By far, the thing that most helped me develop my character was over a decade of theater arts. I find that many STEM-oriented people have an elitist attitude and look down at the arts, but the depth of the self-reflection and collaboration experienced in theater simply cannot be experienced in STEM subjects. My STEM classes teach me the subject, my theater experiences teach me how to be a person—in that way, they are incomparable.
The next best thing was being inspired by the mentor figures in my life. Personally, much of who I am today has been shaped by watching what older/more experienced people have done, which has shaped my life in both positive and negative ways. I think it's great that you want to be more vulnerable with your students. Vulnerability, to me, is one of the biggest signs of strength.
Thanks for sharing. Perhaps the depth of self-reflection and collaboration can't be matched in STEM fields, but we can get a lot closer than we typically do now. I'm curious how our classrooms and courses might look different if we tried to emulate the type of experience you had in theater. Could you share more about what made that environment so influential for you?
I am so deeply invested in both computer science and theater, and people have often suggested to me that I somehow combine the two. I have thought about how to do this, but I have come to the conclusion that I cannot and should not combine the two. To me, computer science and theater are like yin and yang, starkly different but complementary to each other. The lessons I learn from theater become part of me and therefore are present when I engage with computer science (and vice versa), but I do not feel it is necessary to try to make computer science more like theater, or theater more like computer science, because they are fundamentally very different. In that way, I think the best way to cultivate character in STEM courses is to have them take humanities/arts courses simultaneously, which is precisely what Mudd promotes.
When I am acting, I am stepping into the life of someone who is very different from me. My theater teacher has this quote which I love, "acting isn't pretending to be someone who you're not, it's realizing someone who you are." Good acting requires deep, deep introspection, discovering aspects of yourself you see in your character.
This vulnerability builds community that is simply unparalleled in STEM. With acting specifically, everyone is undergoing the same vulnerable process together. Another important thing is when you are on stage, you are FULLY present with your scene partners, which makes it easier to form connections with your cast. This is also true for technicians who are on standby for cues. I find that people are often distracted when talking to people nowadays (either by a cell phone or by their own thoughts) so it's hard to have that sort of connection in real life. The other part about teamwork in theater is that it takes EVERYONE to make it work, and just one person who is not invested can make the show fall apart. While this is somewhat the case for engineering, the stakes are lower because it is not happening live so it's easier for other people to pick up slack.
I personally do not think my math classes would be improved if I sat two feet away from my classmates, looked them in the eyes, and told them very personal stories about my life (something that happens in theater). I do, however, think my math classes would be improved if people were doing that kind of exercise outside of class.
While I feel that STEM courses should not try to emulate theater courses, I do think there is maybe a similar opportunity to build that sense of community in the Clinic program. I have personally not yet experienced Clinic so I can't speak about the current experience, but I think that vulnerability is one of the most important factors for building a strong team. If people are able to express worries about the projects, teammate conflicts, struggles with deadlines, etc. that will not only facilitate better relationships with teammates but also make the project go smoother. This is definitely easier said than done, though—I myself used to be a huge people pleaser and failed to communicate my needs to others. It takes a lot of work both inside and outside of the classroom to be able to achieve that level of communication. As I said in my original comment, I think that for you as an educator, being vulnerable yourself is a great starting point and I think that seeing an authority figure behave that way could encourage students as well.
About to leave on a trip, so (a) I waited too long to respond, (b) what I have to say in part is a follow-on to Jacob Clarke's reply. The FOURTH C, if I may, would be Compassion. Professor Josh is much guided in his thinking, as am I, by his biblical Christian faith, and so I would expect him to give a thumbs-up to this C since it is a primary characteristic of the main character, the leader, of his faith... "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them" (Mt. 9:36). In the context of the 737 MAX debacle, it makes sense if you look at where Boeing's leadership had misplaced their compassion. The equivalent energy that should have stirred up "Compassion" for the safety of millions of future passengers-to-be was squandered rather on Passion for money--greed. I heard this idea a few weeks ago watching the YouTube channel Mentour Now and this airline pilot's expose on Boeing's demise, rooted directly in its change of leadership (ownership) not so long ago. In light of a holistic Mudd education (at least, that's what I think I received), I think that Compassion would readily be held in esteem as a desired characteristic that we want future engineers and scientists to possess as they wield their craft in a world of practical need.
Good analysis, Josh. I think our right on with a leader needing to be competent and have good character. I still think something is missing, though maybe I'm just not sure which category it fits under. A quality I think is important is engagement in the work. Which maybe falls under capacity? A leader can be highly qualified and trustworthy, but if they are disconnected from tasks other than what is important to the team, it can be hard on the rest of the group.
By far, the thing that most helped me develop my character was over a decade of theater arts. I find that many STEM-oriented people have an elitist attitude and look down at the arts, but the depth of the self-reflection and collaboration experienced in theater simply cannot be experienced in STEM subjects. My STEM classes teach me the subject, my theater experiences teach me how to be a person—in that way, they are incomparable.
The next best thing was being inspired by the mentor figures in my life. Personally, much of who I am today has been shaped by watching what older/more experienced people have done, which has shaped my life in both positive and negative ways. I think it's great that you want to be more vulnerable with your students. Vulnerability, to me, is one of the biggest signs of strength.
Thanks for sharing. Perhaps the depth of self-reflection and collaboration can't be matched in STEM fields, but we can get a lot closer than we typically do now. I'm curious how our classrooms and courses might look different if we tried to emulate the type of experience you had in theater. Could you share more about what made that environment so influential for you?
I am so deeply invested in both computer science and theater, and people have often suggested to me that I somehow combine the two. I have thought about how to do this, but I have come to the conclusion that I cannot and should not combine the two. To me, computer science and theater are like yin and yang, starkly different but complementary to each other. The lessons I learn from theater become part of me and therefore are present when I engage with computer science (and vice versa), but I do not feel it is necessary to try to make computer science more like theater, or theater more like computer science, because they are fundamentally very different. In that way, I think the best way to cultivate character in STEM courses is to have them take humanities/arts courses simultaneously, which is precisely what Mudd promotes.
When I am acting, I am stepping into the life of someone who is very different from me. My theater teacher has this quote which I love, "acting isn't pretending to be someone who you're not, it's realizing someone who you are." Good acting requires deep, deep introspection, discovering aspects of yourself you see in your character.
This vulnerability builds community that is simply unparalleled in STEM. With acting specifically, everyone is undergoing the same vulnerable process together. Another important thing is when you are on stage, you are FULLY present with your scene partners, which makes it easier to form connections with your cast. This is also true for technicians who are on standby for cues. I find that people are often distracted when talking to people nowadays (either by a cell phone or by their own thoughts) so it's hard to have that sort of connection in real life. The other part about teamwork in theater is that it takes EVERYONE to make it work, and just one person who is not invested can make the show fall apart. While this is somewhat the case for engineering, the stakes are lower because it is not happening live so it's easier for other people to pick up slack.
I personally do not think my math classes would be improved if I sat two feet away from my classmates, looked them in the eyes, and told them very personal stories about my life (something that happens in theater). I do, however, think my math classes would be improved if people were doing that kind of exercise outside of class.
While I feel that STEM courses should not try to emulate theater courses, I do think there is maybe a similar opportunity to build that sense of community in the Clinic program. I have personally not yet experienced Clinic so I can't speak about the current experience, but I think that vulnerability is one of the most important factors for building a strong team. If people are able to express worries about the projects, teammate conflicts, struggles with deadlines, etc. that will not only facilitate better relationships with teammates but also make the project go smoother. This is definitely easier said than done, though—I myself used to be a huge people pleaser and failed to communicate my needs to others. It takes a lot of work both inside and outside of the classroom to be able to achieve that level of communication. As I said in my original comment, I think that for you as an educator, being vulnerable yourself is a great starting point and I think that seeing an authority figure behave that way could encourage students as well.
About to leave on a trip, so (a) I waited too long to respond, (b) what I have to say in part is a follow-on to Jacob Clarke's reply. The FOURTH C, if I may, would be Compassion. Professor Josh is much guided in his thinking, as am I, by his biblical Christian faith, and so I would expect him to give a thumbs-up to this C since it is a primary characteristic of the main character, the leader, of his faith... "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them" (Mt. 9:36). In the context of the 737 MAX debacle, it makes sense if you look at where Boeing's leadership had misplaced their compassion. The equivalent energy that should have stirred up "Compassion" for the safety of millions of future passengers-to-be was squandered rather on Passion for money--greed. I heard this idea a few weeks ago watching the YouTube channel Mentour Now and this airline pilot's expose on Boeing's demise, rooted directly in its change of leadership (ownership) not so long ago. In light of a holistic Mudd education (at least, that's what I think I received), I think that Compassion would readily be held in esteem as a desired characteristic that we want future engineers and scientists to possess as they wield their craft in a world of practical need.
Good analysis, Josh. I think our right on with a leader needing to be competent and have good character. I still think something is missing, though maybe I'm just not sure which category it fits under. A quality I think is important is engagement in the work. Which maybe falls under capacity? A leader can be highly qualified and trustworthy, but if they are disconnected from tasks other than what is important to the team, it can be hard on the rest of the group.