Hello, Stan, Thank you for writing on this subject. Your discussion certainly have brought me back to my pro-metric roots, and also gave me an idea.
Your unearthing of math phobia is an excellent point. It reminds me of the many ploys wrought by the media over the years to make SI seem to be beyond the ken of the average American. My constant reiteration that metric is, literally, as simple as dollars and cents often falls on deaf ears. People never get a chance to pull out a metric ruler and enjoy the simple pleasures of measuring decimally, because somebody writes an article in the NYT or the LA Times that gives them all the SI prefixes and tells them they'll be wearing a 38-liter hat. My entrance into the metrication battle began with a comparison that soothed my occasional aversion to math. On one page of the book, I had to convert scruples and drams to grains, add up the grains, and convert the sum back to scruples and drams. On the opposite page, all I had to do was add up several gram quantities to get a total. Which system of measurement fostered any distaste I might still have had for math? Certainly not the metric system! Last week, I wrote to all 10 candidates for NCTM office, urging them to teach metric as the primary system of measurement. Your point is well taken: I could have added your point that a decimal system of measurement is much more manageable than our present set of units, and would make the mathematical exercise enjoyable. They should teach the comparison! My own experience with learning measurement was in a catch-all sense. When I was in elementary school, "arithmetic" and measurement were blended together. I often wondered why we had to struggle visualizing eighths and sixteenths of an inch, but it was the pharmacy school exercise that became my epiphany. Paul T. Quoting Stan Jakuba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This is an opinion concerning the emphasis USMA members have been placing on > writing to math teachers & their organizations in the expectation that it > will help metricating the US. > > I am questioning the effectiveness of that effort. Math teachers tell me that > they do teach metric; it is in the curriculum as any standard subject. They > also support the vision of metric USA. And they cannot teach metric any more > until they are told to do so. That is likely to happen only when the country > starts going metric again. When that push starts they will do more regardless > our prompting; but they cannot initiate the push. > > Notice that their teaching metric in the past failed in metricating the US if > the metric USA was that goal (I know it was not). I believe that any extra > effort on their part will again be wasted. Worse yet: they are the wrong > group to teach or promote metric. > > My point is that introducing metric system in math classes is a mistake. Why? > Many people suffer aversion to math. Americans in particular treasure math > phobia, even pride in it. Fear of math is considered a virtue. The media > delight in prizing numerical ineptitude and ridiculing the opposites as > nerds, geeks, etc. Associating metric with math turns many pupils against > metric. And it is the non-math types that will go into the Government policy > making. > > Metric need not be a math subject. If I remember my childhood ed, I heard of > the "metric system" in physics classes, not math. The Czech lands, being > located in the center of Europe, had likely the same ed system as the > continental countries (not England). Metric system and units weren't taught > in math classes because there is no math in metric. Math was devoted to > calculating. Measurements, for which one needs units, was left for physics. > US math teachers "put" math (i.e., conversions) into the subject. Otherwise, > what would they do with all those hours allocated? And they are used to that > - conversion calculations are a must in working with the English system. > > Relegating teaching of metric units to physics in the US would take away the > stigma of metric = math, and with it the "I am not good at it, see no use for > it, forget it." This (majority) in the US population would have one less > argument against metric. Introducing metric in physics or similar, non-math > classes, on the other hand, cannot but enthuse students for resorting to the > metric system. They see how much simpler solutions to problems are when using > SI. Instead of aversion, they will develop a love of both metric AND physics. > > For these reasons, I question the usefulness of "working with" math teachers > and their representatives to involve them in promoting the metric cause. We > should instead address curriculum developers, textbook publishers (non-math), > and other such organizations. > > I am not against promoting metric among math teachers or any other group. But > recognizing the limits on the time each of us has for the metrication effort, > I am concerned that, with this group, that time is not just wasted, it is > counter-productive. > > Stan Jakuba Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Public Relations Director U.S. Metric Association, Inc. Phone (432)528-7724 www.metric.org 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.grandecom.net/~trusten
