STEM, SMET, what?
Natalie Angier published an article in the NYT Science section on Tuesday, Oct 5 about the chosen acronym currently used by government agencies that want to improve the science and allied fields education today. STEM isn't about plants or stem cells, she says, it's about Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. She doesn't argue that these fields might as well all be called by one simple name because they are the same; two focus on making new devices, one is experimental and one based on pure thinking. But she doesnt' think STEM or its forerunner SMET really means anything to the general public. NASA yes, STEM no. Informal polling supports this idea. Plants? people guess. Or, cells from aborted fetuses? Oops, not the images we need if we want to get resources to really reform science education in the US. Angier quotes astronaut Sally Ride, who says with her NASA background she's used to acronyms but this one is just too misleading.
What do you think?
A It's OK, just keep talking about what it means
B. Why not say the whole mouthful, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics?
C. I think just say "science" and explain in the footnotes that it'll cover all of these areas
http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/insideed is the URL for a new blog on Scitable that covers education issues. SMET versus an even more inclusive acronym is the issue they are discussion now. Jump in if you are interested.
cheers,
Laura
Dear perplexed,
I agree that not much will result in the way of renaming the field, and that we have bigger fish to fry altogether. But I also agree with the part of your post where you say that just blowing the hot air about it will make people more likely to think beyond plants when they hear STEM education, STEM research. Maybe that's the role journalists can best play, just to open people's eyes? I know they think they throw the switches, but that's pretty rare in my experience.
cheers,
Laura
Not sure why this acronym is a burden. Angier has taken a few insidery conversations she is privileged to have with various scions of science, and made a lot of hot air around a non-issue. However, in doing so she manages to educate NYtimes readers about what STEM is, and so overall I think her article does some good. But complaing about an acronym? Come on, people, we have much bigger concerns. The brand is here to stay. Let's get on board.
STEM is a good acronym, and efficient. Yes, it reduces the mouthful. By asking what it stands for, the STEM acronym helps us all understand how funding is categorized by our government agencies. And it does have symbolic relevance that's more subtle than flower confusion. A stem is the base of something that will grow out into many branches, a good symbol for the expected stimulation of the science education sectors in this country, which we hope will fan out like a botanical entity and be fruitful (what's wrong with that?) Why are people complaining? I am perplexed. I respect Lander and Ride, but come on. We have much bigger things to worry about, and on the whole this acronym has done wonders for making the public more aware of interdisciplinary approaches to science education. At least the US government is making efforts toward making a big deal out of STEM education. We are so lucky to be complaining about an acronym. Also, someone should tell smug Angier that "STEAM" riff is has already been taken by the Rhode Island School of design, which was recently awarded an NSF for a new project to incorporate art (A) and design into STEM education. Let's all try for some more optimism about the melding of disciplines within STEM disciplines, and even between STEM and other disciplines. Let's stop complaining about good and bad acronyms. This country is in crisis and our students are falling behind the rest of the world's. Wake up, people!
Hi friends,
As I said, I doubt we can influence the government-speak much either way. I hope Angier's article will make people realize they MUST explain STEM when they use it, and then it become less useful.
cheers,
Laura
A I don't know. Saying all four disciplines is such a mouthful, I can imagine eyes glazing over as they roll by. STEM isn't so bad. What I liked about SMET was the subliminal "sex" message. But then I'm a biochemist.
I'd go for B. I don't think people stay around for explanations today, everyone is moving so fast. if it doesn't get their attention right away because it sounds like plants, then it's lost.
B People find it easy to dismiss things they don't understand and identify with today. Get it right, don't obfuscate the issue with a misleading acronym.
A. I agree its not going to change. And it is misleading. My husband doesn't get it and to be honest the first time I heard it, I didn't know what the heck it meant.
Plus the grouping encompasses different fields with very different issues. For example, we need more US native engineers, computer scientists and physicists to work for defense companies where security clearances require such a birthright. But we don't need more biologists or even chemists...so blanket statements about needing more PhDs in the sciences aren't very helpful. And certainly funding is no where near the same if you are a biologist with the million dollar 5 year grant vs. a physicist with a 100K 3 year grant.
I am not sure on this one. I think you can make a reasonable case out on either side. But government agencies are so fond of acronyms I doubt if achieving the end of STEM is a fight we can win.
cheers,
Laura
I am sure Angier is worth listening to, but I don't think this issue really matters as much as some of the others we discussed on here. I guess that makes me an A.
I don't know, probably C. I am sure the people in math and the other subjects like to be represented, but it makes people think all the money is going to plants and agriculture, so STEM just doesn't work. I liked smet, but I guess it bit the dust a few years ago, sounded like another subject dear to the heart of congress!
B. I never understood why we need an acronym at all. Just say it all, be clear! Go Natalie Angier!
A I don't think it matters. Right now, people read any article about spending money, so the writer can explain what it means. No biggie.
