Dear Mr Barry Batushki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have just heard that your association is investigating the idea of reintroducing old methods of measurement back into Saskatchewan's classrooms in Canada. I am writing to tell you that I am absolutely appalled - if this is, in fact, your intention. As you know Australia changed to metric at about the same time as Canada and we, as a nation, are now reaping the enormous benefits that that change has brought to us. These benefits are not only in international trade but also in all other aspects of Australian life such as education, building, engineering, and farming. Let me be more specific. In education: The use of the international system of units has allowed Australian educators the opportunity to reduce the enormous amount of time needed to (try to) teach the mathematics needed to support the old random set of measures. For example, the amount of time needed to add, subtract, multiply and divide vulgar fractions is now greatly reduced and conversions from one kind of old unit to another (eg. 16 oz = 1 lb.; 14 lbs. = 1 stone; and so on) are completely removed. In addition to these obvious savings, you also really should consider what world you are trying to prepare your students to enter: is it the global village in which they will eventually live; or are you trying to prepare them to live out their lives entirely in the past? Your students already live in a world that is at least 96 % metric; that is all the world with the exception of the USA, although I personally I suspect that this is a very low figure. Each morning the citizens of the USA already listen to radios and TVs that are completely designed and built in metric (volts, amperes, ohms, siemens, etc.); they eat their breakfast cereals specified in metric (energy in kilojoules, fat in grams, etc.); they drive their metric cars (all of the world�s cars - even in the USA - have been designed and built in metric since at least 1973), and they then spend much of their working day with a computer whose only non-metric measure is the (reputed) size of the screen. In building: Australian builders no longer use fractions at all. They have adopted the use of millimetres as their basic unit so they do not use mixed numbers, vulgar fractions, or even decimal fractions in their everyday measuring work. The advantages of this in terms of the elimination of most measurement errors are not only measured in cost savings but also in the quality of the work. Australia was fortunate in that we adopted a metric conversion program that worked extremely well. In engineering: Nobody in engineering uses anything but metric units for any aspect of their work. The international system of units is so simple that no engineer would contemplate any reversion to old-style units of measurement. In farming: The following is a note I emailed to members of the U.S. Metric Association earlier this year. It might give you some insight into the success of metric conversion in the Australian farming community. Dear All, In the early days of metric conversion I thought that farmers in Australia would be among the laggards in the change to metric. I was wrong. Last year I was invited to speak to a large (about 800) conference of farmers from Victoria, southern New South Wales, and eastern South Australia. The conference lasted for three full days and in that time I did not hear a single reference to ifp (inch-foot-pound) units either on or off the speakers platform. Needless to say I was impressed - stunned is not too strong a word. On reflection some of the main reasons for this are probably as follows: International trade Australian farmers are essentially exporters. We have a small population (19 megapeople tee hee!) and fairly large agricultural production of such things as wool, wheat, meat, sugar, leather, and fruit. SI is easier to use for calculations Example 1. If you bought 2 tons 11 cwt 3 qrs 15 lb of potatoes and intended to repack and sell them in 6 pound packs you�ve got some serious figuring to do to calculate your costs, selling price, and profit. On the other hand the same calculation for the same potatoes in SI might be 2.640 tonnes to be packed in 5 kg lots � I know which calculation I�d prefer. Anyone whose life extends beyond buying potatoes in their local shop has considerable personal advantages in using SI. Example 2. Australia is a dry country and some of our most productive areas are irrigated. Consider this problem. You have had 28 points of rain, half an inch of rain, and 72 points of rain, how much irrigation water (in cubic yards and gallons) will you need for a five acre crop that needs an acre-foot and a half of water early in the season. Compare this with: 7 mm + 12 mm + 18 mm of rain fell on your 2 ha crop; how much irrigation water will you need if your crop needs 46 L/m^2. (SI answer: water needed = 46 - 7 � 12 - 18 = 9 L/m^2 or 90 000 L/ha or 90 kL/ha or 180 kL for my 2 ha field. If you want the solution to the ifp puzzle you are on your own! There are fewer units For example bushels, ounces, buckets, gallons, cubic feet, cubic yards, acre feet, etc etc etc were much more handle-able when they became simply litres and cubic metres. SI was fresh to Australian farmers They were not restrained by historical metric systems: like cgs with chemists, light years with astronomers, gauss with physicists, etc. In this respect they were lucky and their luck extended to their being well advised in SI the modern metric system - they didn't have to tread the pathways of the dinosaur metric systems. Benchmarking What comes first the chicken or the egg? As SI became available to farmers they were able to make more meaningful comparisons: on their own farm between seasons, and between their farm and their neighbours farms. An interesting unit here in a dry continent is production per hectare millimetre of rainfall (kg/ha.mm). I'm not sure whether the benchmarking came before the SI units or if SI units made the benchmarking possible. I suspect the latter. Metric conversion Farmer suppliers changed rapidly to SI in the 1970s and they used the 'rules' we have come to know as workable: They used hard conversions; they used the opportunity to apply logical systems to the industry (eg 12 � 186 2/3 lb. bags to the 2240 lb. imperial ton were replaced with 20 - 50 kg bags to the tonne). This made it very easy for farmers to accept the new ways. Conversions were not encouraged. Millimetres were used for bolt sizes, building sizes, machinery sizes etc making it easier to develop a metric mindset. Governments financially supported the rapid conversion of tools like weighbridges - and there were no two-sided weighbridges. This helped farmers change their mindset rapidly. Almost suddenly all their produce was paid for in tonnes and kilograms - most never bothered to change the figures back for comparison. Curiously though these changes were not so readily accepted in rural cities and country towns. I suspect that here we are experiencing the self image issues of people who see themselves as rural rather than urban and therefore old fashioned. These sort of issues are too complex for me. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia While we�re on the subject of farming, this piece I wrote some years ago might amuse you. **** The metricated farmer It was great in �66 when we changed from pounds to dollars; suddenly I had twice as much money. When they changed the pounds to kilograms in �72, the price of my wool more than doubled, and the change from gallons to litres dropped the fuel costs for the vehicles by more than three-quarters. The old horse is a lot more frisky now that he�s nearly 750 kilowatts: he even grew a bit when a hand changed to 100 mm. The change in measuring rain from points (= 1/100th of an inch) to millimetres meant our rainfall went up by 400% and Celsius degrees means it never gets much hotter than 40� - instead of 104� � it�s much more comfortable. With the change to hectares I�ve only got half as much land to plough and to sow. Harvesting is much easier since there�s a lot less cubic metres than there were bags or bushels. It�s so much quicker I have more time to enjoy the peace and quiet now that kilometres have made us twice as far from town. Pat Naughtin **** As I understand it the resolution in Saskatchewan was: B-5 BE IT RESOLVED that the SSTA urge Saskatchewan Education to revise curriculum to include instruction of imperial measurements that are still being essentially used in today's industry and economy. Potashville S.D. #80 East Central Branch. PTN Surely this is simply not so. I find it extremely hard to believe that in Canada �imperial measurements (that) are still being essentially used in today's industry and economy�. My understanding is that Canadian �industry and economy� are overwhelmingly operating using metric units and have been doing so for more than twenty years. What you may be reporting here is a lack of knowledge of the members of the SSTA, who would appear not to have researched the issue. Further I understand that the Sponsor's Rationale for this resolution was based on the supposition that: 1 Many occupations (carpentry, mechanics, farming) still use the imperial system of measurement. PTN If this is so, it is to the heavy cost of the carpenters, mechanics, and farmers concerned, as the metric system of units is much simpler to learn and to use. I find it extremely difficult to believe that mechanics �still use the imperial system of measurement� as cars from all over the world (even in the USA) have been designed and built using metric units since 1973. By the way there is no such thing as an �imperial system of measurement� and there never was; what you refer to as a system is really a random hodgepodge of units developed over a few thousand years, as and when required. 2 The provincial curriculum does not include the imperial system of measurement for instruction. PTN And quite right. Your Canadian politicians were right to encourage schools to change to metric as quickly as possible. Typically, it takes fifty years for any nation to change from old units to the metric system � you�re more than half way there and to encourage further confusion in the Canadian community at this stage would be extremely damaging for your whole nation. Your attempt to go back in time is interesting, given your geographical proximity to the USA. Do you really intend to relearn the so-called �imperial system of measurement�, which no longer exists in the UK; or are the proponents of this resolution really hoping to adopt the (also) so-called �USA customary system�, which was never used legally in Canada anyway. **** If you are in the position of arguing for the retention of metric units in a prominent position of your curriculum, here are some replies that I have used in discussions with proponents of old-style units. Old units are convenient Generally whenever a measuring unit was first needed it occurred in a new or experimental situation and it is precisely that human inclination to grab the nearest and most convenient unit that has led to the hodgepodge of unrelated units we put up with outside the International System of Units (SI) � the metric system. No doubt the person doing the measuring was more intent on their inventive task than on the theory of measurement. For example the earliest cooks would have readily used teaspoons (of whatever size) for salt, sugar, and spices, alternating its use with a tablespoon (of whatever size) for honey and a cup for flour, with never any thought of wondering �How many teaspoons make a tablespoon, and how many tablespoons are there in a cup?� The question was simply irrelevant until more precise measures were required for medicines, when a small measuring mistake could prove quite damaging, if not fatal. We have known for a long time that creating a new unit every time a new experience or convenient size comes into our lives is ultimately counterproductive and definitely not convenient in the long run. There were also the industrial and practical problems such as: �How many teaspoons of hair restorer, snake bite cure, or ague remedy could I make if I have two hogsheads of one ingredient; three firkins of another, and the scoundrel who supplies my third ingredient doesn�t know if his gallons are imperial or USA. The only thing he seems to know is that he charges in Guineas�. How many five ounce bottles do I need to prepare for sale, and how much difference will it make if I choose imperial ounces or USA ounces? How many rulers and tapes do I need, at my stable, if: my horse is measured in hands; its stall is measured in feet and inches; the lunging yard is measured in yards; the racecourse is measured in furlongs and either statute or survey miles (after the course was laid out using chains and links). And if my horse wins, by a nose, a short half head, or a length, I�ll celebrate its win with two fingers from a fifth of whisky. If the horse is really successful it may be invited to race internationally, and we can ship it many leagues or nautical miles across the sea, at a rate of knots, while assessing the depth of the water in fathoms. Of course if the international race is held in an SI (or metric) country my horse will be measured in international standard hands of 100 mm; its stall will be measured in millimetres; the lunging yard will be measured in metres; and the racecourse will be measured in kilometres. I�ll leave aside questions about the weight of the jockey, in stones, and how many bushels of feed my horse will need. I think I�ll try a shot of that whisky again � all this figuring has made me thirsty; that is unless my horse wins and then I might lash out for a Jeroboam of champagne. False accuracy and precision Some people argue that SI is too precise for everyday use. They ask questions such as �Which is easier to use 4 inches or 101.6 mm?� This question leads directly to the answer 4 inches � and they�re probably right � but the question does not ask for a fair comparison. The inverse question, Which is easier to handle 100 mm or 3 + 959/1024 is (almost exactly) the same question, only this time it has been framed to favor SI rather than the old style units. There is no �natural� set of measuring units but your choice of question can make one or the other appear better or worse. At the end of the day SI is simpler mainly because it has fewer units and all of the units are part of a planned system. Too many millimetres The anti-metric forces have often pointed out how silly it is to name large, imprecisely measured objects in hundreds or even thousands of tiny millimetres with long rows of zeroes. In isolation this is not a bad argument, but it ignores the enormous practical benefits of the complete removal of fractions, both vulgar and decimal from all measuring work. Measurement and calculations are much easier because there are simply no costly errors produced by calculations that involve any sort of fractions. My experience in Agriculture, Architecture and Engineering, and in the Bricklaying, Butchery, Carpentry, Electrical Trades, Fitting and Machining, Gas-fitting, Joinery, Metal Fabrication, Plumbing, Saddlery, Textile and Clothing trades has shown the benefits of using SI both in the initial learning of measurement skills and in the use of them on a daily basis. This �difficulty� is put into context when we consider that builder�s labourers, in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, often with little secondary education, have no trouble with tens of thousands of millimetres, but rocket scientists at NASA in the USA have trouble landing a Mars Probe using the old style units. One of the issues here is that, unfortunately, many of our population have poor numeracy skills and the use of millimetres only on a building site reduces all measures to simple numbers � granted they may be large numbers � but they are simple, and able to be successfully handled by a large range of workers. Although I can understand the frustration of living next door to a somewhat tardy neighbour in the USA, I strongly suggest that you resist the urge to regress to their backward ways and stick with the substantial measurement progress that Canadians have already made in the last 3 decades. Cheers and good luck, Pat Naughtin Geelong, Australia
