A Simple International System In The United States
A lone giant, the United States still uses an arcane and arbitrarily defined system of measurements despite the fact the that the world has adopted a simple international system. That arbitrary system, regrettably still in use, is the US Customary/Imperial System where miles, gallons, pounds, and Fahrenheit all call home. This simple international system is The International System of Units, or what we colloquially refer to as the metric system. The US customary system is too complex with a multitude of names for units and difficult methods of conversion between those units. We are also stuck in this hybrid system of metric and customary units because of our past attempts at total metrication which can lead to confusion for our citizens. Our
…show more content…
continued use of the customary system also leads to problems internationally because of Americans' general unintelligibility of the metric system and we might also be disenfranchising our children and nation by continuing to use the customary system. The complete metrication of the United States is long overdue, and we need to revisit this subject sooner rather than later. Many Americans might think that if our previous attempts at metrication have failed, why should we try again? We can best explore why we should try adopting the metric system again by discussing the past attempts of the United States to completely metricate and their shortcomings. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 was definitely the biggest historical push for the United States to go completely metric, but it failed along with other total metrication attempts due to many reasons. Marciano explains that the adoption of the metric system worldwide was dependent on new or reborn countries that went through severe political restructuring or revolutions (191). The United States did not go through any major regime changes during the 20th century, something that helped drive other countries to metricate, therefore, the drive to join the rest of the world in this foreign metric system was not there. More particularly, The Metric Conversion Act on 1975 failed mainly due to fear from the American people and the government not helping push metrication to the best of its ability. Marciano illustrates the fears of the American people at the time by citing the:
Five thousand letters came in to the federal highway office within weeks [of the announcement of the Conversion Act of 1975], 98 percent of them negative, most of them scathing. [The letters contained content such as:] “The distress that you are intending to cram down the throats of the American people should be considered treason.” “You people must have rocks in your heads.” “This is so foolish the ordinary man wonders where your brains are.” And from Inez Lawrence of Abilene: “Our people understand our system and are happy with it. Why upset the entire population? WHY?” (245).
The fear of change that is characterized above is natural in human beings, but fearing change for fears’ sake should not keep a nation from making progress. We did not stop technology or our methods of communication from changing, now with internet connected electronic devices found everywhere in life, despite a fearful minority that may have not wanted this unprecedented change in technology. Yet, we all have adapted and those that could not got left behind. If citizens coming from a generation before electronic devices can adapt to the rapid and unprecedented change in technology that we have had recently, then the citizens of the United States, once educated, should be able to adapt to the metric system or risk being left behind.
This adaption cannot happen without complete support from the government. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 also failed due to lackluster support from the United States government. The conversion act itself was lackluster with no government mandated conversion included, all it did was create the US Metric Board which could not even advocate for metrication (Marciano 246). All the US Metric Board could do was “inform the public that national policy did not favor metric over customary measures and hold public hearings on how conversion would affect the American people” (Marciano 246). The Metric Boards’ inability to advocate for metrication was absurd and definitely did not help metrication efforts. With no the government mandate for metric conversion and no government advocate for the metric system, the hopes for total metrication of the United States withered away. It is important to look at the failed attempts of the Unites States to completely metricate so can have successful attempts at metrication in the future by having the government mandate the implementation the metric system and leaving the US customary system behind.
Now that the history of metrication attempts by the United States has been presented, the advantages of the metric system in comparison to the US customary system can now be discussed. For those Americans that may fear that the metric system is too complex due to lack of exposure to metric units, there is no need to worry. In fact, the US customary system is the more complicated system of measurement when compared to the metric system. The two major pitfalls of the US customary system are the abundant amount of names that need to be memorized for the units, and the lack of logical conversion between the units of measurement in a given quantity. Note that there are many types of quantities in both systems, but the only quantities that will be mentioned henceforth are the quantities for distance, mass (weight), volume, and temperature.
The US customary system is without debate the more complicated system of measurement when compared to the metric system.
The number of names for a quantity, such as volume, is very lengthy in the US customary system. The quantities for measuring volume include: gallons, quarts, pints, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, ounces, and many others that we do not care to remember. In the metric system it is just the liter for volume, that is all. In fact, you can know all of the quantities for the metric system for daily use by just learning that the meter is for distance, the liter is for volume, and the gram is for mass. Conversely, the US customary system requires you to learn a multitude of names just to know just the three quantities of distance, mass and volume. Furthermore, the US customary system has many conversion ratios while the metric system does not. In the US customary system, conversion ratios for distance include one mile equaling 1760 yards, one yard equaling three feet, and one foot equaling twelve inches. All of these conversions are different and have to memorized individually. However, the metric system has one method of conversion across all quantities and that is base-10 conversion. In the metric system there a prefixes that get attached to the quantities and these prefixes stand for the magnitude of the quantity such as the kilo-meter. The basic prefixes, with their respective magnitudes in parentheses, are kilo (1000), hecto (100), deca (10), then the base unit which has no prefix (1), followed by deci (0.1), centi (0.01), and milli (0.001). All of these are magnitudes of ten, which is where the term base-10 conversion derives from, and they only require you to move the decimal around with no arithmetic unlike the US customary system. To further illustrate the ease of conversion in the metric system, try to calculate how many feet are in 3.2 miles without a calculator. Most people probably cannot do this because they would have to know that there are
5280 feet in a mile and they would have to know what two tenths of a mile are. Now try to calculate how many meters are in 3.2 kilometers. The kilometer is one thousand times the base unit of the meter so simply move the decimal to the right three times, for the three zeros, and you get 3200 meters. Once more American citizens are educated on metric units and how to convert between magnitudes, sole use of the metric system in the Unites States can seem less daunting and can actually become easier to use than the US customary system in day to day situations.
Other than the difficulty of the general use of the US customary system, there is another shortcoming of the customary system that must be presented. The US customary system is not based on any naturally occurring constant that can referenced to make sure our measurements are precise. Precision is important in general science and engineering, but the US customary system derives from human-based measurements such as the foot (based on a human foot) the inch (based on a human thumb) or the degrees of Fahrenheit (based on human body temperature) all of which vary depending on the human you are using, therefore leaving this system with no constant to verify that measurement tools are remaining constant over time. The metric system, however, has units that derive from natural constants. The meter derives from a division of the speed of light, the liter is based on the volume of a cube that is ten centimeters long on all sides, the gram is derives from the mass of an international prototype of the kilogram, and Celsius is based off of the freezing and boiling points of water.
Now that the system has been exhaustedly discussed, the focus can now shift to the issue with the United States continuing to use the US customary system despite its partial metrication. The United States, after the 1970s, started using the metric system in many industries such as math, science, and international commerce/trade. With the metric system being so pervasive in these industries we now have this quagmire of metric units and US customary units being used interchangeably depending on context. Drury advocates for international standardization because it assists in increasing cooperative efficiency (15). Without this international standard we can have catastrophic and embarrassing mistakes such as the $125 million spacecraft, the Mars Climate Orbiter, that was lost as it burned up in the Martian atmosphere at an altitude too low due to confusion between the US customary and metric units in 1999 (Monroe & Nelson, 20). Monroe and Nelson elaborate that this accident occurred because the contractor, that created the spacecraft, used US customary units when manufacturing the vessel and the scientists at NASA were expecting the software used to navigate the ship to function with metric units. Having two systems is a problem because mistakes between conversion can happen and accidents can occur resulting in financial loss.
This measurement quagmire can even be noticed by everyday Americans in education, at the supermarket, and when viewing some sport events. Phelps notes that we have “millimeters for camera lens sizes; liters for soft drink, water bottle, and car engine sizes; milligrams for pills and the nutritional content of packaged foods; and meters for track and swimming competitions” (116). Yet, we have inches for computer screen sizes, quarts and gallons for milk, water, and engine oil, pounds for produce/meat, and yards for American football. All of these metric units alongside our customary units creates friction because conversion between systems becomes an inconvenient necessity. We should completely metricate these other units instead of allowing this dual system to persist.
This dual system can also be negatively affecting our children with both systems having to be taught in their primary education. Phelps explains that, “…we teach both of these systems of measurement in the schools. Along with the possible confusion from learning two systems, there is a cost associated with the time spent teaching two systems. A half year of instruction or more may be spent in this duplication of effort” (85). Having both systems in the classroom is a problem because classroom time is being wasted on teachers teaching their students both of these systems when they could just spend time teaching one system, the metric system, if we completely metricate. The National Institute of Standards and Technology perfectly states how complete metric conversion in the United States will have a positive impact on education for our children and the general populace by claiming that:
A population that is highly skilled in math and science is essential for national economic and social progress. By completing the U.S. transition to the metric system, education and training in these key subjects [math and science] will become much more efficient. Currently, huge blocks of time are spent learning the cumbersome inch-pound [US customary system] measurements, including learning to manipulate inch-pound fractions and learning to make tedious conversions between metric and inch-pound units. Much of this time can be redirected toward more worthwhile endeavors. Opportunities for numerous additional curriculum improvements will surface when textbooks are revised to reflect the simpler metric system of units. Training at all levels, from elementary school through graduate-level engineering programs, will benefit from this important step forward. A workforce that is truly able to “speak” the metric measurement language will be better able to excel in the global marketplace. (4)
Education is already an issue with the United States’ low international ranking in math and science. If we can positively impact education of math and science according to the NIST’s claim, then we should convert. Everyone should want for their children to have better than they had and if that means changing something as fundamental as the units of measurement that we use to understand the world around us, then so be it. We should be willing to change for the future of our children and nation. The customary system has served, and outlived, its purpose. It was a good system of measurement when we needed one before information and people could travel so quickly. However, our current dual system where metric units and arbitrary US customary units exist side by side is a scene of confusion. We need to progress forward as a nation and completely convert to the metric system. If not, we risk continuing to disable our children and nation with two partial systems instead of one complete system. That one complete system is the logical, simple, and internationally adopted metric system. It is time to convert.
continued use of the customary system also leads to problems internationally because of Americans' general unintelligibility of the metric system and we might also be disenfranchising our children and nation by continuing to use the customary system. The complete metrication of the United States is long overdue, and we need to revisit this subject sooner rather than later. Many Americans might think that if our previous attempts at metrication have failed, why should we try again? We can best explore why we should try adopting the metric system again by discussing the past attempts of the United States to completely metricate and their shortcomings. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 was definitely the biggest historical push for the United States to go completely metric, but it failed along with other total metrication attempts due to many reasons. Marciano explains that the adoption of the metric system worldwide was dependent on new or reborn countries that went through severe political restructuring or revolutions (191). The United States did not go through any major regime changes during the 20th century, something that helped drive other countries to metricate, therefore, the drive to join the rest of the world in this foreign metric system was not there. More particularly, The Metric Conversion Act on 1975 failed mainly due to fear from the American people and the government not helping push metrication to the best of its ability. Marciano illustrates the fears of the American people at the time by citing the:
Five thousand letters came in to the federal highway office within weeks [of the announcement of the Conversion Act of 1975], 98 percent of them negative, most of them scathing. [The letters contained content such as:] “The distress that you are intending to cram down the throats of the American people should be considered treason.” “You people must have rocks in your heads.” “This is so foolish the ordinary man wonders where your brains are.” And from Inez Lawrence of Abilene: “Our people understand our system and are happy with it. Why upset the entire population? WHY?” (245).
The fear of change that is characterized above is natural in human beings, but fearing change for fears’ sake should not keep a nation from making progress. We did not stop technology or our methods of communication from changing, now with internet connected electronic devices found everywhere in life, despite a fearful minority that may have not wanted this unprecedented change in technology. Yet, we all have adapted and those that could not got left behind. If citizens coming from a generation before electronic devices can adapt to the rapid and unprecedented change in technology that we have had recently, then the citizens of the United States, once educated, should be able to adapt to the metric system or risk being left behind.
This adaption cannot happen without complete support from the government. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 also failed due to lackluster support from the United States government. The conversion act itself was lackluster with no government mandated conversion included, all it did was create the US Metric Board which could not even advocate for metrication (Marciano 246). All the US Metric Board could do was “inform the public that national policy did not favor metric over customary measures and hold public hearings on how conversion would affect the American people” (Marciano 246). The Metric Boards’ inability to advocate for metrication was absurd and definitely did not help metrication efforts. With no the government mandate for metric conversion and no government advocate for the metric system, the hopes for total metrication of the United States withered away. It is important to look at the failed attempts of the Unites States to completely metricate so can have successful attempts at metrication in the future by having the government mandate the implementation the metric system and leaving the US customary system behind.
Now that the history of metrication attempts by the United States has been presented, the advantages of the metric system in comparison to the US customary system can now be discussed. For those Americans that may fear that the metric system is too complex due to lack of exposure to metric units, there is no need to worry. In fact, the US customary system is the more complicated system of measurement when compared to the metric system. The two major pitfalls of the US customary system are the abundant amount of names that need to be memorized for the units, and the lack of logical conversion between the units of measurement in a given quantity. Note that there are many types of quantities in both systems, but the only quantities that will be mentioned henceforth are the quantities for distance, mass (weight), volume, and temperature.
The US customary system is without debate the more complicated system of measurement when compared to the metric system.
The number of names for a quantity, such as volume, is very lengthy in the US customary system. The quantities for measuring volume include: gallons, quarts, pints, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, ounces, and many others that we do not care to remember. In the metric system it is just the liter for volume, that is all. In fact, you can know all of the quantities for the metric system for daily use by just learning that the meter is for distance, the liter is for volume, and the gram is for mass. Conversely, the US customary system requires you to learn a multitude of names just to know just the three quantities of distance, mass and volume. Furthermore, the US customary system has many conversion ratios while the metric system does not. In the US customary system, conversion ratios for distance include one mile equaling 1760 yards, one yard equaling three feet, and one foot equaling twelve inches. All of these conversions are different and have to memorized individually. However, the metric system has one method of conversion across all quantities and that is base-10 conversion. In the metric system there a prefixes that get attached to the quantities and these prefixes stand for the magnitude of the quantity such as the kilo-meter. The basic prefixes, with their respective magnitudes in parentheses, are kilo (1000), hecto (100), deca (10), then the base unit which has no prefix (1), followed by deci (0.1), centi (0.01), and milli (0.001). All of these are magnitudes of ten, which is where the term base-10 conversion derives from, and they only require you to move the decimal around with no arithmetic unlike the US customary system. To further illustrate the ease of conversion in the metric system, try to calculate how many feet are in 3.2 miles without a calculator. Most people probably cannot do this because they would have to know that there are
5280 feet in a mile and they would have to know what two tenths of a mile are. Now try to calculate how many meters are in 3.2 kilometers. The kilometer is one thousand times the base unit of the meter so simply move the decimal to the right three times, for the three zeros, and you get 3200 meters. Once more American citizens are educated on metric units and how to convert between magnitudes, sole use of the metric system in the Unites States can seem less daunting and can actually become easier to use than the US customary system in day to day situations.
Other than the difficulty of the general use of the US customary system, there is another shortcoming of the customary system that must be presented. The US customary system is not based on any naturally occurring constant that can referenced to make sure our measurements are precise. Precision is important in general science and engineering, but the US customary system derives from human-based measurements such as the foot (based on a human foot) the inch (based on a human thumb) or the degrees of Fahrenheit (based on human body temperature) all of which vary depending on the human you are using, therefore leaving this system with no constant to verify that measurement tools are remaining constant over time. The metric system, however, has units that derive from natural constants. The meter derives from a division of the speed of light, the liter is based on the volume of a cube that is ten centimeters long on all sides, the gram is derives from the mass of an international prototype of the kilogram, and Celsius is based off of the freezing and boiling points of water.
Now that the system has been exhaustedly discussed, the focus can now shift to the issue with the United States continuing to use the US customary system despite its partial metrication. The United States, after the 1970s, started using the metric system in many industries such as math, science, and international commerce/trade. With the metric system being so pervasive in these industries we now have this quagmire of metric units and US customary units being used interchangeably depending on context. Drury advocates for international standardization because it assists in increasing cooperative efficiency (15). Without this international standard we can have catastrophic and embarrassing mistakes such as the $125 million spacecraft, the Mars Climate Orbiter, that was lost as it burned up in the Martian atmosphere at an altitude too low due to confusion between the US customary and metric units in 1999 (Monroe & Nelson, 20). Monroe and Nelson elaborate that this accident occurred because the contractor, that created the spacecraft, used US customary units when manufacturing the vessel and the scientists at NASA were expecting the software used to navigate the ship to function with metric units. Having two systems is a problem because mistakes between conversion can happen and accidents can occur resulting in financial loss.
This measurement quagmire can even be noticed by everyday Americans in education, at the supermarket, and when viewing some sport events. Phelps notes that we have “millimeters for camera lens sizes; liters for soft drink, water bottle, and car engine sizes; milligrams for pills and the nutritional content of packaged foods; and meters for track and swimming competitions” (116). Yet, we have inches for computer screen sizes, quarts and gallons for milk, water, and engine oil, pounds for produce/meat, and yards for American football. All of these metric units alongside our customary units creates friction because conversion between systems becomes an inconvenient necessity. We should completely metricate these other units instead of allowing this dual system to persist.
This dual system can also be negatively affecting our children with both systems having to be taught in their primary education. Phelps explains that, “…we teach both of these systems of measurement in the schools. Along with the possible confusion from learning two systems, there is a cost associated with the time spent teaching two systems. A half year of instruction or more may be spent in this duplication of effort” (85). Having both systems in the classroom is a problem because classroom time is being wasted on teachers teaching their students both of these systems when they could just spend time teaching one system, the metric system, if we completely metricate. The National Institute of Standards and Technology perfectly states how complete metric conversion in the United States will have a positive impact on education for our children and the general populace by claiming that:
A population that is highly skilled in math and science is essential for national economic and social progress. By completing the U.S. transition to the metric system, education and training in these key subjects [math and science] will become much more efficient. Currently, huge blocks of time are spent learning the cumbersome inch-pound [US customary system] measurements, including learning to manipulate inch-pound fractions and learning to make tedious conversions between metric and inch-pound units. Much of this time can be redirected toward more worthwhile endeavors. Opportunities for numerous additional curriculum improvements will surface when textbooks are revised to reflect the simpler metric system of units. Training at all levels, from elementary school through graduate-level engineering programs, will benefit from this important step forward. A workforce that is truly able to “speak” the metric measurement language will be better able to excel in the global marketplace. (4)
Education is already an issue with the United States’ low international ranking in math and science. If we can positively impact education of math and science according to the NIST’s claim, then we should convert. Everyone should want for their children to have better than they had and if that means changing something as fundamental as the units of measurement that we use to understand the world around us, then so be it. We should be willing to change for the future of our children and nation. The customary system has served, and outlived, its purpose. It was a good system of measurement when we needed one before information and people could travel so quickly. However, our current dual system where metric units and arbitrary US customary units exist side by side is a scene of confusion. We need to progress forward as a nation and completely convert to the metric system. If not, we risk continuing to disable our children and nation with two partial systems instead of one complete system. That one complete system is the logical, simple, and internationally adopted metric system. It is time to convert.