Metrication

[TXtoNJ]

Small businesses and local gentry are far more common, numerous, and organized (Chamber of Commerce, Rotary) than in other Commonwealth nations. Big business would have course prefer to metricate; it means lower frictional costs in global trade. It's the smaller guys who do primarily domestic trade who don't want to bear the costs of transitioning. Since we can't come up with a way to fund the change without pissing somebody off, stagnation is what we get.

[J N Winkler]

Metrication has always been sector-specific in the US.  Talk to someone in the hard sciences about going back to customary units and all you will get is laughter.  On the other hand, we are living 20 years after an effort to metricate highway construction (not the units on the signs--rather, the unit systems used for surveying as well as ordering and fabricating components like pipes, culverts, bridge girders, etc.), which never reached 100% buy-in even among state DOTs and encountered enormous resistance from contractors.

[vdeane]

EDIT: The 1970s is when we attempted to switch. There could have been a big push by the oil companies to switch to liters to avoid adding an extra digit to the prices. Why didn't they?

This was also the time of the OPEC oil embargo.  Gas stations did, in fact, switch to liters to avoid adding an extra digit to the prices.  As a result, pricing gas in metric is associated with high prices and gas shortages in this country, and that's one reason we didn't switch to metric.

[oscar]

EDIT: The 1970s is when we attempted to switch. There could have been a big push by the oil companies to switch to liters to avoid adding an extra digit to the prices. Why didn't they?

This was also the time of the OPEC oil embargo.  Gas stations did, in fact, switch to liters to avoid adding an extra digit to the prices.

I lived through that era. I don't recall that happening (unless it happened only outside California, where I lived at the time).

I think some stations briefly charged by the half-gallon, or tenth-gallon. Much easier than to convert to metric.

[kkt]

EDIT: The 1970s is when we attempted to switch. There could have been a big push by the oil companies to switch to liters to avoid adding an extra digit to the prices. Why didn't they?

This was also the time of the OPEC oil embargo.  Gas stations did, in fact, switch to liters to avoid adding an extra digit to the prices.

I lived through that era. I don't recall that happening (unless it happened only outside California, where I lived at the time).

I think some stations briefly charged by the half-gallon, or tenth-gallon. Much easier than to convert to metric.

I remember some stations putting up signs that the pump would display only the cents portion of the price per gallon, and the $1 at the front would be added for payment.

[kkt]

Aren't weed-out courses supposed to be merely difficult rather than impossible?  They're not much use if literally everyone fails.

Regarding the exam question the professor couldn't solve, that situation was resolved much as Kkt suggests--it was simply left out when the tests were graded.  Since it was a timed test, that disadvantaged students who spent time on it at the expense of other questions.

This particular problem was clearly inspired by the 1990's Sprint pin-drop commercial and was deceptively simple.  Given a pin dropped in a vacuum onto a flat surface from height h at angle θ, how much longer after the lower end hits does the other touch the surface?

Clarkson's weed-out courses mainly consisted of the freshmen Calculus, Chemistry, and Physics classes, since most people (outside of business majors) had those in common.  Still, while the tests and a few of the homework problems were difficult, they were all doable by people who paid attention in class, did the work, studied hard, and had an aptitude for science/engineering.  They also had plenty of time for people to get help if needed between office hours for the professors and TAs.  I suspect the intro Computer Science classes were used as this for the Digital Arts and Science majors, but I found them fairly easy, so it's hard to say for sure.

I Googled after I posted and it seems the definition of a weed-out course is pretty capacious.  For many, the archetype is much as you outline:  a freshman course designed to redirect those without the preparation, aptitude, or motivation to persist in a high-demand major, and yes, that stereotypically includes freshman calculus (especially for accounting and business majors), introductory computer science (for non-CS majors), and organic chemistry (for pre-med).  But a weed-out course can also be one specific to a given major that is not encountered until distribution requirements and initial prerequisites are cleared, and is often taught by an instructor considered difficult--for my physics degree, this was Mechanics I.

To an extent, weed-out courses (to either aspect of the definition) are an expression of the philosophy of "Spare the rod, spoil the child."  Over the past few decades, I suspect the incentives have changed to favor gentler means of redirection as student debt has become more prevalent, college degrees have come to be regarded more as a consumer product, and the survival of departments (and sometimes whole colleges) have increasingly become tied to graduation rates.  Especially with the attenuation of tenure, it is now much more likely that an instructor will lose his or her job for making a weed-out course unreasonably difficult, as happened last year with Maitland Jones at NYU.

Donald Knuth's classic textbook The Art of Computer Programming includes exercises at the end of each section, rated from "easy" = expected to take less than 5 minutes for an average undergrad, up to "unsolved" = good PhD topic.

I'm not opposed to weedout classes as such, but it is a favor to many of the students to encounter the weedout classes in their first year, if possible, so they can adjust their study habits or expections before they have racked up six figures in student debt.

[Brandon]

I would like that to happen.

People with way more money than you would like it to not happen. Since we're talking about America, that means it will not happen.

It's not money, it's votes.  https://today.yougov.com/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/08/15/do-americans-prefer-imperial-metric-system-measure

Close to nine in 10 Americans (88%) say they would use feet and inches to describe someone's height, while just 8% say they would use meters and centimeters for this. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 17% say they would use meters and centimeters for this; 16% of 30-to 44-year-olds agree. The proportion of metric users for height is much lower  among 45- to 64-year-olds (2%) and Americans 65 and older (1%).

It's similar for other metric versus US customary measures.

[Brandon]

I would like that to happen.

People with way more money than you would like it to not happen. Since we're talking about America, that means it will not happen.

I would be eternally happy when temperatures in national weather forecasts and weather.gov are changed to Celsius. This should happen asap.


Also, why Australia succeeded in metrication, but not US?

1. Celsius sucks as a temperature measure for the everyday things.  It is not a fine enough scale in my opinion, and the range of typical temperatures (-10 to 40) is too small versus Fahrenheit, which has a larger and finer range (0 to 100).

2. In Australia, it was done from the top down, not the bottom up.  Americans (and most other people) have a resistance to top down enforcement of something.  Read the poll I posted in reply to Scott.

[kalvado]

My bet on metrication coming during next economic downturn. If US market is no more attractive enough to accommodate specific demands (and that is already sort of a  thing. Try to get NRTLed laser cutter or 3d printer!), things will have to change...   

[1995hoo]

Close to nine in 10 Americans (88%) say they would use feet and inches to describe someone's height, while just 8% say they would use meters and centimeters for this. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 17% say they would use meters and centimeters for this; 16% of 30-to 44-year-olds agree. The proportion of metric users for height is much lower  among 45- to 64-year-olds (2%) and Americans 65 and older (1%).

It's similar for other metric versus US customary measures.

I still don't understand why anyone thinks this would have to change if Congress decided to declare metric the "standard." It's not like there would suddenly be some federal mandate that you have to throw away all your existing rulers, tape measures, bathroom scales, measuring cups, etc.

[kalvado]

Close to nine in 10 Americans (88%) say they would use feet and inches to describe someone's height, while just 8% say they would use meters and centimeters for this. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 17% say they would use meters and centimeters for this; 16% of 30-to 44-year-olds agree. The proportion of metric users for height is much lower  among 45- to 64-year-olds (2%) and Americans 65 and older (1%).

It's similar for other metric versus US customary measures.

I still don't understand why anyone thinks this would have to change if Congress decided to declare metric the "standard." It's not like there would suddenly be some federal mandate that you have to throw away all your existing rulers, tape measures, bathroom scales, measuring cups, etc.

Frankly speaking, a lot of  of

existing rulers, tape measures, bathroom scales, measuring cups

are already dual-scale.  So they could be used under the New Order.  And yes, full transition in household would take 2 generations - 50 years or so. But, for example, extending double-posting to store prices could be pretty quick if mandated. That would be a big factor in bringing in the new system.   

[1995hoo]

^^^^

Heh, I once flipped our bathroom scale to kilograms. 100 sounds better than 220. My wife was not particularly amused.

[Poiponen13]

I would like that to happen.

People with way more money than you would like it to not happen. Since we're talking about America, that means it will not happen.

I would be eternally happy when temperatures in national weather forecasts and weather.gov are changed to Celsius. This should happen asap.


Also, why Australia succeeded in metrication, but not US?

1. Celsius sucks as a temperature measure for the everyday things.  It is not a fine enough scale in my opinion, and the range of typical temperatures (-10 to 40) is too small versus Fahrenheit, which has a larger and finer range (0 to 100).

2. In Australia, it was done from the top down, not the bottom up.  Americans (and most other people) have a resistance to top down enforcement of something.  Read the poll I posted in reply to Scott.

But Celsius directly shows big milestone in temperatures: freezing point. Values are positive above the point and negative below the point. And Celsius is used in most countries, so why US cannot use it too?

[hotdogPi]

1. Celsius sucks as a temperature measure for the everyday things.  It is not a fine enough scale in my opinion, and the range of typical temperatures (-10 to 40) is too small versus Fahrenheit, which has a larger and finer range (0 to 100).

I've mentioned this twice before in this thread, but 1°C is about the smallest meaningful difference. People set their thermostats to 68°F or 70 or 72, not 69 or 71 – a difference of 2°F ≈ 1°C.

[1995hoo]

.... And Celsius is used in most countries, so why US cannot use it too?

You make the common mistake of conflating "can" with "will" or "may." The US can use it, and indeed certain industries do–when you go to the doctor, they'll use Celsius when they take your temperature. Setting that aside, though, the answer to your question is that people don't want to use it. There is nothing prohibiting anyone in this country from using Celsius should they so choose. When my wife and I are getting ready to travel out of the country, I've often changed our thermostat to display Celsius to help her get used to the numbers she'll see on the thermostat in hotel rooms abroad. But aside from that, what benefit do I stand to gain from setting it to Celsius on a regular basis? I'll have an annoyed wife, and I don't think she'll be persuaded to change her mind if I say, "Some guy who says he's from Finland tells me the rest of the world uses it, so I have to as well."

Even if Congress were to declare metric to be the national standard, there would most likely be First Amendment problems if they tried to prohibit TV weathermen from using Fahrenheit in their forecasts.

1. Celsius sucks as a temperature measure for the everyday things.  It is not a fine enough scale in my opinion, and the range of typical temperatures (-10 to 40) is too small versus Fahrenheit, which has a larger and finer range (0 to 100).

I've mentioned this twice before in this thread, but 1°C is about the smallest meaningful difference. People set their thermostats to 68°F or 70 or 72, not 69 or 71 – a difference of 2°F ≈ 1°C.

Says who? During the winter, ours is set at 69° during the day if we're at home (58° at night when we're asleep). During the summer, it's set at 73° at night when we're asleep.

[Poiponen13]

.... And Celsius is used in most countries, so why US cannot use it too?

You make the common mistake of conflating "can" with "will" or "may." The US can use it, and indeed certain industries do–when you go to the doctor, they'll use Celsius when they take your temperature. Setting that aside, though, the answer to your question is that people don't want to use it. There is nothing prohibiting anyone in this country from using Celsius should they so choose. When my wife and I are getting ready to travel out of the country, I've often changed our thermostat to display Celsius to help her get used to the numbers she'll see on the thermostat in hotel rooms abroad. But aside from that, what benefit do I stand to gain from setting it to Celsius on a regular basis? I'll have an annoyed wife, and I don't think she'll be persuaded to change her mind if I say, "Some guy who says he's from Finland tells me the rest of the world uses it, so I have to as well."

Even if Congress were to declare metric to be the national standard, there would most likely be First Amendment problems if they tried to prohibit TV weathermen from using Fahrenheit in their forecasts.

1. Celsius sucks as a temperature measure for the everyday things.  It is not a fine enough scale in my opinion, and the range of typical temperatures (-10 to 40) is too small versus Fahrenheit, which has a larger and finer range (0 to 100).

I've mentioned this twice before in this thread, but 1°C is about the smallest meaningful difference. People set their thermostats to 68°F or 70 or 72, not 69 or 71 – a difference of 2°F ≈ 1°C.

Says who? During the winter, ours is set at 69° during the day if we're at home (58° at night when we're asleep). During the summer, it's set at 73° at night when we're asleep.

Fahrenheit would be first to taken out when metrication is underway.

[1995hoo]

Fahrenheit would be first to taken out when metrication is underway.

No, it wouldn't be and it couldn't be. What makes you think anyone is going around to individual houses forcing homeowners to rip out existing thermostats? I really think you're just trolling at this point because I can't imagine that any rational person is as obtuse and ignorant as you're trying to make yourself appear to be.

[Poiponen13]

Fahrenheit would be first to taken out when metrication is underway.

No, it wouldn't be and it couldn't be. What makes you think anyone is going around to individual houses forcing homeowners to rip out existing thermostats? I really think you're just trolling at this point because I can't imagine that any rational person is as obtuse and ignorant as you're trying to make yourself appear to be.

Fahrenheit is oppressive, I think. I can't imagine measuring temperatures in other scale than Celsius.

[Max Rockatansky]

Oppressive?  You mean like a "city/gulag"  on an Arctic Island?

[1995hoo]

Fahrenheit would be first to taken out when metrication is underway.

No, it wouldn't be and it couldn't be. What makes you think anyone is going around to individual houses forcing homeowners to rip out existing thermostats? I really think you're just trolling at this point because I can't imagine that any rational person is as obtuse and ignorant as you're trying to make yourself appear to be.

Fahrenheit is oppressive, I think. I can't imagine measuring temperatures in other scale than Celsius.

And what does that have to do with what anyone else prefers? I know plenty of people who can't imagine using Celsius–some of them because they're old and stuck in their ways, some because they have no desire to do so, some because they would actively resist using what they consider foreign systems. They're all perfectly entitled to those opinions just as much as you're entitled to yours.

Your post is an internal non sequitur anyway. If you "think" Fahrenheit is "oppressive," then by definition you have indeed "imagine[d] measuring temperatures" in a non-Celsius scale and you decided you didn't like the idea.

[kkt]

Fahrenheit would be first to taken out when metrication is underway.

No, it wouldn't be and it couldn't be. What makes you think anyone is going around to individual houses forcing homeowners to rip out existing thermostats? I really think you're just trolling at this point because I can't imagine that any rational person is as obtuse and ignorant as you're trying to make yourself appear to be.

Fahrenheit is oppressive, I think. I can't imagine measuring temperatures in other scale than Celsius.

You mean like the thermodynamics folks who use Kelvin because it makes the formulas simpler?

[vdeane]

EDIT: The 1970s is when we attempted to switch. There could have been a big push by the oil companies to switch to liters to avoid adding an extra digit to the prices. Why didn't they?

This was also the time of the OPEC oil embargo.  Gas stations did, in fact, switch to liters to avoid adding an extra digit to the prices.

I lived through that era. I don't recall that happening (unless it happened only outside California, where I lived at the time).

I think some stations briefly charged by the half-gallon, or tenth-gallon. Much easier than to convert to metric.

I remember reading something along those lines, but Google is being less helpful than I would have hoped.  However, given this timeline, it may have been the Iranian Revolution, not the OPEC oil embargo:

1979-81: In February 1979, the revolution in Iran begins, and in November the U.S. Embassy in Iran is stormed and hostages are taken. Midway through the year, Saudi Arabia cuts oil production and the price of crude oil soars. Meanwhile, the Iran/Iraq war also reduces production in both countries. Several states implement odd-even gas rationing, including New York, California, Texas, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The world price of crude oil jumps from around $14 per barrel at the beginning of 1979 to more than $35 per barrel in January 1981 before stabilizing. In 1979, the average gas price tops $1 per gallon for the first time. An estimated 1.4 million mechanical dispensers are unable to handle pricing beyond 99.9 cents, so sales by the liter grow as a way to address the problem. Gasoline prices peak in March 1981 at $1.42 per gallon.

Oppressive?  You mean like a "city/gulag"  on an Arctic Island?

That's where they send you to be persuaded to switch if you refuse to use Celsius.

[J N Winkler]

I've mentioned this twice before in this thread, but 1°C is about the smallest meaningful difference. People set their thermostats to 68°F or 70 or 72, not 69 or 71 – a difference of 2°F ≈ 1°C.

There are plenty of people who don't set their thermostats in integer multiples of 2° F--65° F and 75° F are popular values, for example.

Using Celsius for ambient temperatures also sacrifices the convenience of talking about a comfort range as a decade group.  We generally recognize that the eighties and nineties are different in comfort level, but in Celsius they are all in the thirties, which forces us to speak with false precision (e.g. "about 30° C" rather than "in the eighties") to make the distinction.

[kkt]

The Celsius 20s are okay, the Celsius 30s are all too hot

edit: typo

[Poiponen13]

I've mentioned this twice before in this thread, but 1°C is about the smallest meaningful difference. People set their thermostats to 68°F or 70 or 72, not 69 or 71 – a difference of 2°F ≈ 1°C.

There are plenty of people who don't set their thermostats in integer multiples of 2° F--65° F and 75° F are popular values, for example.

Using Celsius for ambient temperatures also sacrifices the convenience of talking about a comfort range as a decade group.  We generally recognize that the eighties and nineties are different in comfort level, but in Celsius they are all in the thirties, which forces us to speak with false precision (e.g. "about 30° C" rather than "in the eighties") to make the distinction.

It can be said that temperatures in e.g. a state or region are in 30s Celsius, when coolest is 31 C and hottest 39 C. And 0s would be pronounced "zeros" and 10s "tens".