You may be interested to know that the sign giving the distance of the Pay & Display machine used to say that it was "100 metres" away, and now it says "100 yards" away. I saw no report already on. They chipped off the word 'metres' and replaced it with 'yards' - I do shudder at frequent uses of adhesive tape as it's so removable.

Many students see this every day, which means that now it's minus an influence to think in metres and plus an influence on them to think in yards (100 yards is a pretty short distance - they'll learn if they don't know!)

This is private property but I wasn't sure if that road was particularly where the public were meant to have access - there are several entrances to the University that does have shops and banks which made me think more. However, obviously the metric sign was illegal.

I did think of taking that sign up with them last year but as I'm a student at that university I did not want them to hold a grudge against me.

Surely as education is all taught in metric, what is the problem with a 100m sign in the car park? Assuming that 100m was measured correctly, the new sign should say 110 yards.

"Surely as education is all taught in metric"

How come you *still* believe this to be true?

Ok then, 99% of education is taught in metric bar a few conversions.

Very little education at Keele University is taught in either metric or Imperial units - they have no engineering faculty and very small departments for the various natural sciences.

Richard,

They are taught to be comfortable with imperial measures in common use today. These include:

Mile
Yard
Foot
Inch
Stone
Pound
Ounce
Gallon
Pint
FlOz.

(note no mention of "perch", "league", "grain", etc)

"to be comfortable with" are not my words btw, that is how it is stated.

Can we please at least agree that imperial is taught at school?

I will admit that science is almost if not exclusively metric! There you go, an "olive branch".

"Surely as education is all taught in metric, what is the problem with a 100m sign in the car park? Assuming that 100m was measured correctly, the new sign should say 110 yards"

The sign could easily have been put ten yards closer - there used to be another sign half way towards the machine from the first sign giving a distance of "50 metres", which has disappeared altogether.

100 is a simpler number than 110 I'm sure you accept.

And, school is not the only place for learning - most young people prefer lb.oz etc. not influenced at school, but through going out shopping.

And, road distances according to British law must be in yards or miles, NOT metres or kilometres. That's why not have a 100m sign for the car park (not only do most people including the young prefer imperial... road traffic signs... soccer where 50 yard shots get taken from half way up the pitch... poor you want us to go metric.

I'll tell you what, YOU pay for it (as Tony says, it should only be >£1bn

I agree that there are conversions that are in the curriculum but metric is exclusively taught (apart from conversions) in maths, particularly mechanics where the units in the formula are metres, m/s, m/s^2 and seconds. In primary school, we would get weighed in kilos, measured in metres, etc. The only graph paper in schools is in square centimetres.

Whilst I am not disagreeing steve that there are imperial to metric conversions (and vice versa), you have to accept that probably 99% of education these days is metric.

"And, school is not the only place for learning - most young people prefer lb.oz etc. not influenced at school, but through going out shopping."

Children leave school to find something different in operation. It is a disgrace that we do not give them the opportunity to practise what they have learnt.

Yes - fwoah fwoah - what a damed disgwace!

Oops - I'm sounding like matahari now!

Richard: I wish I'd kept a link to a huge paper on maths gcse from a big school. It was dated 2002 and it was more than 50% imperial. Even I had to rub my eyes, open them further and look again!

I'd be interested to know which paper you are talking about. Could you provide me with a link?

Probably Edexcel!

Frederick Rodrigues wrote

<<
And, road distances according to British law must be in yards or miles, NOT metres or kilometres. That's why not have a 100m sign for the car park ...
>>

If you examine the letter of the law and of the associated EU directive then you will find that road signs must be in miles or yards (UK law), but that car parks must be in metric units (EU law requires that all signs be in metric units except for *road* (but not carpark) signs in certain countries).

Work that one out!

That sign giving the distance of the pay & display machine was on a road so your point is neither here nor there so get lost.

Aren't car parks private property 'where the public have access'?

And incidentally, Tony, was I told porky-pies by the London Olympia when I pointed out that the height restriction for their car park clashed with the then 1994 TSRGD that it did not apply to them as it was private property?

And, children prefer imperial despite education - the point is that they get exposed to the far more logical system of weighing and measuring and choose imperial despite metric education.

<<
That sign giving the distance of the pay & display machine was on a road so your point is neither here nor there so get lost.
>>

You know your losing the argument when you have to tell someone to "get lost".

I think a survey should be carried out to get the facts about children and their preferred system of measurement. I really don't know for myself so a survey would sort this issue out.

Already been done - there is ton(ne ? (Mg!!))s of independent market research that is broken down into age groups as well as gender and region. over half of under 24s prefer imperial!!!!

One day you'll stop living in your metric dream world.

Frederick,

We keep hearing this.

Can you point us to to something that actually shows that so many people, young or old, share your disparaging views of the metric system?

Metre Man wrote: "Can you point us to to something that actually shows that so many people, young or old, share your disparaging views of the metric system?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY

(1) ICM Survey of 1001 people, April 2003:

86% of young people aged 18 to 24 would prefer to see miles and yards on road and footpath signs; 8% of young people aged 18 to 24 would prefer kilometres and metres

(2) "The young are more comfortable with metric than the old. However, a small majority - just over half of all under-24s - still say they think in Imperial measures, while a smaller proportion (around 40%) think in metric" - The Weight of Public Opinion, BWMA (2001), page 18

(3) "Even amongst the 18-24 age bracket, well over 50% say they understand weights best in the familiar U.K. measures...a startling 28% of 18-24s - nearly three in ten - say they *only* think in pounds..."

(4) 70% of under 24s support shopkeepers who 'defied the alw' on selling in pounds and ounces, compared with 22% who did not - independent survey

PLUS:

In May 2001, only 10% of all peole (young and old) supported compulsory metrication (down from 16% in January 2000) - independent survey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. These surveys were all independent and none of them were commissioned by British Weights and Measures Association

Tony,

Can you provide any further detail about the applications of weights and measures that the survey asked about?

For example:

<<
(3) "Even amongst the 18-24 age bracket, well over 50% say they understand weights best in the familiar U.K. measures...a startling 28% of 18-24s - nearly three in ten - say they *only* think in pounds..."
>>

This implies that 72% of 18-24 think in or use metric weights some of the time. When? and in what circumstances?

I selected information on Imperial v. metric preference that related mainly to young people, as that was what was being queries.

Here are some more extracts from: "The Weight of Public Opinion":

-------------------------------------------------------

"This document is a summary of all the major research on the subject published since 1997. It covers six major national surveys, carried out by three independent market research companies, and draws on the opinions of 6,030 people"

For the record:

Nov 1997 - RSL - 1005 adults
Dec 1999 - BMRB - 1010 adults
Jan 2000 - BMRB - 1015 adults
Mar/Apr 2001 - ICM - 1000 adults
May 2001 - ICM - 1000 adults
Jun 2002 - ICM - 1000 adults

To these must be added:

(1) the survey by ICM conducted 26-28 Apr 2002 specifically on preference on road and pedestrian signage - again over 1000 adults surveyed

(2) Tescos' survey of their customers, 2001

(3) Independent survey commissioned by Women's magazine Bella on weights and measures, 2002


Some results:

"Three quarters of the British public think in traditional measures; 15%-20% think in metric measures; 7-13% either don't know, or have no strong preference either way"

"Consistently since 1997, just over eight out of ten women say they think in feet and inches, pounds and ounces. Around one in ten prefer metric"

RSL, 1997: 74% find Imperial measures such as pints, pounds, feet and inches 'most convenient for everyday purposes'

ICM, 2001: 74% answered 'pounds and ounces' to the question: 'Do you tend to think in kilos and grams or in pounds and ounces?'

Bella magazine reported: 'In an exclusive survey of 1,000 people, it was revealed that, when it comes to metric, we've still got a pretty long way to go [miles and miles - ed.]...more than 80% (young and old) say they *always* [TB's emphasis] count distances in miles...well over half claiming they have no idea what their weight is in kilograms"

Tesco, 2001: "over 90% of customers still think in pounds and ounces..."

Teletext poll, 2000: 'Do you agree with the new Euro law enforcing metric weights?': 7,229 responses - 97% No; 3% Yes

ICM, 2002: 86% want miles and yards on British traffic signs and signposts; 8% want kilometres and metres

This is an absolute disgrace! When are they going to outlaw such barbaric surveys?

Oi! Metre Man! Get out of my posting box!!!

(sound of scuttling as metre man, who is just over 3ft tall, leaves the posting box).

Ok, that's better!

To another poster: "I'd be interested to know which paper you are talking about. Could you provide me with a link?
Answer: As I said, I cannot remember the link. I will have a search around but don't hold your breath. BWMA: Do you have a tool that can search the posts I've made on this site? I believe I included that link in one of my posts.

<<
As I said, I cannot remember the link. I will have a search around but don't hold your breath.
>>

Don't do Pip and make a statement and not provide evidence.

If you want we can assume that I never saw such a document.

(as in "face of concern")

Not the one in question but quite interesting all the same.

http://www.learn.co.uk/default.asp?WCI=SubUnit&WCU=4138

Some nice quotes that you may enjoy:

"Along with the metric system, Britain also uses the imperial system - a measurement system used long before the Metric System. Nowadays people often use both systems together"

One for Martin:

"Length inch ( " ), foot ( ' ), yard, mile"

Some more...

"Adding - if units are mixed (3lb 5oz etc), add the units separately. This also applies to subtracting and multiplying. Dividing - first convert to smallest unit e.g. 2lb 5oz = 37oz, and then divide"

"Susan decided to measure her room to fit a carpet. She found the distance across her room to be 3 lengths of her 5' 8" tape, with an extra 17" left over. What is the distance of Susan's room?"

http://schoolsite.edex.net.uk/2110/maths_curriculum.html



===

My daughter did her GCSE's last year my son the year before. The only Imperial measures that I recall seeing in their math syllabus was a conversion between Imperial and metric units. I do not recall seeing anything regarding the manipulation of Imperial units.

Back to the examples shown. There is certainly room for such examples in the classroom if they are intended to stretch the minds of the more mahtematically able pupils, but there is no room for them in respect of the mathematically less-able pupils.

These are the example imperial questions on www.learn.co.uk:
<<
(1) Express 3´2" in inches

(2) A bath holds 150 pints, how much is this in gallons and pints?

(3) Add together 4' 5" and 5' 11"

(4) A packet of sweets is divided between 5 friends. The packet of sweets weighs 231lb 7oz. How much should each friend get?
>>

These questions, particularly (3) and (4) show how hard it is to calculate in the imperial system. Adding 4'5" to 5'11" is by no means as easy as adding say 1.2m and 3.9m. The calculation certainly cannot be done on a calculator.

If pounds are going to be used, it seems more logical to use decimals so 231lb 7oz would become 231.4375lbs and at least the calculation looks slightly more easier.

Richard,
These questions have no place in reality, for instance:

"A packet of sweets is divided between 5 friends. The packet of sweets weighs 231lb 7oz..."

I have never seen a bag of sweets weighing over 231 lbs. It is a made-up question, contrived to make imperial appear more complicated than it is. It would never happen in practice.

Used correctly, the imperial system is very easy to use, much more so than metric. It is also the more accurate of the two systems.

BWMA: "Imperial is more accurate than metric."

For Christ's sake BWMA, imperial is as accurate as metric, since they are both defined through the metric system.

Metric is defined through the metric system? You mean metric is defined via the speed of light, as is imperial.

The inaccuracy of metric is not in its theoretical application (it is as accurate as imperial) but in its practical application, since its units are either too large or too small. This means that metric does not achieve the right "resolution"; hence, it is less accurate.

<<
Metric is defined through the metric system? You mean metric is defined via the speed of light, as is imperial.
>>

Not strictly true. Since 1984 the metre has defined in terms of the speed of light. From about 1960 until 1984 it was defined in terms of the wavelength of certain light emissions. Since 1959 the yard has been defined as 0.9144m exactly - ie the definition of the yard is dependent upon the definition of the metre.

Everyone's nicely scooted around the fact that imperial is an important part of learning at school.

I loved the excuse that the imperial equation was a lot harder, ie to add 2 imperial lengths together was more difficult than the metric equiv.

I was never under the assumption that schooling and education had to be easy, hence the reason we're taught to count past the number 3!

Under that excuse the teaching of algebra (a= 2/x * 3^b, so what is 'x'?) should be banned for being "difficult" since although imperial is used day-2-day in everyday walks of life I have to say that I've never been stopped in the street by a nervous tourist only to be asked if x is greater than y in a situation where the tan(y) falls outside the range denoted by pi*y devided by the cosine of b where b is the third prime number above 1.

Lets be serious rather than just claim that school should be easy.

<<
Lets be serious rather than just claim that school should be easy.
>>

No - lets rather say that time at school should be put to the best possible advantage and learing how to do comples manipulations using Imperial measure is not putting time to good use.

"how to do comples manipulations using Imperial measure is not putting time to good use"

With respect that's hogwash!

When they banned/stopped (?) imperial measures in the 80's they obviously realised that kids *really needed* to be familiar with expression and measures used by the huge majority in society and thus brought it back.

Face it - society uses imperial thus kids must be taught it, you cannot deny kids the right to a certain way of life, that is "social engineering" and truly evil.

If we followed your argument then we should stop the teaching of French since kids won't be required to use it in society at large due to the fact that Britain is an "English speaking country", so why teach complex vocabulary and grammer that is not the official language of Britain? (and not an official business langage of Europe).

<<
If we followed your argument then we should stop the teaching of French since kids won't be required to use it in society at large due to the fact that Britain is an "English speaking country", so why teach complex vocabulary and grammer that is not the official language of Britain? (and not an official business langage of Europe).
>>

Steve, you have chosen the worst possible example that you could. Next to English, French is the most widely used language in dilomatic circles. There are many instances where a document exists in several languages and it is often the French text that is the official text.

From my own experience of having to learn the complexiities and acquirign a large degree of fluency of a language that is only spoken as a first language by about 4 or 5 million people, I have a head start in learning other languages. Surely you, as a Welsh speaker (or were you just kidding us) should know this.

<<
Adding 4'5" to 5'11" is by no means as easy as adding say 1.2m and 3.9m. The calculation certainly cannot be done on a calculator.
>>


Why do you need a calculator? Most people, I should think, should be able to do both of those mentally quite fast.
For the imperial, you can visualize it like this:
5'11" is one inch short of 6', so add 5 and 4 feet and you have a foot and 4 inches left over.
For the metric, just do it by brute force. Line up the decimal points, add 9 and 2, borrow 10, and add again.
Imperial is a lot more interesting and mind-stimulating. Of course, the imperial could be done the same way as metric - just borrow 12 instead of 10.

Bud,

In the United Kingdom, children are introduced to calculators at a very young age (in my opinion too young, but what do I know, I am just a parent and a former school governor)

"Surely you, as a Welsh speaker (or were you just kidding us) should know this"

I'm *learning* Welsh! (slowly)

========
P.S. Do you reckon that 97% of the world can use and understand English?

See where I'm going there?

<<
In the United Kingdom, children are introduced to calculators at a very young age (in my opinion too young, but what do I know, I am just a parent and a former school governor)
>>

Children can be introduced to calculators, that's great, but that doesn't mean that they should use them when they aren't necessary. In the above example, they are totally unnecessary and probably will slow down the computation.

Children's maths has been declining - ban of imperial, use of calculators... not really good.

....Thus in the 90's imperial was reintroduced.

We'll have to wait a decade to see if there are any appreciable results.

Frederick wrote

<<
Children's maths has been declining - ban of imperial, use of calculators... not really good.
>>

Guess what Frederick - I agree with over half of what you said. I think that calculators should not be used at Junior School (children under 12). Up to that stage they have no need to do maths of such complexity that they need calculators. At the age of 12, when they understand the basic mathematical operations, they are old enough to be introduced to calculators.

As regards the teaching of Imperial measures - well they should be taught sufficient to understand the cultural aspects of the Imperial system in British life but the time spent learning how to manipulate measurements that were made usign Imperial measure is much better spent brushing up on other aspects of their maths.

I disagree.

We should teach our kids not to be "thick" at maths.

Therefore asking what 12'3" minus 8'8" gets the brain trained much better than asking what 90 minus 8 is!

Thus kids are *today* taught these things.

Tough, aint it?

<<
Therefore asking what 12'3" minus 8'8" gets the brain trained much better than asking what 90 minus 8 is!
>>

AS I have already said, such an exercise is useful if it is treated as an interlectual exercise, but as for training for life, it would be much better if the time were spent learning the limitations of calculators.

There seems to be two strands of argument coming from the pro-Imperial side:

(1) Imperial is easier more logical and simpler to use than metric.

(2) It's better to teach Imperial at school because it exercises the mind better than metric, which is too simple and easy for the purpose.

Does thou not sense a contradiction here?

There is no contradiction, because we are talking about two separate things: counting and measuring. Imperial units are easier for measuring because of its divisions and proportions. When calculating, however, the arithmetic involves an extra stage because of its non-decimal structure.

<<
There is no contradiction, because we are talking about two separate things: counting and measuring.
>>

Counting is in fact a very simple form of measuring.

"There is no contradiction, because we are talking about two separate things: counting and measuring. Imperial units are easier for measuring because of its divisions and proportions. When calculating, however, the arithmetic involves an extra stage because of its non-decimal structure."

So calculating using imperial measurements is harder and more confusing than using metric?

Ask an average Brit - he/she will tell you how cumbersome their day-2-day measuring system is!

;)

In non-scientific work, you tend to measure a lot more than you calculate.