I think as someone who works in the pharmaceutical industry, I may be able to shed some light on why conversions are still used/taught. Even though we work almost exclusively in metric units, we still have to be able to use conversions. For example, commonly used liquid chemicals are sold in 5L containers. The chemistry calculations are based on weight, but laboratory systems still need to interface with financial/ERP software. These systems still have to be programmed with vital conversion factors such as "1 each = 5L" or "1 each = 1 package of 50 filters" or as is often the case, vendor A will sell us a chemical in price/L, and vendor B will sell it to us in price/each.
USP/EP/JP grade chemicals are usually sold priced per kg or L, but some non-process chemicals, such as bleach for sanitizing work benches are sold per gallon in the US. We end up converting US$ per gallon to CHF per L when we report up to corporate headquarters in Switzerland. So yes, we still need to teach how to work with conversion factors. -- Scott Hudnall On Aug 14, 2012, at 5:36, "Metric Rules Info" <[email protected]> wrote: > What I do not understand is why the author who is the Associate editor of the > Journal of Chemical Education promotes, “Chemistry professors teach students > to convert a number in one set of units to any other set of units using > conversion factors. We also encourage our students to have a feel for > English-to-metric conversions that involve everyday things so that they might > recognize a miscalculation. Even though today's college freshmen have been > learning about the metric system since they were in elementary school, some > still struggle with these calculations.” > > If I am not mistaken all professional chemistry is done in metric units so > why teach chemistry (and conversions) in customary units at all? > > BTW- a couple weeks ago I attended the Future of Learning Conference at > Harvard. I meet the professor who teaches the Science Curriculum and > Instruction classes at Harvard and who runs many professional development > workshops for science teachers. I asked if her teachers were teaching science > in customary or metric units. She stated, that she believed most science in > the K-6 grades were all customary units. Of course, we have no hard numbers > but this response is consistent with many other conversations. So, the > author is incorrect! Depending on the school, you may have been exposed > (without even the goal of proficiency) to metric system in lower grades and > the amount of metric system knowledge received after 6th grade depends mostly > on the background of your teachers. If you are lucky enough to have a > teacher with a math or science degree, you are much more likely to receive > metric only (or metric-mostly) instruction in sciences; however, if your > teacher is “certified to teach” in math/science then well……….. > > While we are talking about inconsistencies in schools, I had a pre-calculus > teacher recently tell me that at his school AP classes are taught in metric > units and “normal” class in customary units. This comment bothered me quite a > bit! They are creating a disadvantage for the majority of kids without even > realizing it. > > Bridget Nagarajan > Metric Rules > Metric Only STEM Education in the USA > <image011.png><image012.png><image013.png><image014.png><image015.png> > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any > computer. > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > John M. Steele > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 6:57 AM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:51853] Re: Hard Lessons at the Olympics -- Or Just Uneducated? > > Another article with a more reasonable view about metric and the Olympics: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cheryl-b-frech/science-news-numbers_b_1761879.html > > She highlights my frustration well. Listening to NBC announcers babble in > feet and inches, while officials measure against the backdrop of metric > markings on the field is enormously confusing. My solution is to mute the > announcers, watch the athletes, and get the official results (in metric) from > the results webpage. (yes, NBC, that means I don't hear the commercials) > > --- On Mon, 8/13/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:51850] Hard Lessons at the Olympics -- Or Just Uneducated? > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, August 13, 2012, 1:08 PM > > Frankly, I am getting tired of all this handwringing about how "hard" the > metric system is. Get over it! Six billion people around the world seem to > have no problem with it. Are Americans ignoramuses? > > And now we find out (surprise!) that our USA Olympians look like fools before > those of other nations because they haven't been educated in the world's (and > the official US) measurement system. And these people are supposed to be the > cream of the crop. What an example we are setting for the rest of the world. > No wonder we're tied for 17th place with Iceland in education! > > Hard Lessons At the Olympics, Like The Metric System > http://www.gpb.org/news/2012/08/12/hard-lessons-at-the-olympics-like-the-metric-system > >
