Eric Gardner

Prof. Emerson

ENG 110 – J

20 March 2018

Writing Prompt 2 Free Draft

In life, we all travel along the road to success  Some would argue that yes, money is derived from hard work, and is a good measure of financial responsibility and the ability to care for a family in a satisfied life. Others would argue that life is meaningless without pursuing passion. If you want a Ph.D. in the history of toasters, then pursue your passion. You may not be able to bear the financial burden, but you can be happy that you are living a life that you and you alone have chosen. There is wisdom, if not practicality in both approaches. Both of these approaches are rather extreme, which is why the most valuable approach is to meet both in the middle in moderation. A combination of both realistic ambition, and passion for your livelihood is as close to your success as anyone can manage. However, the same comparison cannot be made between art and science. Although the innovative thinking and the thrill of creation of art make it just as valuable as the analysis and collaboration of science, the thought process of science is so different from the thought process of art that to forcefully smash them together would end up degrading both .  For these reasons, among others, STEM should not be converted to STEAM.

Of course, not everyone sees it that way. In Yo-Yo Ma’s essay, “Necessary Edges: Arts, Empathy, and Education,” he argues that American education needs to shift its emphasis from STEM to STEAM. Ma uses the ecological phenomenon of the edge effect as a metaphor to explain his argument, explaining that “when two ecosystems meet…you have the least density, but the greatest variety.” Ma feels that there is an imbalance between the humanities and sciences and calls for a “new consciousness,” or a new way of thinking and teaching that incorporates both the culture of art and the rigorous process and analysis of science. In order to do that, STEM-a primary and secondary education initiative in the United States promoting the Sciences, Technological innovation, Engineering, and Mathematics-needs to be expanded to STEAM in order to include the various Arts.

Although I agree with Yo-Yo Ma in the perceived scope of the problem, I feel his solution is inadequate and flawed. His line of thinking boils down to a perceived unfairness in the special treatment that STEM subjects receive in the United States. But the reason that these jobs are so encouraged, is the rapid increase in economic need for the jobs that fall under the STEM umbrella. As important as the arts are,  there hasn’t been a sudden and dire shift in the economy that desperately requires new artists in the same way our aging infrastructure requires new engineerings, or our aging population requires new doctors. A successful STEM education provides students with the science, math, engineering, and technology in sequences that build upon each other, and can be used with real-world applications to provide innovative solutions to problems associated with science and technology. Adding other subjects would water down the focus on the core STEM competencies and weaken the initiative. The phrase STEM is already quite broad, and to add another subject simply to get better treatment is not a viable method of improving Art’s standing.?  Instead, the conversation should be around how we can renovate and modernize how art is taught in the classroom

In “The Future of Science … Is Art?” Jonah Lehrer goes even further, and claims that science is somehow deficient without the arts. He writes that “Science needs the arts. We need to find a place for the artist within the experimental process…”. Leher even argues that “[r] ight now, science is widely considered our sole source of Truth, with a capital “T.” Everything that can’t be stated in the language of acronyms and equations risks being disregarded as a pretty fiction, which is the opposite of scientific fact.” In other words, science is obsolete and obnoxious. I particularly take issue with his vagueness throughout the piece. Leher eagerly beats the drum of the shrinkage of science, and champions art at every turn, but shies away from any specifics . For example, the claim that “the epic questions that modern science must answer cannot be solved by science alone.” is lazily placed near the end of the essay, then promptly ignored, and never explored in any satisfying detail.

It is important to remember that exposure to the arts is vital in anyone’s education. The arts are a source of inspiration, and exposure to the arts broadens one’s perspective. These broad perspectives are crucial to the creativity and critical thinking that is required for effective engineering design and innovation. The humanities fuel inquisitiveness and expansive thinking, providing the scientific mind with larger context and the potential to communicate better.  Likewise, exposure to STEM is just as crucial in the development of critical thought, and trusting in a repetitive, peer-reviewed process. But where do the additions to STEM end, once the A is added? Should an L be added for languages? Or another T for teaching? Or another C for collaboration ? Arts are important, but not at the expense of diluting the scientific brand.

 

 

You were very clear from the start about what your thesis was, and you did a great job at stating it. You were very opinionated throughout your entire essay which is great because it shows your own thoughts, while also being able to see what the writers were talking about. In your introduction and in your conclusion, I like that you use questions but I feel like you use them too much. Having more than one or two questions made it hard to keep interested in those parts of your essay. It was structured very well. – Sierra Pepper

 

You did an excellent job showcasing Yo-Yo Ma’s opposing viewpoint clearly and with dignity, providing the context for your own argument very well. You defend and present your own argument extremely effectively. The ideas within your paper flow very nicely from your introduction, to Ma’s ideas, to your response, to Lehrer, to your response to Lehrer, and finally to your conclusion. You will want to expand on this so that you can have a more full paper and also meet the length requirement. You should have no problem with that as you have very strong arguments and insightful ideas to expand. Though I have a differing opinion than you on the topic, you argued your stance so effectively that it made me question the accuracy of my own stance. Well done. -Garrett Almeida

Fix, too many questions

Interesting way to open up. Good hook!

I love this observation. It’s a good way to introduce your perspective on the topic, as well!

I agree with Garrett, I think that this is a good way to form your thesis.

This paragraph is well structured, placed at the perfect spot in the paper, and introduces your opposing viewpoint very well.

Did you mean “As important as the arts are,”? Using “in” made me have to read over this again, distracting me from your writing

I don’t believe that this is a question. You should state it as your opinion because, as a question, is makes it seem as if you are uncertain.

What are the brackets for?

Very True.

I think that this goes against your thesis. You state in your essay that the sciences do not need the art, and that it is not needed in the science world. But if art can fuel more expansive thinking, and helps expanding your mind, better communication, then I think it doesn’t flow with your original thought processes.

I get what you’re saying about the slippery slope in education, but I feel that these examples tend to fall under the categories of STEAM.

I like how you restated your thesis, but in a newer, more concise way to wrap it up.