As far as I can remember, that's how metric units were handled in my physics classes in high school (in England) in the 1940s and 1950s. We were taught cgs and taught about mks (there being no SI then) and, of course, we said "Centigrade" rather than "Celsius." I believe it was during that period that Celsius replaced Centigrade, but that kind of change wasn't well publicized at the time.
It was much the same in chemistry classes. Titration equipment and measuring beakers were calibrated in cc's (no mL yet) and physical chemistry calculations used metric units, for which the use of Imperial units would, of course, have been ludicrous. I can't remember any mention of Imperial measure. However, I had woodwork classes in my first year. That was totally Imperial and we were taught the "virtues" of 1/2", 1/4", 1/8", 1/16" and 1/32" subdivisions. I assume that practice disappeared in the 1970s or 1980s. In elementary school, we were taught only Imperial and I learned to calculate using fractions. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] Pat Naughtin wrote: >I wonder how effective a similar metric science education program would be >using similar methods. > >Your science classrooms and laboratories would only have metric rulers (in >metres and millimetres -- with no double sided scales); all masses would be >metric only, in grams and kilograms; all measuring cylinders would be in >litres and millilitres; and all thermometers would be Celsius only. > >All lessons, experiments, and calculations would involve SI units only; >there would be no calculations involving old imperial or old USA units, nor >would there would be any calculations involving old metric units. In >particular, there would never be any requirement to convert any units from >old to new -- students could develop their new SI metric mindsets from >direct experience.
