A Poll on American Culture and Metric System Adoption

Tags

American culture, American history, metric adoption, metric system, metric system thoughts, polls, Public perception, research

In the year since I conceived this history of the metric system in the United States (June 15th was the first anniversary, by the way) I have been perplexed at the resistance we Americans have had toward its adoption. While I believe I have a better understanding now, you can help my research by answering a couple of questions.

If you could please help spread word of the survey, I would appreciate it since a more robust response is a better response. Thank you!

I’ll let this survey run for a week and I’ll report out along with my other observations once I’ve got the results.

Share this poll please!

Thanks,

Linda

Disbanding the U.S. Metric Board in 1982: The Sound of a Swan Song

Tags

American history, construction industry, metric adoption, metric system, metric system thoughts, Metrication Act of 1975, President Reagan, Public perception, small business, U.S. Metric Board

The truth is that our continued use of the English system of measurement was making us an island in a metric sea.

- Gerald Ford, statement upon signing the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 on December 23, 1975

Logo of the U.S. Metric Board

In 1982 President Reagan officially disbanded the 17-member U.S. Metric Board, the government organization charged with “increasing the use” of the metric system in the United States. Reagan did so citing efforts to reduce government spending. Since that time, as a county, we pretty much haven’t looked back.

In July of that same year, the Board issued a Summary Report, or as I like to refer to it, “Would you like a side of bitter with that?”

Clearly most of its members were not happy with the Board’s dissolution, though this was not, according to various sources—including the report—unanimous. The divisiveness within the Board is revealed through various comments it contains. For instance:

Our country holds dear this spirit of individual independence, liberty, justice and freedom of speech. You will notice that the report reflects this spirit…and different views about the metric system.

- Louis F. Polk, chairman, U.S. Metric Board

As if having people on the board who were not in favor of metric adoption wasn’t bad enough, according to the board’s chair, there were other obstacles as well, including no real sense of direction:

The resolution stated, in effect, that the Board must maintain an objective stance on metrication—it can neither advocate nor discourage conversion. It soon became evident that voluntary conversion and the Board’s policy of neutrality were confusing the American people…

- Louis F. Polk, chairman, U.S. Metric Board

While I cannot speak to everything hinted at in the above statement, since I’m looking back 30 years from the outside, I think it’s fair to say that any organization not allowed to take a stand on something it is supposed to help move forward is in deep trouble. No wonder our last major metric system push in this country failed.

The actual 1975 metric adoption act states:

SEC. 3. It is therefore declared that the policy of the United States shall be to coordinate and plan the increasing use of the metric system in the United States and to establish a United States Metric Board to coordinate the voluntary conversion to the metric system.

One of the recommendations in the Board’s Summary Report was that “national policy on metric conversion should be reassessed,” as in “should metric-system adoption be optional or compulsory?”

…determine if voluntary metrication is in this country’s best interests, if complete or partial conversion should be mandated and if we can compete efficiently in domestic and world markets using two systems of measurement.

- U.S. Metric Board Summary Report

On the anti-mandatory-metric-adoption side, the representative of small business stated (and the bolding is NOT mine):

…Small Business supports voluntary metric conversion activities but will vehemently oppose any attempts by the Federal Government or other groups to impose mandatory conversion.

Interestingly, the representative for the construction industry admits his sector would be loath to convert to metric measures (apparently still true today) but would if forced to do so:

As far as my constituency goes…will, under a voluntary approach, be the very last sector to implement conversion to metric measurement—if at all. However, based on my study of progress in the other English-speaking nations and my knowledge of the constructor and designer mentality, I believe that conversion, if mandated with a reasonable schedule, would be virtually a non-event. My industry would adapt very readily, as the hallmark of construction is change, and to us change is an everyday occurrence.

Wrote the representative for business and industry:

I would urge that Congress explicitly set the goal of predominant use of the metric system in the trade and commerce of the United States, and make that a real national commitment by setting a target date…The fact of setting a date will provide the reality required for all sectors of our society to produce effective conversion programs.

Many of the pro-metric representatives expressed hope that progress made toward metric adopt would continue and our country would—eventually—join the rest of the metric-using world:

Tact, patience, and education will erode the anti-metric fortress.

- State and local government representative

Well, it’s been more than 30 years since we disbanded the Board and we’re still buying our gas in gallons, our produce by the pounds and ounces, and measuring in feet and yards. Clearly, the voluntary approach to metrication did not work in this country and a stronger approach needs to be taken in future.

It will require a political will in the form of a grassroots effort to get the metric system implemented in this country. That will take some small amount of effort on the part of a large number of people—and that  will take knowledge that there is a problem to begin with—something we’ve lost sight of during the last three decades.

I think the Board’s chairman rightly summed up the situation in his own essay when he pointed out:

Centuries ago, it was inconvenient for the Western World to change from Roman numerals to the present Arabic figures. Thank heavens that early world persevered and progress prevailed.

It’s time to let go of our “Roman numerals”—in the form of U.S. Customary units—and embrace the metric system for our own and successive generations, not to mention join with other nations of the world  on some logical common ground.

That seems as basic to me as 1, 2, 3…not I, II, III.

Linda

Note: For those who are unfamiliar with the phrase “swan song,” see the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_song

Waiting for the Metric System Change of the Guard

Tags

American history, American Institute the for Weights and Measures, History of measurement, International Institute for Preserving and Perfecting Anglo-Saxon Weights, measures, metric system, metric system thoughts, NIST, opinions, Wall Street Journal

Having written about the anti-metric system-adoption stance taken by the director of our country’s National Institute for Standards and Technology last week, it got me thinking more about the counter arguments offered during our 200+ year history on why some people are so firmly against the metric system.

As far as I know, the first formal anti-metric group in the United States was the International Institute for Preserving and Perfecting Anglo-Saxon Weights with Charles Latimer as one of its organizers.

In his book The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error That Transformed the World, Ken Alder says of him:

Charles Latimer was a devout Christian, a successful railway engineer, and an avid pyramidologist who believed that the ‘sacred inch’ had been built into the Great Pyramid at Giza and had been transmitted across the millennia to the United States. He also had visceral contempt for atheism, the French, and metric system.

Latimer went on to write a 65-page hardcover booklet published in 1880 titled The French metric system, or The Battle of the Standards: A discussion of the comparative merits of the metric system and the standards of the great pyramid.  In it he relates his beliefs mentioned above yet also noted:

Certainly the advantage of a decimal system is of paramount importance, and there is no reason why we should not have a decimal system, deduced from our measure of inch, foot and year, or multiples of our unit, the inch. (page 13)

Fast-forward a hundred years later and a book called Metric Madness: Over 150 reasons for NOT converting to the Metric System put out by the American Institute for Weights and Measures in 1980 (the organization began in 1917) relates:

Nobody disputes the advantages of decimals. The question is not whether decimals are better. This is precisely why we have decimalized so many of our measurements so extensively which, unfortunately, so many of the decimal proponents fail to realize. (page 58)

I find it interesting that so many anti-metric folks uphold the logic of a decimal system but want to decimalize our current units or retain our system for applications such as binary units (the second quote).

Let’s take a moment to look at the currently anti-metric Wall Street Journal:

• In November it published an anti-metric article to coincide with Thanksgiving last year called: “Cooking a Poundcake in a Metric Oven Is No Easy Task”

which includes the line:

“The keepers of America’s metric flame are the roughly 300 members of the U.S. Metric Association. By most measures, their efforts in recent decades have failed.”

and in

• “Measuring Metric’s Limits in the Grocery Aisle” from April of last year.

It’s lead sentence reads:

The fight to persuade Americans to ditch English units for the metric system in their everyday lives is largely lost.

Pretty much shows the paper’s slant doesn’t it?

However, the publication didn’t always take such a position and in its informative book (that’s a review so I can now quote from it)* The Wall Street Journal Guide to the Metric System, published in 1977 indicates:

The metric system is a system of measurement that is simpler and more logical than the customary of English system of measurement…However, once the adult becomes familiar with only three of four basic metric units, the entire metric system falls into place and usually becomes the preferable measurement system. (page 9)

It also praises the metric system in other sections of the publication as well including how decimal arithmetic should be easy for Americans since our currency is based on the metric system (page 12).

While I don’t anticipate the Wall Street Journal warming up to the metric system anytime soon, Carl Bialik (who wrote the grocery store article above) pointed out in a May 31, 2013 article that the Washington Bridge collapse might have been contributed to by the use of dual measurement systems in this county.  In his article “Will This Bridge Fall? It’s Hard to Say” it says simply:

Adding to the confusion, states and the federal government maintain separate databases of bridge ratings and characteristics, and these don’t always line up, for reasons including the piecemeal adoption of the metric system and data sharing that takes place only once a year.

Who knows, maybe the Wall Street Journal will eventually swing its position back to where it was forty years ago and seek to help Americans (and its own writers) embrace, understand and use the metric system as it did once. It even has the book that it can dust off towards those goals

Fingers crossed.

Linda

* The book states that no part of it may be reproduced in any form by any means without permission except for brief extracts quoted for review.

My Take on the White House Petition for Metric System Adoption—and its Failure

Tags

American history, Founding Fathers, International trade, Metric Act of 1866, metric adoption, metric system, metric system thoughts, petitions, Public perception, U.S. economy, U.S. metric history, U.S. population, We The People, White House

When I first heard about the petition for metric adoption on the White House’s “We the People” site at the end of last year, I was dismayed.

Yes I’m pro metric, as this page clearly shows, but now was not the time for such a petition and I knew it would fail to elicit any real political movement. Here’s my take on the situation:

• Not enough people are aware how out of step we have gotten with the rest of the world on this issue so there was no way in hell enough people were going to sign the petition for there to be a critical mass to get our government to take action. (I’m hoping to change that with my project but it’s not there yet.)

So let’s take a look at the number of people who signed the petition by the time the clock had run out on it (a petition has 30 days to meet the minimum threshold for signatures): 49,914 (I’ll round it up to 50,000 for the sake of convenience);

and the current population of the United States: 311 million (also rounding).

That means that as far as the White House is concerned, only .021 percent of voting Americans care about this issue. Frankly, a petition to reincorporate the hogshead measurement into our units would have been viewed with the same political imperative given the response rate.

And I while I applaud the fact that the originator of the petition wanted to bring attention to this situation at the highest levels of our government, there may be a couple of adverse outcomes to this effort.

• The current administration has been forced to take an anti-metric-adoption position—formally.

Since there wasn’t enough political interest for the current administration to gain anything by taking up this gauntlet (I probably wouldn’t be writing this if millions of people had signed the petition) it was going to have to develop a reason not to respond positively—and it did. Interestingly, it evoked one of the same reasons that the anti-metric-adoption groups have used throughout most of our country’s history: the Metric Act of 1866.

The law (now almost 150 years old) makes it illegal to refuse to trade in the metric system.

The White House’s official response cites it this way:

Right after the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson signed legislation that made it “lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system in all contracts, dealings or court proceedings.”

Thus, the argument becomes, “You’re free to use it, so go ahead. We already have a law on the books so no more is needed.”

The petition’s official response was: “So choose to live your life in metric if you want, and thank you for signing on.”

I would have preferred to get the administration to form a positive initial stance on metric adoption rather than try to get it to reverse the position it’s now formally taken but it’s not impossible to do so.

• The 50,000 people who signed the petition may take its “defeat” as a sign that things won’t change and get discouraged; I don’t want that to happen because I don’t believe it’s true.

As it is, our history with metric adoption is already as discouraging as it needs to be. As I’ve run through the storytelling in my head, and the fits and starts we’ve had with metric adoption, a case could almost be made that we—as a county—were “ordained” not to use it. I don’t believe that’s true but I hate to see more fuel thrown on that fire.

• It provides encouragement to anti-metric forces that will grow stronger in step with pro-metric forces.

I believe it’s time for us as a country to join with most of the rest of the world in metric adoption and as we see forward momentum in this area (the intent of the petition), an increase in the “pro” position will be met by those with the “con” stance. (I also think the pros will eventually greatly outweigh the cons this time around.) While I believe the cons have a right to be heard, I also would like to see the transition take place as smoothly as possible. This, I think, throws a bump in that road by supplying the opposition with ammunition.

• I must say I find the “bilingual” assertion made in the administration’s official  reply laughable.

The response asserts:

At the same time, if the metric system and U.S. customary system are languages of measurement, then the United States is truly a bilingual nation.

To me that’s the equivalent of endorsing idioglossia.

The linguistic definition of idioglossia is a private language that is used by a small group of people and is not understood outside of that group—it’s what some people might recognize as “twin speak,” or the “language” that some twins develop that only they know.

Within the world stage, only one country uses U.S. customary units (we subverted the “imperial system” many years ago) so we have in a sense, our own private language that 95 percent of the Earth’s population doesn’t understand that we use to talk to ourselves. Sounds like idioglossia to me.

One source I found (a book titled The A to Z Guide to Raising Happy, Confident Kids by Jenn Berman) indicates that, in the case of idioglossia, “Most twins outgrow it by the age of four.”

So, as I read it, the government is endorsing the continuation of a private language (U.S. customary units) when most of the rest of world (except Burma and Liberia) have grown up and for the common good (medicine, science, international trade, general communication) have adopted the adult language of the metric system while we stubbornly cling to our “baby talk.”

I have more to say on this topic but that’s enough for this round.

Linda

U.S. Metric Adoption and Common Core Education Standards

Tags

American history, Common Core Standards, Congressional powers, Council of Chief State School Officers, Department of Education, education, federalism, Founding Fathers, mathematics education, metric system, National Governors Association, state standards, States' rights

One thing I learned soon after starting this project is that our country is less the UNITED States of America than it is the United STATES of America. Having rallied against the British and its centralized government more than 200 years ago, our founding fathers made sure our Constitution gave limited powers to the federal government and put considerable control into the hands of state government. This includes our education standards.

While one might think that the Department of Education helps ensure that our children receive at least some basic level of education throughout our nation, such is not the case. In fact, the Department of Education:

1. Establishes policies related to federal education funding, administers distribution of funds and monitors their use.
2. Collects data and oversees research on America’s schools.
3. Identifies major issues in education and focuses national attention on them.
4. Enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in programs that receive federal funds.
   (http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html)

You’ll notice that setting standards for what our children learn in schools is not within its scope—it’s up to the individual states to decide what children learn in what ways and even what constitutes a passing grade. (I don’t mean to imply here that the states are out to shortchange their children but they could if they so desired.)

While each state is able to set its own education standards, there has been progress toward the implementation of common, basic standards to finally provide some consistency in what’s covered within school classrooms across the country. The organizations behind this effort are the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that established a single set of clear educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt. The standards are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce.

http://www.corestandards.org/

According to the website: “Forty-five states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity have adopted the Common Core State Standards.” Those that have “not yet adopted” (the site’s wording) the standards are Alaska, Texas, Minnesota, Virginia, Nebraska and Puerto Rico. Work is still taking place for the standards and a visit to the Council of Chief State School Officers website shows that the publication Common Core State Standards: Implementation Tools and Resources is dated as recently as May 2013.

I’m happy to say that metric system is included in these standards.

Here’s what I found on the Common Core site for grades 2, 3, 4 and 5 under the sections called “measurement and data”:

Grade 2: “Measure the length of an object by selecting and using appropriate tools such as rulers, yardsticks, meter sticks, and measuring tapes and Estimate lengths using units of inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.”

Grade 3: “Measure and estimate liquid volumes and masses of objects using standard units of grams (g), kilograms (kg), and liters (l).”

Grade 4: “Know relative sizes of measurement units within one system of units including km, m, cm; kg, g; lb, oz.; l, ml; hr, min, sec.”

Grade 5: “Convert among different-sized standard measurement units within a given measurement system (e.g., convert 5 cm to 0.05 m), and use these conversions in solving multi-step, real world problems.”

From grade 6 and beyond, the “measurement and data” subheading no longer appears and other math concepts (such as probability) are listed.

So, at least the standards do include the metric system although it appears to be taught somewhat side by side with our U.S. customary units in at least grades 2 and 4. I suppose I could try to write something into the fact that for grade 3 the language says “standard units of grams, etc.” without mentioning U.S. customary units but I don’t think that buys much of anything. On the other hand, I could write into the fact that for grade 4 the wording “one system of units” could also mean that it could be interpreted to mean either U.S. customary or metric units could be used.

I’m writing about this subject for two reasons:

1. To raise awareness of the attempts to get some consistency within our country so we can best prepare our children for their (and our) future so that you can help support these standards—including when it comes time to press for elimination of U.S. customary units in favor of the metric system within the Core Standards, and

2) To make sure you know that while many powers were delegated to state control, Congress does have within its scope the ability to mandate our weights and measures. It states in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 that it is within the power of Congress:

“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

The bottom line: I hope there will come a time in the future when this information becomes important.

Linda

P.S. I would like to thank any of my readers who helped back the Kickstarter campaign for the documentary on the kilogram. Amy met her goal and, as a result, has had the funds released to her to carry on her project. I wish her much luck and success with her efforts.

Please Help Support a New Documentary on the Kilogram

Tags

Amy Young, documentary, France, fundraising, History of measurement, Kickstarter, measures, metric system thoughts, preproduction, scientific measurement standards

Meter built into a building for public use (Photo by Amy Young)

All but one unit of the metric system can be scientifically derived. For instance, anyone anywhere can currently define a meter with the right equipment. This is important because any measurement standard that relies on a physical tool (think yardstick in this country and a meterstick elsewhere) means it is vulnerable to variability based on the material it’s made from—and every material is subject to change. Such differences can come from use (some of it gets worn off, making it shorter or lighter or accumulates dirt, making it longer or heavier) or even temperature. Optimally, you want a measurement standard that never changes under any circumstances.

The international standard for the length of the meter (for instance) is 1/299,792,458 of the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in one second.

If you can measure that (and laboratories around the world can), you can define the meter without any other external reference.

The outlier within the metric system is the kilogram. By definition, a kilogram is the weight of a piece of special metal kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures located outside of Paris called the International Prototype of the Kilogram. (It is equal to 2.20462 lbs for those still using U.S. customary units.) Periodically kilogram standards held by metrology centers from around the world are brought together to ensure their consistency against this single cylinder of metal kept carefully preserved for that purpose.

Kilogram standard (Photo by Amy Young)

Work is currently underway for the development of a scientifically derived kilogram and while it’s not quite there, it’s getting close. When that happens, the kilogram will no longer require a physical standard or be subject to environmental fluctuations. This is a good thing.

It is this history and ongoing scientific work that is the subject of a documentary called State of the Unit: The Kilogram. Amy Young, who has been working on this project for two years, needs help raising completion funds for her project and I’m asking you to help.

To learn more about the documentary, its background, the people involved and for your chance to contribute, go to http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/52746223/the-state-of-the-unit-the-kilogram-documentary-fil.

This is the sort of project that will help raise awareness of the metric system in this country (though not the direct purpose of Amy’s efforts) and for that reason, I’m putting my support behind it.

How much support? While my own project has certainly taken its fair share of my resources, I’m contributing to the project. I ask you to consider doing the same.

The Kickstarter campaign for State of the Unit ends on Friday, May 17 at 5:33pm EDT. Amy’s goal is to raise a modest $26,800 to help her complete the project that she already has spent so much of time and money on. Unless she raises the full amount, she’ll get none of it. She’s close but the deadline is looming fast.

Please consider helping her further this important work.

I thank you in advance for contributing to metric system understanding and education in whatever ways you can.

Linda

(Note: Revised on 5/12 at 8:20 p.m. to correct a typographical error.)

Words and Phrases We Can Keep Once the U.S. Moves to the Metric System

Tags

American history, colloquialisms, Founding Fathers, humor, metric system, metric system thoughts, Public perception, words and phrases

Frequently this column is serious although I do try to apply some humor within my writing. This week I thought I’d depart from history lessons and head scratching over our lack of metric adoption and just have some fun.

None of the metric “definitions” are real, of course, just comical suggestions for how we might approach these phrases in an all-metric future.

By leaps and bounds - I used that one day and a friend called me on it as in “Is that metric?” What else could I do but say “Yes.” I further responded by saying that a “leap” is 1.5 meters and a “bound” is 3 meters. And so now you know.

Bunch – This word is frequently used in cooking, as in a punch of parsley, etc. The actual definition is “clump” or “cluster.” I have no ideas how they decide how much a bunch is when you buy herbs and that sort of thing at the grocery store. So, as far as I’m concerned, the metric equivalent is a bunch = 10 of anything. A bunch of kisses: 10. A big bunch = 20. Use your imagination from there.

From afar - As in “ I’ve admired her/him from afar.” If it turns out the person is everything you thought she/he would be, then it’s between 1 and 3 meters. On the other hand, if you didn’t see the person objectively, you were probably more like 10 or more meters away.

Within hailing distance – This refers to getting another person’s attention, as in to “hail” or “greet” them. Metrically, I estimate this at about 10 meters away if both people are in relatively crowd-free conditions and half of that if there are lots of other people around.

A load off one’s mind – Of course, this is purely a psychological construct and could vary tremendously depending on the worry. Therefore, I propose a scale whereby finally remembering where you parked your car in the mall parking lot when you have an arm’s worth of packages is only a few grams while finding out that you didn’t have that brain tumor after all could be hundreds of kilograms.

Carry one’s own weight – Again, this is a psychological construct that people do their fair share of work and not an actual weight. For the sake of this article, let’s say that to carry one’s own weight is conservatively 1/3, oops .333 percent of their body weight. So, for someone who weighs 75 kgs, that would be 25 kgs. Ta da.

Throw one’s weight around - We all know these kind of obnoxious people. In this case simply double the person’s actual weight in kilograms. The extra weight probably won’t look good on them, even in your own mind. Nor should it.

Dead weight - The concept refers to a heavy, motionless mass. This one’s easy, the actual weight of the person or thing in an unhelpful way, in kilograms, of course.

I’m sure there are others I haven’t thought of yet. If you think of some and want to send them to me for a future column (and I know you witty people are out there) get them to milebehind@gmail.com and I’ll give you credit if I use yours.

On a more serious note: I came across these references while looking for quotations on weight and distance. I wanted to share them with you.

Men cling passionately to old traditions and display intense reluctance to modify customary modes of behavior, as innovators at all times have found to their costs. The dead-weight of conservatism, largely a lazy and cowardly distaste for strenuous and painful activity of real thinking, has undoubtedly retarded human progress…

V. Gordon Childe, Man Makes Himself, p. 31

And this is what the pro-metric folks will be up against (but hopefully from a single digit percentage of people):

Metric is definitely communist. One monetary system, one language, one weight and measurement system, one world – all communist! We know the West was won by the inch, foot, yard, and mile.

Dean Krakel, Director of the National Cowboy Hall of Fame

Of course, he forgets to mention use of our metric dollar (10 dimes and 100 pennies) courtesy of Thomas Jefferson—a founding father—that helped finance the winning of the West.

Be prepared for the naysayers, but keep your sense of humor. We’ll all come out better off down the road (measured in kilometers, of course).

Linda

(Join my mailing list by sending an email to milebehind@gmail.com. Thanks!)

The Top 10 Reasons Why Now is the Right Time for the United States to Convert to the Metric System

Tags

American history, economic superpowers, education, International trade, metric adoption, metric system, metric system thoughts, millennials, Pew Research Center, Public perception, social media, U.S. economy, U.S. labeling

1) More people in the United States are familiar with the metric system than at any period in our history.
The metric system was last introduced into the United States in the 1970s so baby boomers and every generation since have been taught the metric system even if they don’t use it every day. Only those in the “Silent” (1925-1945) and previous generations were not introduced to it as children. Folks 65 and older only make up 13 percent of the U.S. population so it’s safe to assume that 87 percent of U.S. citizens were taught the metric system at some point.¹ More familiarity with it  by the vast majority of our population should make metric adoption easier.²

2) The United States continues to be far from first in math and science compared to the rest of the world. The easier to learn and use metric system could be of benefit.
According to 2011 data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study³, the United States rankings in math and science:

Math
4^th grade students = 11th (http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/table11_2.asp)
8^th grade students = 9th (http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/table11_3.asp)

Science
4^th grade students = 7th (http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/table11_4.asp)
8^th grade students = 10th  (http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/table11_5.asp)

Countries seriously kicking us in the butt include Singapore, China, Korea and Japan (to name a few).

3) Lack of metric adoption presents a trade barrier in a world where China is perceived as the next economic superpower. We don’t want to fall more behind.
This has two parts:
a) For many years the European Union has threatened to stop the import of products with dual (U.S. customary and metric units) labels. While that doesn’t look imminent, any market closed to U.S. products due to a lack of metric units is a mistake. (See more on this topic, see this recent blog post.)

b) The rest of the world is shifting its sights away from the U.S. and toward China as the next economic superpower according to the nonpartisian Pew Research Center. In its report, aptly titled “China Perceived to be Overtaking U.S. as Leading Superpower”⁴ from last year states:

In 15 of 22 nations surveyed in a Pew Research study, pluralities or majorities of these publics believe that China either will replace or already has replaced the United States as the world’s leading superpower.

This idea that we can make the world go along with our outdated measurement system because we’re such an economic superpower is fading fast. We need to pull our heads out of our collective hubris hole.

4) Many Americans are already using the use metric system in everyday life. Switching over the rest of the way shouldn’t be that difficult.
- If you buy 1.5 liter bottle of your favorite soda, 750 ml of distilled spirits, or read the labels on many medical and food products, you’re already using liters and grams.
- If you travel outside of the country, you’ll encounter metric units since that’s what 95 percent of the world uses.
- Many hobbies entail using the metric system as well.
- Then there’s scientists, doctors and anything that deals with international trade—all metric.

It’s just stupid to continue to support two systems. Switchover problems? Too many other countries have managed it just fine so that’s a moot argument.

5) It’s time to stop handicapping our children.
First, we currently teach our students two systems: U.S. customary and metric. That’s classroom time wasted. Second, they’re taught units that do not logically relate to each other as metric units do. More classroom time wasted. Third, they grow up trying to remember that there are 3 teaspoons in a tablespoon, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 2 pints in a quart (and so on). Trying to multiply and divide these awkward units means part of their lives are wasted.

Quick:
What’s one third of a liter?
What’s one third of a quart?
(Which measure should you even use? Cups? Tablespoons? Ounces? Ridiculous.)

6) At best, we’ll come in third to last in the metric race. Do we really want to trail so far behind?
The only other two countries that have not integrated the metric system into daily life are Burma and Liberia. For a country that prides itself on leading the way, we’ve sure gotten into the slow lane on this one. How sad would it be if one of these other countries managed to beat us out at metric adoption?

7) The strongest anti-metric organization in our history no longer exists.
For more than six decades⁵, the American Institute of Weights and Measures existed solely to halt metric adoption in this country. Not sure when it disappeared exactly but I hold in my hand an anti-metric book that it copyrighted as recently as 1981. Can’t find any current mention of it on the Internet. Good.

8) The current generation is more liberal and, therefore, more open to new ideas—including the metric system and a government that should make life better.
The millennials are more international than any previous generation. They routinely interact with people around the world on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, among others. They buy their illegal drugs in metric units and are much more likely to study abroad and travel out of the country. They don’t bat an eye at change. It’s part of their everyday lives.

In considering the role of the younger vote in the recent presidential election, the Pew Research Center also noted that:

Young voters continue to identify with the Democratic Party at relatively high levels and express more liberal attitudes on a range of issues – from gay marriage to the role of the federal government – than do older voters. In fact, voters under 30 were as likely to identify as Democrats in the 2012 exit poll as they had been in 2008 (44% now, 45% then). And they are the only age group in which a majority said that the government should do more to solve problems.⁶

9) There is already an undercurrent in metric system awareness in this country and people are actively seeking out information on the topic on their own.
It’s been more than 30 years since the United States disbanded the U.S. Metric Board, thereby officially dropping metric adoption. For whatever reason, it’s starting to occur to people that something is wrong and they’re actively trying to find out what’s happened. I anticipate that this interest will increase and we’ll reach “critical political mass.”

10) Social media is available to help propel metric system adoption forward.
Never before in our history has it been easier propagate ideas and information without buy in from the mainstream media. We can leverage social media to propel the idea of metric system adoption forward and connect with those who are likeminded to band together so that government becomes responsive to our needs. We are the future of the metric system.

One last thought…

Globalization is our reality and we need to be able to be able to communication with, and understand, each other. Common languages are the basis for such communication. We already have two examples of that: chess, and notation (scientific and musical). Let’s add one more language to the international stage: the metric system. For this last concept I give credit to my collaborator and project supporter: Robert Kwasny.

Notes:
1) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
2) This references constructivism learning theory. For more information, go to http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED396998&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED396998
3) http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/index.asp
4) http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/china-perceived-to-be-overtaking-u-s-as-leading-superpower/
5) http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50F17FD3B55157A93C2AB1789D85F438185F9
6) http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/26/young-voters-supported-obama-less-but-may-have-mattered-more/

Will Hawaii Be the First All-Metric State?

Tags

American history, Hawaii, interactions, metric system, metric system thoughts, States' rights, Tourism, U.S. economy, U.S. Goverment, U.S. labeling

A bill was introduced by state Representative Karl Rhoads of Hawaii earlier this year that seeks to make the metric system mandatory within his state. Called “Relating to the Metric System,” H.B. 36 states in part:

The legislature finds that very strong economic and scientific reasons exist for states to switch to the metric system. Other than Burma and Liberia, the United States is the only country that has not switched to the metric system. The cost of not switching to the metric system is quickly increasing with the trend towards globalization. Failing to switch could result in the United States losing its competitive edge in science and technology, as well as continuing to create bilateral trade impediments with other countries.

The cost of switching to a metric system could be quickly outweighed by the economic benefits of global interoperability. This is particularly important as the dominance of United States companies is being challenged in the competitive atmosphere of globalization. Switching to the metric system would likely result in the creation of many jobs, and enable the current and future workforce of the United States to be more prepared to work in the international marketplace.

It also stipulates that the law would go into effect on January 1, 2018. (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=36)

There has been some traffic on the U.S. Metric Association’s listserve (which anyone can join for free) on this topic and some concerns were raised regarding the potential legality of such a law since it might run counter to federal laws regarding labeling.

I do know that “The act to authorize the use of the metric system of weights and measures” from 1866 states:

It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system.

(http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/HR-596-Metric-Law-1866.pdf)

I don’t have the legal background or financial resources to address this issue right now but I do know that states’ rights issues are relevant in this matter. (As I’ve said before, we’re less the UNITED States of America than we are the United STATES of America. Full metric implementation could be difficult without states’ cooperation.) I had also hypothesized that perhaps it was Hawaii’s shorter exposure to our metric-adoption struggles that helped it along this path but after speaking with Representative Rhoades, there was another, more practical reason (in addition to those listed in H.B. 36 above): tourism.

According to the Hawaii Tourism Authority:

Hawaii’s visitor industry continues to be the largest generator of jobs among the major industry sectors in the state, providing 152,864 jobs in 2010…Tourism is also the largest source of private capital into the Hawaiian Islands, contributing $11.4 billion in visitor spending and $1 billion in tax revenue last year.

(http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/news/articles/tourism-helps-provide-for-hawaiie28099s-economy/)

As the Representative pointed out to me, visitors go to Hawaii from all over the world. (And why wouldn’t they? I know I’d like to visit.) Increasingly, people from other countries travel to Hawaii and are tripped up by our illogical measurement system on everything from road signs to fuel to groceries (my words, not his).

A lovely beach in Hawaii

He hopes that a change to the metric system will not only make it easier for international visitors but that such a transition won’t cause problems for the rest of the country since Hawaii is physically isolated. (Of course, there’s still all the practical reasons listed above why we should all move over to metric.)

I applaud Representative Rhoads for his efforts and while his bill will need reintroduction next year, there is something we can do to help this work along. If you can vote in Hawaii, write to your representatives urging them to support this legislation. Know someone who lives in Hawaii? Clue them in to what’s going on so they can light a fire under those who influence the state’s government. For a complete list of Hawaii state legislators, go to http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/members/legislators.aspx?chamber=H for the House and http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/members/legislators.aspx?chamber=S for the Senate.

While such efforts might not seem to be seminal, by getting forward movement in enough different places, it just might be enough to change the world…oh wait…the rest of the world has changed, it’s us who are lagging behind.

The time to get with the rest of the world is now.

Linda

Join my mailing list by sending an email to milebehind@gmail.com! Exciting stuff is coming soon and you’ll be the first to know.

Lack of U.S. Metric Adoption and International Interest

Tags

Blog statistics, Canada, economic superpowers, France, interactions, Isolationism, Metric system development, metric system thoughts, New York Times, New Zealand, Public perception, United Kingdom

When I first learned about the historic multiple failures of U.S. metric adoption, I believed only Americans would care about the story. I came to realize that nothing is further from the truth. I suspect that some of that external interest comes from the same reason that people slow down when they pass a car accident: morbid curiosity.

I don’t say that to be mean but I think it’s a human trait that when you see something that you really can’t explain and seems really peculiar you start to wonder what’s going on. That’s pretty much us with regard to metric adoption. People in other countries who realize how far behind we are here must be scratching their heads as to why we still can’t get our act together and go metric like almost every other country has.

The U.K. Connection
One of my early clues that this story was of international interest was when I started my Twitter account and folks from the U.K. and Canada started following me. As I started to think about it, that kind of made sense. After all, the U.S. and U.K have ties that date back more than 200 years. But, it turns out, not only are folks in the U.K. interested in this topic but top visitors to this blog are all former British colonies. That fact becomes visually striking when you look below and notice that in the case of New Zealand and Australia the U.K. flag is still embedded in their current “colors.” That’s less true of Canada, but then their currency is emblazoned with Her Majesty the Queen, so that takes any ambiguity out of the equation.

I tend to think of U.K. and these other top followers as our brothers and sisters because of these joint ties.

I’m also not the only American to notice that we tend to demonstrate our affinity to our U.K. roots in odd ways. Take, for instance, a New York Times article from late last year that mused over our bemusing tendency to incorporate Britishisms into our American speech. Titled “Americans Are Barmy Over Britishisms” it says, in part:

Crikey, Britishisms are everywhere. Call it Anglocreep. Call it annoying. Snippets of British vernacular — “cheers” as a thank you, “brilliant” as an affirmative, “loo” as a bathroom — that were until recently as rare as steak and kidney pie on these shores are cropping up in the daily speech of Americans (particularly, New Yorkers) of the taste-making set who often have no more direct tie to Britain than an affinity for “Downton Abbey.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/fashion/americans-are-barmy-over-britishisms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Some of this carryover must work both ways since our sibling countries are apparently wondering what the heck we are doing that we’re still behind the curve when it comes to metric adoption. Are the folks in Canada and New Zealand thinking something akin to “If we figured out how to grow up decades ago, what’s going on in the U.S.?”

The French Connection
Interestingly, while I was looking over my statistics for this blog on Friday I saw an unusual number of hits had come from France. A little investigation revealed that a woman writing on American topics, including this week our measurement system, had this to say about this project (translated from French):

If you are passionate about the subject, go to this American blog, A mile behind, denouncing the non-use of the metric system in the United States from all angles (the States are one of the only three countries in the world – with Burma and Liberia to not have standardized the metric system).

(http://www.maathiildee.com/2013/04/04/les-mesures-a-lamericaine-parler-en-inch-fahrenheit-et-)

As this project progresses I’ll have more of a chance to talk to people around the globe. Then I’ll get a much better feel for this interest and not only how we are perceived by those countries to which we have these extended ties but others around the rest of the world.

Want to join my mailing list?
I’m now starting a mailing list so if you would like to be added to learn more about this project outside of this blog, please feel free to send me your email address. I promise that I won’t sell or lend it. If you want to learn more about this project, that’s the least I can do.

Just send an email to milebehind@gmail.com to be added to the distribution.

I also welcome any thoughts or comments you might want to share in the email. I’ll assume that if you wanted them to be public, you’d comment on this post. Therefore, if I decide to share any of your thoughts in any way, I’ll do so in a way that keeps you anonymous. So, if you don’t want me to share at all, probably best not to send comments to me.

Thanks for your interest and I’ll keep moving this project forward.

Linda

Top pageviews to my post since its inception in July 2012: