Jump to content

Talk:Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Examples

The section "Example STEM Fields" feels very disorganized. Instead of picking some common STEM fields, but not attempting to name them all (because that would be very difficult) perhaps it would be better to have the fields be more vague and let the articles they are linked to better explain the subcategories. For example, perhaps it would be more helpful to list categories like Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Geological and Planetary Science, Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, etc. That way the article can be more clear about what STEM subjects cover, and let the articles that these topics link to explain the specifics. Natalieflprice (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Competitions in STEM Fields

We may even add various competitions being held worldwide which inspires and engages students and others in STEM activities. Many of them are sponsored by industries and institutions like NASA etc. example the lunabotics mining competition by NASA. Pankaj Garg, Technology enthusiast, Pankajgarg india (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

UK

In the UK, there is a "STEM" programme intended to rationalise and improve the provision of support for students in the UK, in particular to encourage the teaching of STEM subjects and to encourage students to seriously consider careers in this area. There is a section in the UK Department of Education Website describing this (see http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/stem/). Delivery of this is via "STEMNET", which provides resources for students and teachers, aided by a network of "Ambassadors" who are able to provide real world experience and inspiring role models for young people (see http://www.stemnet.org.uk/home.cfm). At the very least, this item in Wikipedia should be updated to include the significant UK initiative of the same name. Djwaddell (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is much world-wide activity (political, industrial, and philanthropic) concerning fundamental education in the STEM fields to support the economy. The outline for this article would best serve collaboration if the topics were more generic and links were made to pages describing initiatives within countries/regions. I am VERY new to Wikipedia editing so I just added an example section on success measures that should be expanded to include goals and data. Albutler (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Albutler (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have multiple sections for each nation where this is a major emphasis? Ranze (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

National Science foundation and a definition of STEM

This page on the National Science Foundation website is linked to from STEM fields#Definition and STEM fields#National Science Foundation, as if it gives a definition of STEM. However it only mentions STEM in terms of fellowships for STEM eduction and learning research. It doesn't say that all the fellowship programmes are STEM programmes. I'm thinking of removing this source from the article.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had no response to the above comment. I think I've fixed the problem with these two edits. Yaris678 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

the humanities and STEM section of this article is unnecessary and biased

what a strange and somewhat fringe opinion to be represented in a wikipedia article... 72.160.20.193 (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

reverted. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

America Needs STEM More Than Ever

STEM education should be a larger priority in America’s schools to ensure student’s future economic prosperity, drive U.S. innovation, and increase U.S. competitiveness in the global market. The American education system is lagging behind many other developed countries in science and math. American students must be taught new, exciting curriculum. The Common Core Standards are a recent change to the math bar that is now set in most states and will certainly help to bridge the gap, but it will not be a quick fix. The national innovation of the country depends on bright new thinkers who are currently in the United States education system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.83.124 (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Origins of STEM as acronym

I'm looking for the origins of the STEM acronym, specifically,not just the concept. Was it the NAS report? the article is not clear on this, and I believe it should be. Thanks YamaPlos talk 04:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The article tells some anecdotes about the origin, but forgets to tell when that happened. :-( Bever (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

STEAM

As mentioned on Talk:STEAM_fields I don't think that is notable enough to warrant its own article. We can simply make a note here that sometimes Arts enthusiasts add the A to make a different acronym. Ranze (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Such a note would be an obviously uneducated misrepresentation as to what the movement is about. Do a little research before you make such claims. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Ranzel is right. The A in STEAM stands for 'Applied' and is an attempt by some to co-opt the initiative. It isn't taking hold. Might be worth a side note in the article, but not much more, since STEM is the term widely accepted and covers a broader scope. (ps-I served a term on my community's STEM development team.)--DeknMike (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Does nobody use a search engine? Do some research. Google "STEM to STEAM". There's a bill in congress. And the "A" does not stands for "applied." It stand for "Art" Oicumayberight (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are attempts to jump on the STEM bandwagon by adding applied, art, etc. And bills are introduced into Congress for all kinds of frivolous purposes. Art is important, and music training is invaluable for developing good programming skills. But adding anything to STEM takes away from the critical economic and national development need for more technical training. (although blogs don't have sufficient weight to support article development, a Google search did lead me to this | cogent argument against STEAM--DeknMike (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I fixed your link YamaPlos talk 04:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
In my experience STEAM is less about adding formal arts into STEM but more about recognizing the merging of the visual design world with the technical design world. The A represents Arts & Design. --Henrylewismann (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a valid argument from the STEAM advocates that if we continue to focus too much on just one silo, it will not be sustainable. The idea of adding Art (maybe too prematurely at this point because the US hasn't had a solid foundation on STEM yet) can be critical in the future. The advocates argue for having holistic approach in learning to allow critical thinking and creative thinking to blend together. They also feel that adding Art to the mix may be the key to critical economic success (Apple's products are examples). They argue that having STEM and Art in two different silos won't do us good in the long run.
As to whether STEAM should have its own page, I think STEAM in itself has clearly passed the notability test. However, it may be more beneficial to readers if we make it as a major section inside STEM for now. I won't call it just a "bandwagon idea". It is a valid criticism of the STEM approach in which Wikipedia should present all sides of viewpoints. I'm including some references here, not from the blogs, but from mainstream media (The Business Journal, Oregon Public Broadcasting, Newsweek, Philly Inquirer); and tech magazines (CNET, Wired) Z22 (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind STEAM being briefly mentioned in the STEM article. But I think the STEAM Fields stub should be kept open to cover the movement in greater detail. That way, as the STEAM article develops, the anticipated controversy won't detract from the STEM article. We don't want wikipedia to become the WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the STEAM movement is either successful or becomes an obvious failure, then we can revisit the merge with the benefit of hindsight. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Seems like the best approach for this. Z22 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure, let's just water everything down to include everyone so it no longer means anything anymore. I think that's something to get steamed about.Bwtranch (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Other variations

What indicates that the various other acronyms, especially including art or religion (which is almost exactly against the original meaning of STEM) notable? Just because one organization has used the term, that does not mean it is relevant to an article of STEM. The section seems prone to editors tacking a list of more acronyms. Wqwt (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

While STEM may be introduced as a marketing term...

Category:Science technology engineering and mathematics, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming for the foloowing reason While STEM may be introduced as a marketing term to recruit students for these fields, it is not a widely used term for these academic fields as a whole. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me

US

This article strikes me as being very US-centric at the moment. And sections such as the "Members of the Stem Education Coalition" would seem better placed in their own article, to avoid having a huge list of links in this article relating to a specific US organisation. --John H 09:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you could add a article with links to all the types of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ==Current== I would like to see this page updated to reflect current news and information. Daugherty Jan 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timid (talk • cont ribs) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTE)

I agree that this article could use some serious updating. Miller (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2010 (CUT)
I have begun the process of revising the article and welcome others to join me. Miller (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2010 (HUTCH)
The Congregationalist website hasn't been updated in a whole year... as noted above, some currency would be helpful to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHANCY (talk • cont-ribs) 17:20, 4 July 2010 (CUT)

The "Education section" contains two paragraphs which describe Stem101.org and Project Lead the Way which sound promotional.--Drhundertwasser (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)drhundertwasser


I'd like to see a graph or a chart depicting which countries graduate the most STEM grads as a percent vs. absolute numbers. As a percent, Germany and Finland seem to take the lead. But what about absolute numbers in view of the fact that U.S. higher-ed institutions also graduate many non-U.S. citizens? Total degrees awarded in a STEM field per country vs. percentage of all degrees awarded would help address the controversy as to whether or not there is a STEM shortage in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.15.180 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

INSPIRE act

I've created a discussion on Talk:Women in STEM fields regarding the inclusion of a section on the INSPIRE act (since someone added it to both pages, and my objections are more or less the same on each.) We should probably consolidate discussion on one page, but I'm adding a mention here so people are aware. To summarize, though: It's WP:UNDUE, especially here. We don't mention every single executive action on every relevant page - many of them are purely symbolic and have no long-term impact. We would need strong secondary sources attesting to its significance before we could start going into it on tangentially-related pages like these. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Psychology in STEM fields?

In this article, a psychologist boasts of adding psychology to the list of STEM fields. Yet, as far as I know, psychology is not commonly accepted as such... David.Monniaux (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

→ In the United States, psychology and other social sciences are considered to be STEM fields by O*Net, which is a database of all occupations run by the US Department of Labor. (O*Net link: Browse STEM occupations > Research, Development, Design, and Practitioners > Life, Physical, and Social Science---psychology and other social science fields are listed, including sociology and anthropology). Additionally, in 2012 the Department of Homeland Security included psychology as part of their expanded STEM degree list that allows international students to extend their visas. In my experience, psychology students at the graduate level are trained heavily in scientific methodology and experimental design, which usually includes fairly rigorous statistics training. If that isn't STEM, I'm not sure what is! Adrian Abellanoza (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
→ Additionally, the current page mentions that the NSF grants fellowships in the social and behavioral sciences (currently citation #14 in the References section). Adrian Abellanoza (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Geological Distriubiton

Is there a particular way the Geological distribution section is organized? It seems a little confusing with the particular order of the countries listed. Rachelmg (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

National Defense Education Act

Any connection? Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

The article lead claims that before STEM, it was called SMET. But it also says the change was from METS to STEM. Well, was it SMET or was it METS or was it both? More importantly, it needs to be sourced.

This should not be difficult if reliable sources are available that confirm SMET (or METS) saw significant use. It is then a simple matter of checking the dates of each usage, and rewriting the lead to match. CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The opening section needs editing

At present, the opening section makes no sense; "Science, technology, engineering and mathematics" is not an acronym for itself. STEM is an acronym, but the whole phrase isn't.

The section needs to be edited or rewritten.

Wrightaway (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Duly noted. CapnZapp (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Women in STEM

I suggest that a section be added in order to address the under-representation of women in STEM fields. A link to Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (United States) could also help to address this issue. Ghalmars (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A section has been added since the original comment was made. But there are already other pages devoted to this topic including Women in STEM fields, Female education in STEM, Women in science, Women in engineering, and Women in computing. So I'm going to minimize these sections and add links to existing articles.Kfc 930 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

Hello,

Is it possible to post these updates to the STEM section:

STEM education updates

The Smithsonian Science Education Center (SSEC) announced the release of the 5-year Strategic Plan by the Committee on STEM Education of the National Science and Technology Council on December 4, 2018. The Plan is entitled “Charting a Course for Success: America’s Strategy for STEM Education.” https://ssec.si.edu/stemvisions-blog/charting-course-success-americas-strategy-stem-education The objective is to propose a federal strategy anchored on a vision for the future so that all Americans are given permanent access to premium-quality education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. In the end, the United States can emerge as world leader in STEM mastery, employment, and innovation. The three goals are building strong foundations for STEM literacy; enhancing diversity, equality, and inclusion in STEM; and, preparing STEM workforce for the future. https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2018/12/19/envisioning-stem-education-for-all.html

Thank you.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion, LOBOSKYJOJO! = paul2520 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Also [1] gets around the paywall of the bisjournals.com ref. = paul2520 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to Add

To senior editors:

is it possible to add this brief article? Thank you.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


STEM education updates

The United States government released its latest STEM strategy in education focusing on STEM leadership and emphasizing diversity, inclusion, and workforce development. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf In December 2018, the Committee on STEM Education of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) filed its report entitled, “Charting a Court for Success: America’s Strategy for Stem Education. The goals of said strategy are to build strong foundations for STEM literacy, increase diversity, inclusion, and workforce development in STEM, and prepare the STEM workforce for the years to come. https://thejournal.com/articles/2018/12/04/trump-administration-sets-five-year-strategy-for-stem-education.aspx The Strategy follows and encompasses the same pitch of the Obama administration issued in 2013. It was issued as answer to preconditions of the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2010. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/5116 The NSTC integrates four approaches to achieving its goals. The fourth is to operate with accountability and openness. It calls for coming up with a federal implementation plan as well as tracking progress by federal agencies in accomplishing targets. This STEM strategy can inspire STEM initiatives of local and state education initiatives. https://eos.org/articles/white-house-releases-stem-education-strategy Based on the 2018 indicators of the National Science Board and Engineering, the basic STEM skills of Americans have improved during the last 20 years although they still trail other countries. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/

This seems like another meaningless press release, that I don't think would add anything to the article. I'm sure that every government around the world announces initiatives every year to build strong foundations to improve development while operating with accountability and blah blah blah. I don't see how any of this is useful information. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This article should focus on STEM-as-acronym, it does not

IMVHO the very title of STEM fields is asking for confusion, that then makes the article a hodgepodge and a mix of irrelevant data.

STEM has been so far a rather confusing cultural artifact. This article is just a proof of that.

  1. STEM, as the "movement" born out of the STEM acronym, is a very specific event in time, with very specific consequences especially in the USA: legislation, funding, a whole host of supporters, critics, associates, compagnons de route...
  2. an article on STEM becomes relevant in that particular context, and only in that context. When other countries use the acronym for their own programmes, which have but a slight connection with STEM in the USA, then it becomes a problem for a WP article that focuses in STEM-as-acronym. Maybe we need an article that would list and describe holistic approaches to education in different fields? then sure, otherwise not the same thing as STEM-the-acronym, even if they use STEM as their acronym. Maybe we need an article called STEM (acronym, USA) to be able to focus?
  3. despite it being USA-centered, STEM has global impact (to be discussed, lots of foreign-policy effects)
  4. A discussion on STEM has but a marginal connection with holistic approaches to education in these fields (thus the Qatar thing has no place in a STEM-as-acronym article, maybe should be in a separate article with an "also see" set here).
  5. likewise, the history and other data on Science education, Technology education, Engineering education are substantially irrelevant to this particular article, and just muddy things
  6. of course that goes for STEAM, that IMHO does deserve a mention of being the most excellent example of the utter confusion with STEM in the USA. Likewise how Technology has been coerced into meaning purely computer-based resources, losing its original intended meaning. Those are parts of the way STEM is understood and misunderstood, and deserve at least a mention in a quality WP article.
  7. Because of confusion and misunderstanding it is very evident that STEM has, by now, become mostly a slogan, a fashionable intention, where its very lack of substance is a convenient way to accommodate many and all agendas. If any attempt at fairness in an article on this subject is intended, this fact must be made clear - yet its very nature avoided, that is, the article deserves to rise above said confusion, if at all possible. Maybe it is not possible...

I'm afraid I am not bringing solutions yet - however, I do hope the listing of some of the problems might help, maybe, into making this a truly relevant article. Notice particularly this note by Donahoe [The Definition of STEM? | http://www.todaysengineer.org/2013/Dec/STEM-definition.asp] also, Bybee [Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision | http://www.iteea.org/Publications/TTT/sept10.pdf]

There seems to be some agreement that Dr. Ramaley coined the STEM acronym when in the NSF, somewhere before 2004 [ https://atecentral.net/ate20/22917/ate-had-role-in-the-naming-of-stem]. The Rising Above the Gathering Storm paper dates from 2007, and appears to have become the most significant source for the vision for STEM as a dynamic entity worthy of attention of policy makers, and the origin of much of the political/budget impact. (To respond to this, in 2001, the National Research Council, which is part of the National Academies, put forth broad and comprehensive definitions of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) in a book titled "Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Education Assessment." While I can find references before that to STEM as being science, tech, eng., and math, I cannot find anywhere that defines these terms before 2001, though they may exist. Regardless, the NRC is a pretty solid source. I'm currently waiting on the book to arrive in my office; I will check who they cite for their definitions, and post back if they cite an earlier source.)

YamaPlos talk 14:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to add a high-level single-sentence introduction[2] to the front of the WP:LEAD. The coining of the acronym could probably do with down-sizing to a couple of sentences (almost a footnote, depending on what the sources can accurately support) further down the article. So that the content on the subject matter is able to shine through. At the moment the article name ("STEM fields") doesn't give the reader any context, and so has to be WP:PIPEd in normal usage. This can probably be solved by a move over the redirect at STEM education, or perhaps even to simply "Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics". —Sladen (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Yamaplos: I believe the correct solution to this problem would be to open a disambiguation page discustion STEM used as a slogan/cultural phenomenon. I agree with your point about this article being confusing, I came to this page for an explanation about the STEM Acronym vs. STEAM acronym and a better understanding of why the movement was started in the USA in the first place, goals, etc. The sheer amount of background data on the coinage of the term almost turned me away immediately. Luckily, I looked long enough at the chapter titles to see the section on controversies, which at least gave me some answers to the questions I was looking for, but not all. PacNMac3920 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Needs Updating and Reformatting

This article seems to be a bit outdated at the moment, STEM has drastically grown as a field of interest even just in the past 10 years. While the information in the article is valuable, it could use an update. Some areas of interest are that the education section does not adequately address STEM efforts in K-12 and the updates section is not incorporated into the text well. Additionally, I believe the article could use a little reconstruction in the way it is organized. As others have pointed out it is a bit US-centered. I believe that giving a more global perspective to sections such as racial and gender gaps in the STEM fields would help the article. Nstynka (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nataliereid. Peer reviewers: JonGreenberger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 22 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lisandra24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ncgrzejk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

MINT

Shows as needing citation. Here's one http://www.mercatoreducation.com/mint-course/ Rpm13 (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

IMAGES

There is only one small photo toward the end of the article, depicting a woman teaching children geometry in what appears to be a stained-glass window motif. I don't think this photo necessarily adds to the strength of the section about women in STEM. It also doesn't make sense that a sentence about gay men and their STEM representation is under the "Women" section. Ck320492 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SaM1821 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SaM1821 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Removing additional citations template

Noob here. I'm learning how to add references and started working on the [[3]] section. I think I correctly sourced all the acronyms except the last two. I can't find anything for STREAMi or STREM. Is it OK to remove the big ugly section template since the terms have their own citation needed templates, or maybe the two terms should be removed if they can't be sourced? STEMinfo (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@STEMinfo: Yes to both of these questions. Thanks for cleaning it up. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@Dan Bloch Thanks. I removed the template, but left the two unsourced acronyms, in case someone else can find a validating source. STEMinfo (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Reorganizing gender gap and women in STEM information

The short section on the gender gap in STEM in the US section of the page is particularly redundant with the Women in STEM section. The placement of this section also feels out of place as the remainder of the regions listed do not have their own versions on gender gap information. (Overall the US section though is much more filled out than any other region and it should also be addressed the difference in the amount of information for each region).

For the sake of conciseness, it may be better to remove the gender gap information from the US section and instead concentrate all information on gender gaps in the women section and lgbtq+ section. SaM1821 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ritalyo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ritalyo (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics/Archive_1&oldid=1214181059"