2002-08-04 My comments also interspersed below.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-08-04 00:56 Subject: [USMA:21525] Re: metric in schools > Below is my comment about Joe's reply. > > Carl > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Joseph B. Reid > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 1:11 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:21515] Re: metric in schools > > > >>John Kilopascal wrote in USMA 21513: > >> > >>I think that is wonderful, but..... If I were to approach the students of > >>this teacher, and asked these students some questions, like: > >> > >>How tall are you? > >>How much do you weigh? > >>How far is it from point X to point Y? > >>etc. > >> > >>Would these students answer me in SI or FFU? > >> > >>Now, this is only a math teacher. What about the other teachers? What > >>units are they teaching? It is very easy to teach something and have it > >>known by the students just for the test and later easily ignored or > >>forgotten. Teaching SI in this haphazard fashion is as bad as having > >>sporadic metric usage in construction. It actually hurts the cause. > People > >>will remember that at one time there was only one system in use in this > >>country. Without a practical plan, all we have done is add more units to > >>the collection, without taking the others away and thus in most peoples > >>minds, metric has made life more confusing. > >> > >>All these little drips and drops here and there are not the answer. And > >>never will be. > > > >I beg to differ. Lord Beaverbrook, newspaer tycoon, remarked "There is no > >such thing as bad publicity; there is only publicity". When those children > >grow up and are faced with the full complexity of ifp they will realize > >that there are simpler ways of measuring things. I believe that Canadians > >accepted metric more easily because generations had met metric in high > >school science classes. > > >Joseph B.Reid > >17 Glebe Road West > >Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071 > > Joe, I think you are right. I am an example of a person who grew up with > metric units in school (some classes) but I used ifp for everyday use until > I suddenly wondered why I was using the more difficult system. Even before > I decided to back the metric system, I liked it and I would not have opposed > a conversion effort. I already thought that metric was better. The survey > I did implies that most people in my demographic group feel the same way. > Even people I know who are not involved in math or science have nothing > against it. I suspect that there is also a generational factor involved. There is a big differecne between a person expressing support for metric in a casual conversation on the subject and actually using SI units when asked questions requiring dimensions to be used. One may at first give metric answers to questions, but when the response is: "what's that in feet/inches/pounds/miles/gallons, etc., the use of SI suddenly ends. It is just like a store cashier who has both 1 $ bills and 1 $ coins in the drawer. When asked if he/she ever gives out the coins in change, the answer is usually, nobody wants them. The reality is, that the few who do make a loud enough noise are enough to stop the practice. From my surveys of cashiers, I have found that women are most likely to avoid using the coin and old women are most likely to reject it when given to them. When I use the coin, it is always older women cashiers who make the comments about the "odd money". I would bet that women, especially the older ones are the most opposed to metric as well. > > I think that the metric unit that people are most comfortable with in the > U.S. is the liter. I think that most people can visualize a liter without > as much difficulty as meters, kilograms, etc. They probably understand it > better than the fluid ounce. Who really knows how much 48 fl. oz. is, > anyway? I didn't before I started paying attention to units recently. I > would not be surprised if the gallon or the fluid ounce were some of the > first units to fall into disuse. Obviously, we are not really close to that > happening yet, but we are moving in the right direction. People ask me how > much 75 km is, but they never ask how much a liter is. The predominate use of the term litre/liter is in the common 2 litre soda bottle. The use of litre in soda pop bottles to replace the quart and pint goes back to the mid 1970s. It was the first wide scale use of the unit litre. Since that time, some other products, most notably mouthwashes have been sold in litres and millilitres. It is only witht he pop bottle that the name litre is most familiar. Most people don't even know the mouthwash they buy is sold in metric sizes. The pop bottle situation exists because the name litre appears in the name. The famous two litre bottle allows us supporters to feel that the term litre in the name gives publicity to the metric unit litre, but in reality, the term '2 litre", is seen more as a trade name for that particular style of pop bottle. I don't think most people realise that a two litre bottle contains the same contents as 2 one litre bottles, or 4-500 mL bottles. Maybe because the shelves are full of the two litre bottles and rarely are the half and one litre bottles seen or known of. And, a one litre bottle costs about the same as a two litre bottle and in some cases is more expensive when the two litre bottles are on sale. > > I agree that we need a paradigm shift more than "all these drips and drops", > but there are several problems we face. Most Americans don't see a > compelling need to metricate-- The compelling need must be economic. As long as Americans can "freely" trade at home and abroad in FFU, the compelling need does not exist. If it can be shown that lack of metric in American products is the reason that others shun American goods and poor export sales forces business not to hire or create new, well paying jobs, then we have a case. But, we need proof. we should encourage other countries to insist > on metric units in imports of goods and information/entertainment. That > will add pressure on our industries. The problem is, many countries, such as third world ones, don't want to rile American sensativities by making an issue of it. The developed countries will quietly just not by American products and the under developed countries will take what ever they can get, especially if they are getting it for free as part of an aid package. American companies that build factories and other industries in the third world do so in FFU and thus help create a future market in those regions for their FFU products. Developing the third world on American standards is a sure fire way to demetricate this part of the world, just like American fundamentalist evangilists are making inroads in traditional Roman Catholic areas. If you are aggressive enough, you can do it. Second, Americans tend think of the > metric system as being "foreign", but it would be better if they thought of > it as "modern" and thoroughly American. Already the liter is on its way > there because of "drips and drops" of progress. Again, the litre usage is not expanding. It's POPularity is restricted to its use as a trade name for certain sized soda pop bottles. I also think Americans don't see metrication as replacing the traditional system with metric but having the two exist side-by-side. Which means double the work by having to learn a whole new set of units and converting back and forth between the two. To many people this means a lot of extra work for nothing. I don't think it has even sunk in most peoples heads that you abandon the old when using SI. I can't see a lot of people just switching over. Whenever confronted with an SI unit, they will try to translate it to FFU. And with the millions of tools and devices around still able to measure in the old units, these people will still be able to use their familiar units, making it frustrating for us. John > > Carl >
