Every student must study both STEM and the arts and humanities

no mention of the many many articles and books arguing for a broad, integrated, cross- or interdisciplinary curriculum. A pale pretense of originality. Why> At least as important: what about the likely near majority of graduates who will not have or desire a career in STEM?

ENOUGH , yet another author bleating the drivel that STEM students must havw exposure to SHAPE in order to have "creative confidence". utter NONSENSE, most STEM activities from applied projects in engineering through to research in pure mathematics require students to exercise imagination and creative flair in working on the topic. onre gets the impression that the shape mafia are desparately grasping for any straw to try to make themselves appear relevant as students continue to vote wit their feet and travel in other directions. understandable but tedious and grasping at "AI" is likely to only hasyen the upcoming defenestration.

Yes, STEAM is a better approach overall. Scientists need to know history, foreign languages, and their own language so they can communicate. Everyone should be singing and have a musical instrument, a recreational sport, a chance to get outdoors, and a craft so they can support themselves in case of need. A strong general education program is needed everywhere. It's not a frill. AI cannot replace any of this: it is a bubble already bursting. Some intelligent skepticism upstairs would be in order.

But it seems to me when we talk about the interdisciplinary aspect and AH students taking STEM subjects, we are usually referring to the more general, popular end of the spectrum which is more Humanities premised anyway. We are not talking about nucleur physics but the popularisation of science or the history of scientce very much in a Humanities style narrative. Thomas Kuhn writes about science but from the perspective of analyzing "paradigms" rather than dealing with scientific research. Watching our old friend, Prof Cox, simpering smugly on about the Universe and the Big Bang is mildly engaging, but that's really about public education rather than scientific research isn't it? Yes of course we all will have to engage with AI and other Tech developments but that's not really "doing STEM" is it? To do STEM properly one would need, I imagine, some science A levels and to be working at a very specialised level. And we don't really need to understand the science of AI to be able to discuss the wider ethical and cultural issues it raises. I thought that interdisciplinarity is actually the deployment of different disciplines in a coherent complementary methodology within a field of enquiry, not just "doing" a STEM module alongside a AH module? In effect changing the field or object of knowledge. I discussed this with expert in medicine recently and commented that medics don't actually seem to be interested in the history of medicine as such and have allowed the Humanities to take over this area (I am not sure I was entirely right here). He said, maybe but in his field the number of specialist medical papers that came out was quite overwhelming and needed all his time just keeping up with them, let alone researching and writing about the history and culture of the subject. But yes of course, intelligent people with enquiring minds will always find fascinating things fascinating whether they are STEM, SHAPE, STEAM etc etc. So in my opinion (and after all, it is the one that counts), this all seems very wishy washy.

The bifurcation into STEM or SHAPE is a by-product of how UK universities are organised, with students applying to study a "course" in a department that might or might not include opportunities for taking material from other departments. My peers and I went through a system where we applied to a faculty; Graduation required gaining X credits from material in that faculty, beyond that you were free to take whatever material you wanted [provided you met topic-level pre-requisites]. Some students did, some did not no-pressure either way. It makes admin more complicated [timetables & exams], but it was do-able even in the 80s. Some topics died a natural death from lack of interest, new material appeared to fill in the gaps; it might not make a difference to the contemporary sustainability issues; however it would answer the breadth vs depth issues raised in the article, whilst allowing students to vote with their feet.The UK model is a consequence of choices made decades ago and carried on by intellectual inertia.

The 'M' is too often neglected. Without A level mathematics, or an equivalent, on entry, this is pie in the sky.

1. STEm, STEAM, STEAMM are meaningless slogans 2. STEMM is unadmittedly repetitive. Is not mathematics a "science"? 3. None of this is "interdisciplinarity." Lumping or listing disciplines is NOT interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary 4. there is an important literature going back to 1960: begin with Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Continue to Harvey Graff's Undisciplining Knowledge (2015), and, and, any 5. stop sloganeering esp. university administrators!