And that leads directly to Catch-22: *"You can't teach old dogs new tricks" so the parents are considered hopeless, and society can't change to metric until all the kids learn it and grow up and the old people die *The children can't really learn metric well because it isn't much used in society. (at least in the US, it also isn't taught very well.)
"Teach them all. Let God sort it out." The opposite of swift isn't slow, it's never. Swift conversion will entail some compulsion. (you are correct about US practice) ________________________________ From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 5:45:20 PM Subject: [USMA:46954] Re: Do most Americans REALLY find the metric system to be easier to use than the customary system? May I remind readers of what Confucius said: “If I hear, I will forget If I see, I will remember If I do, I will understand”. The problem in the United Kingdom is that children do not “do metric” – car’s speeds are in mph, heights usually in feet and inches, weights in stones and pounds and so on. I believe that the same happens in the US (except that they only use pounds for weighing themselves). ________________________________ From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Trusten Sent: 16 March 2010 16:40 To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Association Metric Subject: [USMA:46953] Re: Do most Americans REALLY find the metric system to be easier to use than the customary system? 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. > > >
