Student Scholarship

Document Type

Research Paper

Abstract

The question of whether the United States should adopt the metric system involves a complex evaluation of economic benefits, industrial resistance, and global compatibility. In the early 1960s, legislative efforts in Congress focused on initiating a formal study to determine the feasibility of such a transition. Proponents of the metric system, particularly in the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries, argue that the current dual system of measurement leads to significant inefficiencies. Research indicates that 94 percent of technical personnel in the aerospace field favor the change to eliminate time-consuming conversions and reduce the risk of calculation errors. Companies like Eli Lilly have already successfully converted internal operations, reporting that the move has saved time and money while facilitating worldwide operations. 

Conversely, industries such as steel and automotive manufacturing express strong opposition due to the immense costs of retooling. Ford Motor Company estimated that conversion could cost up to one-sixth of the company's total value, arguing that the English system is more natural for everyday use. The steel industry maintains that the decimalized inch provides similar mathematical simplicity without the multibillion-dollar expense of changing engineering drawings and equipment. Despite these concerns, supporters emphasize that the metric system's decimal nature offers superior simplicity, noting that mathematical tasks taking minutes in the English system can be completed in seconds using metric units. Furthermore, advocates argue that maintaining the English system handicaps American foreign trade, especially in regions like South America where metric standards are the norm. Ultimately, the consensus among many scientists and government officials is that a comprehensive study is vital to navigate the massive industrial and social consequences of a potential shift.

Research Highlights

The Problem: The United States military and industrial sectors faced significant logistical complications and economic disadvantages during the 1950s due to the lack of a standardized system of weights and measures, specifically when collaborating with metric-using NATO allies and competing in foreign markets. 

The Method: This 1962 Washington Semester project analyzes the congressional history of the metric system from 1776 to 1961, evaluates testimony from the 1961 House Subcommittee hearings on bills H.R. 269 and H.R. 2049, and surveys contemporary industrial and educational opinions. 

Quantitative Finding: Technical aerospace personnel supported a metric transition by a margin of 94% to 6%; Eli Lilly and Company reported conversion costs of approximately $10,000 for equipment and $2,000 to $3,000 for overtime; a 1961 study of scientists and engineers found 90% believed a metric change would be advantageous. 

Qualitative Finding: Proponents identified benefits such as increased calculation accuracy, improved international trade relations, and simplified education; opponents, particularly in the steel and automotive industries, cited prohibitive costs of re-drafting engineering files and a preference for the "decimal inch". 

Finding: While the metric system was established as the fundamental standard for U.S. weights and measures via the Mendenhall Order of 1893, its general adoption remained stalled in 1961 due to congressional concerns over the $500,000 appropriation required for a formal feasibility study. 

Publication Date

1-1962

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Faculty Sponsor

Archive

Download

Share

COinS