sports.
It seems like people have started thinking of "STEM" as some label that means "better or more worthy of focus than other disciplines and careers." That's probably because of the push to put more focus on STEM fields, especially in primary education.
There's nothing wrong with non-STEM fields, and I feel like this push to include more and more things in the label implies that STEM means "good" and non-STEM means "bad." It reminds me of the common recreational debate about which things qualify as "sports," as if any activity that isn't considered a sport is somehow worse than activities that are considered sports.
I initially took the addition of Arts as a matter of inclusivity and for that reason I thought it was an awful idea.
> I feel like this push to include more and more things in the label implies that STEM means "good" and non-STEM means "bad."
I take it that is the impression students are getting, or rather, teachers are assuming that students are getting, and in an attempt to curb any feelings of inferiority, they are making the addition. I think in this case, it is a dangerous precedent. University will cost the engineer as much as it will the liberal arts major, but you are lying if you tell a student that society values them all the same.
I suppose we would need to determine how to measure the value of a given field. Is value determined by impact on society/human civilization, or by job availability and salary. In either case I would argue that STEM fields rank higher, and of course even within STEM, some do far better than others, but suffice it to say, there definitely seems to be an agenda by stretching the definition of a very simple acronym to include fields that are probably being phased out. I seem to recall reading that Japan was no longer going to offer liberal arts in Universities.
> I feel like this push to include more and more things in the label implies that STEM means "good" and non-STEM means "bad."
I take it that is the impression students are getting, or rather, teachers are assuming that students are getting, and in an attempt to curb any feelings of inferiority, they are making the addition. I think in this case, it is a dangerous precedent. University will cost the engineer as much as it will the liberal arts major, but you are lying if you tell a student that society values them all the same.
I suppose we would need to determine how to measure the value of a given field. Is value determined by impact on society/human civilization, or by job availability and salary. In either case I would argue that STEM fields rank higher, and of course even within STEM, some do far better than others, but suffice it to say, there definitely seems to be an agenda by stretching the definition of a very simple acronym to include fields that are probably being phased out. I seem to recall reading that Japan was no longer going to offer liberal arts in Universities.
STEAM is one of the (many) variations listed on Wikipedia's page on STEM. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_enginee...
> It's the category of fields considered to be in high-demand all over the world.
The same WP page mentions one criticism of STEM is that the 'S' might not belong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_enginee...
Personally, my favorite subject is the intersection of art & math. I wish math teachers would use art to teach math, and I wish more art teachers would use math to teach art, and feel comfortable expecting some mathematical rigor of their art students.
> It's the category of fields considered to be in high-demand all over the world.
The same WP page mentions one criticism of STEM is that the 'S' might not belong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_enginee...
Personally, my favorite subject is the intersection of art & math. I wish math teachers would use art to teach math, and I wish more art teachers would use math to teach art, and feel comfortable expecting some mathematical rigor of their art students.
I have mixed feelings about this. My sons are both involved in technical careers. They both develop S/W for a living. They both were also involved in the arts, both musical and graphic. The younger one continued with music through college (UIUC marching band.) In fact, there were probably more STEM majors in the Marching Illini than music majors because marching doesn't really attract music majors.
Notwithstanding, there is a strong mathematical underpinning in busic and graphical arts and it seems not unreasonable to consider that effort in one area supports learning in the other. For this reason I believe that the arts are an important component in technical education and perhaps earn their place in STEAM.
OTOH art on it's own does not seem to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other disciplines in STEM.
(The younger one is recently involved in music performance in his spare time.)
Notwithstanding, there is a strong mathematical underpinning in busic and graphical arts and it seems not unreasonable to consider that effort in one area supports learning in the other. For this reason I believe that the arts are an important component in technical education and perhaps earn their place in STEAM.
OTOH art on it's own does not seem to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other disciplines in STEM.
(The younger one is recently involved in music performance in his spare time.)
I think all the starving artists out there prove that it's in a somewhat different category
I don't like it, but if I was going to add an extra thing it would be more focused and be "design" which can already be part of STEM courses.
So Architecture / Industrial Design / Ux
etc.
So Architecture / Industrial Design / Ux
etc.
I read through all the comments, I think there's a point which is being overlooked. The addition of the 'A' category will serve as a useful idiot to increase the participation of otherwise under represented groups.
I'm all for it. It's generally the 'A' people that do not at all understand how statistics work and would be most likely to be placated by this type of addition anyway.
I'm all for it. It's generally the 'A' people that do not at all understand how statistics work and would be most likely to be placated by this type of addition anyway.
It sounds to me like at that point it is a made up new word for classical liberal arts (or, as others have said here, education). See explanation here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555514
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555514
It seems like a classic money-chasing move to me, like when Big Pharma had all the money, and suddenly everyone did "bioinformatics." STEM roughly divides undergrads by whether or not they have to take Calculus. STEAM... I can't figure out what line that's trying to draw.
Is there a shortage of Arts graduates? Is there a shortage of Women/Minorities in Artistic careers?
I think it's stupid. Once you add Art, what is the point of even calling out the category?
Each is a creative and skilled discipline focused on bringing things into the world that haven't existed before for the advancement of humankind. I have no issues.
It seems to mirror the ascent of design in the tech world.
Might as well get the creatives working together early.
It seems to mirror the ascent of design in the tech world.
Might as well get the creatives working together early.
Funny, STEAM is basically everything but the humanities. It's actually less inclusive in a sense.
To me the common thread in STEM is the importance of quantitative skills, and everything else emphasizes those abilities much much less.
To me the common thread in STEM is the importance of quantitative skills, and everything else emphasizes those abilities much much less.
I thought STEM is mainly a category that includes subjects that have certain principles and approaches, that are distinct from, say, humanities or art: they are based on falsifiability and mathematical theories.
I hate it.
Creating a new acronym does nothing to depricate the old one. It's just a new acronym for a different concept. We'll see if it's useful by whether or not it's used.
Interesting, although you'd likely need to verrrry precisely define what is meant by "arts" to have any meaningful discussion about it here.
Well it depends if the thing you are doing makes sense to include Arts or not, if so, call it STEAM otherwise call it STEM -- case by case.
I read the title and thought to myself Analytics could be a good add to STEM, but IMO arts seems a bit far off from the others.
It has been in common use for a few years. At my kid’s school in Mountain View we have had STEAM night for the past four years.
"There however seems to be a group of people concerned with inclusivity"
this is how we ended up with a problem in the first place.
this is how we ended up with a problem in the first place.
Love this. Design and culture impact matters.
If art contributes as much as the rest to the well-being and advancement of mankind, then sure, stick it in there!
the proper word is then “education”.
[deleted]
This looks like an attempt to lower the bar of a serious thing, which is based entirely on merit and hard work, just for the sake of inclusivity.
For those unaware, STEM is Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. It's the category of fields considered to be in high-demand all over the world. There however seems to be a group of people concerned with inclusivity, and so they are pushing the addition of "Arts" to STEM -- i.e. STEAM.
Thoughts?