Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL. “STEM” has been around for decades.
It’s now STEAM, the A is for Arts, which should have been included in STEM all along.
Nah. People who study A are poor with erratic employment. People who study STEM have good incomes and steady jobs. One of these letters is not like the others.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You seem to be missing the whole point - which is teaching in an integrated fashion, capitalizing on natural connections between disciplines and giving students multiple ways to show what they know. That is, replacing the traditional model of teaching subjects in isolation with an understanding that all knowledge is connected. The arts are core to developing creativity and problem solving skills because it is uniquely positioned to demonstrate that there can be many "right" solutions to a given problem. This is not how schools teach if they are teaching to the test instead of teaching students to think for themselves. Its so easy to be critical. Leaning in to understanding how integrated teaching can better prepare students for any career can open your mind to how hard educators are trying to find approaches that work for all kinds of learners.
But to follow up on that, we need to get rid of the STEM acronym and replace it with the more inclusive and wholistic “STEAM” because the A for arts is just as crucial as the other discreet areas of study.
Its STEAM, people!’
Anonymous wrote:In the 1990s, the National Science Foundation coined the term. You can go visit them in Ballston to air your grievances, if you wish.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL. “STEM” has been around for decades.
It’s now STEAM, the A is for Arts, which should have been included in STEM all along.
Anonymous wrote:For some reason it really grates on me. What's wrong with "math and science" or some non-acronym variant?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL. “STEM” has been around for decades.
It’s now STEAM, the A is for Arts, which should have been included in STEM all along.
Anonymous wrote:LOL. “STEM” has been around for decades.
Anonymous wrote:LOL. “STEM” has been around for decades.
Anonymous wrote:You seem to be missing the whole point - which is teaching in an integrated fashion, capitalizing on natural connections between disciplines and giving students multiple ways to show what they know. That is, replacing the traditional model of teaching subjects in isolation with an understanding that all knowledge is connected. The arts are core to developing creativity and problem solving skills because it is uniquely positioned to demonstrate that there can be many "right" solutions to a given problem. This is not how schools teach if they are teaching to the test instead of teaching students to think for themselves. Its so easy to be critical. Leaning in to understanding how integrated teaching can better prepare students for any career can open your mind to how hard educators are trying to find approaches that work for all kinds of learners.
Anonymous wrote:I'm an engineer, and I hate the buzzword. I also hate the belief that you can "inspire a passion" for "STEM" by having kids build with LEGOs, or some other such nonsense.
Anonymous wrote:Are you guys using any technology to make these comments? It wasn't an art major that changed communication forever. Do you really just want to use things without any idea about how they work? Like it or not, STEM is about the future. How to feed billions with the space you used to only feed thousands. How to manipulate a desease to cure itself. You're not living longer lives because the poets dreamed. So mouth off all you want about how valuable your liberal arts education was, but my money is on technology and advances in the sciences.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:STEM people are losers
I know! Why anyone would do that when they can make 2X+ doing easier things is a mystery.
Such as?