4 ms·

I'm looking at their list of objectives, trying to understand how any of it will benefit the advancement of STEM. It doesn't. The objectives only seek to lever

I'm looking at their list of objectives, trying to understand how any of it will benefit the advancement of STEM. It doesn't. The objectives only seek to leverage the concrete validity of STEM as a stable platform for "arts & design," which are intuitive and incredibly debatable by nature.

moonchrome 11y ago
If anything I would assume their objective is the exact opposite - draw people to STEM trough something popular/approachable like Art. To be fair the site is very vague - I can't really see how this would be different from something like industrial design/architecture ?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I'm assuming - trying to plug themselves into the acronym to capitalize on the respect (and jobs) STEM has as "the real deal" as opposed to art fields, and framing that as initiative to bring more people into STEM. It's cynical, I know, but I've heard enough art/design people saying "art and design is important too!" and completely missing the point. No one is saying design or art is not important to humans. It's just STEM fields are different because they deal head-on with objective, observable reality as opposed to incredibly complex internal life of humans.
Natsu 11y ago
I don't see what good this would do. Art & design are certainly valuable for making a good product, but the fields are not at all alike. There is an objective, correct answer to questions in science to the point where disagreement is simply wrong. I don't think there is an objectively best art or anything like that. So the studies are nothing alike, even if art and design can provide real value to technical projects.
zachrose 11y ago
If you're the kind of person who "likes to make things" and is going to college, you basically have two options: art or engineering. As a teenager I was totally turned off by engineering. It seemed like a bunch of dudes who wanted to discover the best way to make something, but with a total disinterest in why that thing should be made. The art (and design) people seemed to get it. They were intensely curious about the bigger idea, and wanted their output to connect to some visceral and/or moral and/or political outcome. So I wound up in an art program. I learned how to make aesthetically satisfying objects and was exposed to a ton of cool things that have happened in art history. Later on when I got into software, I came to it with a mentality of wanting to make "things" that were in some way complete and satisfying. That turned out to be enough of a motivation to learn programming, and it turns out the demand for software is insatiable regardless of your background or skill level. So if I were to talk to someone who was going into school, I would tell that person to do what excites them, and suggest that STEM doesn't really deserve to have a monopoly on creation.
nether 11y ago
It just seems like a desperate grasp for relevance. It's really sad. Arts majors have resorted to begging.

moonchrome 11y ago

If anything I would assume their objective is the exact opposite - draw people to STEM trough something popular/approachable like Art. To be fair the site is very vague - I can't really see how this would be different from something like industrial design/architecture ?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I'm assuming - trying to plug themselves into the acronym to capitalize on the respect (and jobs) STEM has as "the real deal" as opposed to art fields, and framing that as initiative to bring more people into STEM. It's cynical, I know, but I've heard enough art/design people saying "art and design is important too!" and completely missing the point. No one is saying design or art is not important to humans. It's just STEM fields are different because they deal head-on with objective, observable reality as opposed to incredibly complex internal life of humans.

Natsu 11y ago

I don't see what good this would do. Art & design are certainly valuable for making a good product, but the fields are not at all alike. There is an objective, correct answer to questions in science to the point where disagreement is simply wrong. I don't think there is an objectively best art or anything like that. So the studies are nothing alike, even if art and design can provide real value to technical projects.

zachrose 11y ago

If you're the kind of person who "likes to make things" and is going to college, you basically have two options: art or engineering. As a teenager I was totally turned off by engineering. It seemed like a bunch of dudes who wanted to discover the best way to make something, but with a total disinterest in why that thing should be made. The art (and design) people seemed to get it. They were intensely curious about the bigger idea, and wanted their output to connect to some visceral and/or moral and/or political outcome. So I wound up in an art program. I learned how to make aesthetically satisfying objects and was exposed to a ton of cool things that have happened in art history. Later on when I got into software, I came to it with a mentality of wanting to make "things" that were in some way complete and satisfying. That turned out to be enough of a motivation to learn programming, and it turns out the demand for software is insatiable regardless of your background or skill level. So if I were to talk to someone who was going into school, I would tell that person to do what excites them, and suggest that STEM doesn't really deserve to have a monopoly on creation.

nether 11y ago

It just seems like a desperate grasp for relevance. It's really sad. Arts majors have resorted to begging.