I don't understand the point of STEAM. From what I can tell, the use of STEM is to describe the math-y type pursuits. Art, etc.. doesn't fit at all. It's not a bad thing to not be a STEM field, just different. I absolutely think that we should emphasize art more than we are now, but that doesn't make it STEM.
You could make a good philosophical argument that a significant portion of the technology industry for most workers today is art. Code structuring and design is art. Becoming a good leader is an art. Scientific research is an art form. Teaching properly is art. We should not discount the creative aspect in what we do.
No, it's applied mathematics. You could argue that mathematics are "art" but then you would need a really wide and probably useless definition of "art" as almost everything would be art.
I see this a lot and never quite understand it. Code structuring to me seems more like a craft, something that is improved through experience and wisdom and not abstract rules.
> You could argue that mathematics are "art" but then you would need a really wide and probably useless definition of "art" as almost everything would be art.
I don't think that everyone (maybe not even every mathematician) would call math an art, but I think that it can be done without doing undue violence to the term. For me, what makes mathematics an art is its capability for creating and exploring unusual, surprising, sometimes delightful patterns, in visual and other senses of the term. I'm not sure I'd call that a definition of 'art', but I think that it's not so broad as to be meaningless.
So what? You could equally well observe that most great scientists were men, but that doesn't mean that STEM education for women can be improved by sex reassignment surgery.
My point is that a well rounded education probably makes for a smarter person. If all you do is code or solve calculus your world view might end up being rather narrow.
