And, straight from the BMJ:
https://mh.bmj.com/content/26/1/18
Like many large textbooks, Cecil’s Textbook of Medicine begins with a discourse on medicine as an art.5 Its focus is the patient—defined as a fellow human seeking help because of a problem relating to his or her health. From this emerges the comment that for medicine as an art, its chief and characteristic instrument must be human faculty
I was always amused by the Politics Society at my uni blagging their way on to the sciences bar crawl thanks to Aristotle.
For Aristotle, politics was the “master science” on which all branches of human activity depended.
Taken from the thread that spawned this one, posted originally by @Expired:
“My advice to the ACO: We won’t be returning to the sort of activities we enjoyed before March 2020, so now is the time to recruit/retain STEM qualified staff . Appoint them to wing staff positions and listen to what they have to say.”
This x100. The world is changing. The RAF itself, when looking ahead to 2040 (https://www.forces.net/news/future-raf-service-chief-makes-predictions-year-2040) talks about uncrewed aircraft, cyber, space, AI, Augmented Reality and even climate change - all STEM topics. If the RAFAC is to remain relevant, it needs to give those young people who will end up doing all of this in the future (RAF or otherwise) some experiences they can relate to that aren’t provided by schools.
Some of the decisions, planning and delivery at Wing level needs to be made by people that know this stuff. It isn’t common amongst CFAVs to find STEM experts and should be regarded as a priority resource.
I think the more pressing need is to address the overall retention issue, rather than look at specifics for STEM people! Given the shortfall in CFAV numbers, I’d rather we look at generalists to support squadrons who we can indoctrinate into the RAFAC ways - then specialise them in the future, than cherry pick the recruitment of specialists - be in STEM, shooting folk, AT types, Radio geeks, Band geeks, Marchy types, first aid life saving peoples and immediately drop them into Wg staff positions.
I disagree. We don’t KNOW what STEM experts we have; we only know about the ones who put themselves forwards when the call came for STEM ambassadors. I know a number in STEM fields who didn’t put themselves forwards because they already have a plateful without adding more to it. I also know some that didn’t put themselves forwards because they don’t want their to be overlap between RAFAC and their day job. And others who love their role in STEM - but don’t make good facilitators - and recognise that themselves.
I also know that appointing Specialist types to Wg roles without them having a degree of sensitivity towards other factors, some leadership and management skills, and “people skills” will not move this organisation forward. It needs to be the right STEM experts in post.
Bit young for most cadets, but for anyone who has younger children or is a teacher:
For any STEM ambassadors, or anyone who wants to know more, this looks like it might be interesting and relevant. The fact they mainly mention Scouting-movement orgs probably means we need to make ourselves better known
We probably do need to shout about what we do more
STEM Learning’s stuff is usually really good, I did an online course on delivering STEM with them during the first lock down.
Just looking through the Scout badges, they seem a lot more active STEM wise in terms of actually doing things than we as an organisation are. Badges for DIY, model making (supported by Warhammer), electronics (supported by the IET), Scientist (supported by Rolls Royce) and a lot more. The Scouts it have Air Activities (supported by the RAF) badge and Mechanics (supported by the Army) Why can’t we have activities “supported by”, some this support for the Scouts seems to be very tangible or would this mean he seat warmers up the chain, actually doing something.
The bigger question is how ‘qualified’, interested and more importantly able are the Scouts’ staff to do things with the kids? As this is a problem for us.
It has been very interesting to see our age group in a school environment as you see exactly what we see in cadets. Some are really interested and up for things and others not in the slightest. In DT some are constantly on your case; I want to do this, how can I etc etc and really into problem solving as they move from the design to build, and others totally disinterested, which is odd as they took it as an exam subject. Having workshops with plenty of tools and machinery helps.
In science exactly the same as some of them start trying out their own ideas, once they’ve done the assigned practical. I’m not against digging out some extras and doing it during lunch if they want.
I do hope you are all aware that >80% of everything RAFAC does can bee considered STEM in one way or another.
If you are after ideas or people to deliver STEM lessons outside your scope then use the stem.org.uk website to request a STEM ambassador. you can state exactly what you want and skilled people can get in touch to offer their time
Or, you know, contact the STEM ambassadors that we have in the org. I think all regions now have a STEM go to person who should know what’s-what when it comes to STEM in our org.
yes, however, can we trust they have experience? That’s not a guarantee with wings.
The RN, Army and RAF have their own dedicated STEM ambassadors, and I would trust them to deliver relevant projects.
Another good option is local colleges and universities, as they have both people and equipment that can be utilised.
The RAFAC should get regular RAF technical and engineering support teams to provide support for wing military themed STEM activities. What’s the point in rebranding the ATC to the RAFAC if the RAF doesn’t offer any practical assistance?
If I was a wing STEM officer, I’d bin those primary school plastic mechano sets. Wing STEM officers need to survey all CFAVs to see what they do in their days jobs. Approach CFAVs who do STEM for paid employment to see if they would be willing to plan and deliver fun and engaging STEM activities. There must be glut of STEM professionals, pilots and programming geeks lurking around squadrons.
Which is why I think CFAVs should be authorised to train to first class, leading and senior/master cadet classification. If there isn’t anyone on squadron, get a pool of wing STEM SMEs to go from squadron to squadron to teach cadets. CFAVs should be required to give up a few weekends a year to reach a minimum level of competency to teach first class, then leading, etc. What about getting the RAF to offer specialist technical training to CFAVs?
Per year…
You trying to help tony kill us off?
I agree that the RAF should be more involved in delivering STEM, maybe someone needs to reach out and ask???
Wing STEM officers just need to do something! Our one does nothing!!!
I also believe that cadets will engage more if people with different backgrounds are delivering topics of which they are SMEs, rather than CFAVs trying to make it up as they go along
Was this not something brought up from the ASTRA review? AOC 22 group saying we need to work better together, rather than two separate organisations.
That assumes you have such people…
It’s all fine and dandy when you do, but if you don’t, then what…?
That’s where STEM ambassadors would step in. BUT this isn’t anything new. We used to have guest speakers, interest talks and practicals delivered across squadrons up and down the country long before STEM was its own thing.
Everyone has people. Like I said above… stem.org.uk has over 30000 stem ambassadors around the uk that are more than happy to deliver to groups!
I love weekend courses. Just had one today.