More excellent points, John. My post is getting superb constructive
feedback.
I agree that metric should be taught as a system to be used, not
loathed. Every time a student takes away the notion that metrication
means manipulating 25.4-mm units, it means we are failing at metric
education.
Your point on education brings me back to how I became sold on metric.
It was when I was a pharmacy student, and had to add up weights, first
in the diabolical apothecary system and then in metric. From then on,
it made much more sense to use metric, not just in pharmacy,but for
ALL measurements!
Paul Trusten
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:16, "John M. Steele"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Good points, Paul. I would like to add some remarks on two of them:
1) Familiar enough: Most people know the (Customary) units
adequately to use them, but not the "system" interconnecting them.
(Please don't argue about whether it is a "system;" it may not be as
systemic as SI, but something interconnects them). Most real people
don't do a lot of conversions, they just use the units. The FPLA,
UPLR, and commerce in general pick units such that this approach is
sufficient. Even things like mixing oil and gas for two cycle
engines, which should cause horrible conversions, are simplified to
ounces per gallon; measure the ounces, then measure the gallons. No
need to know 128 fl oz = 1 gallon. The very points we emphasize,
interconnectedness and ease of conversion recall the horrors of my
2nd point.
2) Resistance to knowledge of the metric system: Whether or not
they also learn some Customary, kids have learned something about
metric for decades, unfortunately, due to the way it is taught,
mostly bad things. In my opinion, this contributes to the
resistance. In the 50's, I don't recall learning any metric until
high school. In the 70's, my two oldest children learned it first,
in elementary school (I had to teach them enough Customary to get
by). In the 80's my youngest child learned mixed units. However,
beyond learning to measure in centimeters in 1st or 2nd grade, it
was MOSTLY taught as conversions. Those were conversions between
Customary and metric, mixed unit story problems where they had to
reason out which to convert, or problems involving scientific
notation and extremely large and small numbers (how many cubic
nanometers in a cubic meter). The kids come out of the school
system NOT having learned that metric is simpler, but that the
NASTIEST problems involve metric. Is there any wonder Americans
resist.
HOW they are taught metric is more important than whether they are
taught metric-only or both. They need to learn about measuring in
metric and practical conversions (millimeters in a meter, meters in
a kilometer are good to know, millimeters in a kilometer is a little
silly, and more extreme is really silly). The schools need to teach
kids how to handle scientific notation and extremely large/small
numbers, but the problems shouldn't be chosen to only bias kids
against the metric system (how many grains in a ton, how many mils
in a light year, how many dry pints in a wet barrel)
From: Paul Trusten <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 9:46:20 AM
Subject: [USMA:46948] Do most Americans REALLY find the metric
system to be easier to use than the customary system?
Do most Americans really find the metric system easier to use than
the customary system?
Perhaps not!
For those of us who support U.S. metrication,the ease-of-use
advantage of metric has been dogma, but I find myself doubting
whether or not the U.S. public finds it to be so.
The public may perceive the customary system to be easier to use
than the metric system because of:
1) Familiarity with the customary system. However awkward the
mathematical relationships might be among inches, feet, and miles,
or ounces, fluid ounces, quarts, and gallons, and no matter how much
we like to say that many Americans do not know many of the details
(the number of feet in a mile or the difference between wet and dry
measure), a large number of the American people seem to believe that
the system is familiar to them. They will even preface the phrase
"American units" with the phrase, "good,old." Familiarity breeds
consent.
2) Lack of knowledge of the metric system. Too often, the phrase
"metric system" appears in U.S. articles and in American discourse
as an object of immediate resentment and derision. It is attacked
before it even gets discussed. It is like the habit of refusing to
eat a food one has never even tried. It's a case of contempt prior
to investigation. USMA has urged U.S. schools to teach only the
metric system, but the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
has not yet agreed to this. Word is not really out about metric.
3) Monosyllabic names for many customary units. Our opponents
sometimes raise this as an advantage of the old system over the
metric system. I think we should pay attention to this opinion.
Inch, foot, yard, rod, mile. Ounce, pint, quart. Two exceptions
might be bushel and gallon. Compare this to "millimeter,"
"centimeter," or "kilogram." Of course, metric is far more logical
and coherent, but--and I hate to admit this---logic and coherency
may just not be at the top of the American shopping list for
measurement needs.
These obstacles to public acceptance of metrication can be
overcome. Universal metric education, driven by political,academic,
and industry leadership in the U.S., is the best solution. Once
metric education becomes a fact of American life, the barriers to
the acceptance of metric will come down. But, I think we need to
recognize the obstacles. Doing so will ease our current impatience
with the lack of progress.
Paul Trusten, R. Ph.
Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
