With America slowly sliding back into its historically miserable mode of economic lethargy, it is not too far fetched to predict a resurgence of metrication.
As I pointed out some time ago, it seems only economic stagnation inspires Americans to join the metric world. This time their effort will be much more serious as there is no IT, or any other economic panacea in sight.

The irony and stupidity of changing to metric at a time when the country can least afford it is of course lost on many Americans. Yet it is precicely this muddling that causes their economy to lag more often than not. Some predictions are that Uncle Sam will be outpaced again by Europeans within 15 years. Now, I would not put European progress on metrication only, but its use shows that they know a good thing when they see one.



If Americans on this board are interested to read more about it, go to this site. While some statistics seem a bit out of kelter, the general trust of what it says is right.

http://www.iht.com/articles/529944.html

If they can't get their statistics right, what makes you so willing to trust the rest of the article?

Other than the fact that you agree with it?

"With America slowly sliding back into its historically miserable mode of economic lethargy, it is not too far fetched to predict a resurgence of metrication."

What a bizarre notion.

I can only assume a pint of whisky had been in order prior to that guff.

Re: Metrication re-visited August 11 2004, 8:22 AM

Bud:
If they can't get their statistics right, what makes you so willing to trust the rest of the article?

Other than the fact that you agree with it?


metre:
What's the sayng, damn lies and statistics.
Since I don't know how these statistics were compiled, I am not convinced about their accuracy. Of course I am in full agreement with that article and so are most Europeans and for bloody damn good reasons.

Since US economic stagnation will re-ignite metrication, I am looking forward to see signs of it in the not too distant future.

How old do you plan to live to?

And have you informed nurse?

Americans (and Brits) on this board are continually insisting that obsolete measurement units present no problems. They also assert that learning 2 systems is no burden on children and has no detrimental effects.
Now let's see what Richard P. Phelps, an analyst on education issues at the Pelavin Research Center of the American Institute for Research in Washington DC. has to say.

Excerpt:
Does it make a difference in math and science achievement that we confuse our students with two measurement systems? Apparently so. At the 4th grade level in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, American students performed above the international average in all of the seven content areas but one, "measurement, estimation, and number series," where they scored well below the average. By the 8th grade, the overall U.S. performance had slipped relative to other countries', but the average "percent correct" was, at worst, within a few percentage points of the international average in all of the seven content areas but two: geometry, where the U.S. percent correct was 8 percentage points below the average, and measurement, where the percent correct was 11 percentage points below the average.
For more details:

www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/01phelps.h18

One individual.

Another direct hit! As soon as concrete examples of USC/Imp. misery are given, all steadfast defenders of obsolete units scramble for cover.
It must be galling to face serious expert analyses showing the timewasting uselessness of your beloved measurement misery.

ahem...

*** ONE INDIVIDUAL ***

(aaahh, bless him - he sees a victory!)

They truly hide in medieval darkness. To keep you there and make your hair stand on end, I shall present you soon with a more detailed study of America's dual measurement burden.

And in return we *wont* bore the living daylights out of people by lifting conversations from just a few in a world of multi-billions and citing this as the "only" world.

Now give yourself another warm hug while you are glowing from your "victory", eric, it gives others chance to relax.

Re: Metrication re-visited August 13 2004, 6:26 AM


It gives me great pleasure to see how gob smacked imperialists and USC aficionados are when confronted with irrefutable proof that teaching cumbersome units next to modern ones has only disadvantages.
Americans and Brits on this board keep forever maintaining, without proof of course, that their compatriots are fully versed in both systems. Well, we always knew, and proved it now that this is pure baloney.
Many of my statements relating to Americans dismal basic measurement understanding (inch ruler, metric quantities) are confirmed. For imperialists to walk away from these facts just corroborates that they have no logical defense for their units, but only mushy patriotic feelings about them. I challenge them to post one decent study that finds obsolete units worth to hang on to?
I know you are not particularly enthusiastic about his findings, but may I invite you again to read his superb study, you could learn something from it.

Richard P. Phelps, an analyst on education issues at the Pelavin Research Center of the American Institute for Research in Washington DC. has to say.

Excerpt:
Does it make a difference in math and science achievement that we confuse our students with two measurement systems? Apparently so. At the 4th grade level in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, American students performed above the international average in all of the seven content areas but one, "measurement, estimation, and number series," where they scored well below the average. By the 8th grade, the overall U.S. performance had slipped relative to other countries', but the average "percent correct" was, at worst, within a few percentage points of the international average in all of the seven content areas but two: geometry, where the U.S. percent correct was 8 percentage points below the average, and measurement, where the percent correct was 11 percentage points below the average.
For more details:

www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/01phelps.h18

I don't want to be cynical or dismiss this all out of hand, but there are many studies showing black people to score significantly below whites in IQ tests. Even the man who writes the A-level text books for psychology- Eysenck- who is an incredibly well known and respected man in his field, has basically argued that blacks are naturally handicapped to some degree (at least mentally, and relative to whites).

Okay, this is a man who has studies to back this up, similar studies to the ones you show us, and he is backed up by many other independent studies too. This is a well-known and repsected man who WRITES THE A LEVEL TEXT BOOKS!

So....... we must surely accept blacks genetically are not as able mentally as whites....


I reject that notion totally. And before anyone suggests I have misrepresented Eysenck, yes, I have dummed it all down for this post, but that basic point remain. I studied Eysenck as part of my psychology and sociology a-levels, so I know at least a little of what I am saying.


Yes, this post is not a brilliant rebuttal of your studies, metre, but it is a point to bear in mind- there are always experts to support or find truth in everything no matter what it is or how absurd it is.

Re: Metrication re-visited August 21 2004, 1:30 PM

Bryan:
I reject that notion totally. And before anyone suggests I have misrepresented Eysenck, yes, I have dummed it all down for this post, but that basic point remain. I studied Eysenck as part of my psychology and sociology a-levels, so I know at least a little of what I am saying.
Yes, this post is not a brilliant rebuttal of your studies, metre, but it is a point to bear in mind- there are always experts to support or find truth in everything no matter what it is or how absurd it is.

metre:
Thanks for your response.
Ah, Hans Eysenk, yes a man still well worth reading. You are comparing apples with oranges. Eysenk study was based on IQ tests that had an inbuilt bias.
Phelps study only tabulates actual school reports.
To know that teaching 2 measurement systems is wasting time and instils only a limited understanding of both systems requires no rocket science.
That should answer your misgivings.

The teaching of two measurement systems (like the teaching of more than one language) is brain food for a brain that's typically running at half capacity (ie our brains have a higher capacity than we utilise). Indeed the teaching of imperial measures can, in some circumstances, create more challenging scenarios that actually fully make use of the mind.

I suspect that maths skills have actually gone *DOWN* since the introduction of metric alongside imperial started at schools.

Althought I am not advocating the halting of teaching metric simply to increase maths skills.

I wonder if the "old man" thinks that the 12 times table should not be touched?

Some time ago I promised another study that shows how costly and wasteful it is to teach 2 measurement systems.

Here is another study by Richard P. Pelps.

Mr. Phelps’ confirms that teaching two systems of measurements in US schools wastes children's and teachers time and precious resources. Since metric is used in many professions it cannot be ignored and must be taught at school. This forces US children to remember 2 incompatible systems in a world that manages perfectly with one. Mr. Phelps’ conclusions are reached by examining three methods of teaching measurement. He calculates the net benefits of each system by development of quantitative measures of benefits and costs, and then compares the results. His research shows that teaching the metric system only would save 82 days of mathematical instruction-time annually and would provide a yearly saving of $17,653 million to US education. Time and funds saved could then be used to teach more maths and raise US children's lagging mathematical skills. [Presently, the U.S. ranks 13th out of 17 countries on international maths tests given to 8th graders.] It needs no rocket science to realise that teaching 2 systems is not only an imposition on children, but also an unnecessary waste of resources. To learn inch-pound measurements [for length, capacity, and weight (mass)], the student must memorise 21 names and 18 conversion ratios, compared to 9 names and 2 conversion ratios in the metric system.
No wonder that memorising 40 incompatible names and conversion ratios disadvantages US students and leaves them well short of adequatly understanding both systems.

Mr. Phelps used the Addison-Wesley Mathematics series as a basis for his calculations to determine instructional-time, and used data from the US Dept. of Education to calculate dollar amounts of education costs. Evaluation Review is a Journal of Applied Social Research and is published in the US by Sage Publications Inc.

Quite interesting.
To counter that study you need to furnish a reputable imperial one? I am looking forward to that.

This was the (probably carefully edited) view of an *individual's* opinion lifted from one of the more "trashy" pro-metric UK sites! I kid you not!

However - I found this one, which is an opinion from another individual which appears to contradict this one individual.

I'll copy and paste it here....


The teaching of two measurement systems (like the teaching of more than one language) is brain food for a brain that's typically running at half capacity (ie our brains have a higher capacity than we utilise). Indeed the teaching of imperial measures can, in some circumstances, create more challenging scenarios that actually fully make use of the mind.

I suspect that maths skills have actually gone *DOWN* since the introduction of metric alongside imperial started at schools.

Althought I am not advocating the halting of teaching metric simply to increase maths skills

SteveH wrote

<<
The teaching of two measurement systems (like the teaching of more than one language) is brain food for a brain that's typically running at half capacity (ie our brains have a higher capacity than we utilise). Indeed the teaching of imperial measures can, in some circumstances, create more challenging scenarios that actually fully make use of the mind.
>>

Teachign both metric and Imperial units to the brightest children would certainly challenge their abilities. However those children in the middle of the range and at the bottom of the range need to be taught maths that will stand them in good stead both in the world around them and in the workplace. Some have trouble grasping one system let alone two systems. It was therefore utter stupidity on the part of HMG to have stopped the metrication program in 1981 (unless it was part of a cynical plot to control what the working classes did by ensuring that they found it difficult to understand foreign information).

"unless it was part of a cynical plot to control what the working classes did by ensuring that they found it difficult to understand foreign information"

(cue end music to "Eastenders").

Martin - you are starting to sound like some sort of millitant!

Be reasonable - the main reason why imperial is taught at schools is that its part of the language. Kids are going to come across imperial all the time whilst out of school. You cannot simply deny them the right to be educated about "those words" just because to some they're "politically incorrect"!

Even if they banned pizzas or burgers just incase someone said "inch" or "qtr lb" kids would still come accross imperial in their day 2 day activities.

Unless you advocate monitoring people's private activities.

Basic metric and Imperial, basic enough to live in everyday life, would be this:


1000 grams = 1 kilogram
1000 millilitres = 1 litre
10 mil = 1 centimetre
100 centimetres = 1 metre
16 ounces = 1 pound
14 pounds = 1 stone
12 inches = 1 foot
and maybe 1 pint is 20 ounces



Asides from those basic facts and a basic knowledge of fractions (whether we are talking 0.66 or the 4/3 kind) are all that would be required for kids to function at a basic level in the everyday world. Even very stupid children can manage the above facts. However, more complicated stuff like how to use the systems in various circumstances, and other unit inter-relationships etc are not needed in the everyday world mostly, and would not be difficult to teach smarter kids.... and of course we have no problem there, as smarter children ought to be (and are) seperated from their duller peers, so the less intelligent kid would not feel left behind in their clsses by the 'boffs' or 'ear'oles'.

Bryan:
Asides from those basic facts and a basic knowledge of fractions (whether we are talking 0.66 or the 4/3 kind) are all that would be required for kids to function at a basic level in the everyday world. Even very stupid children can manage the above facts. However, more complicated stuff like how to use the systems in various circumstances, and other unit inter-relationships etc are not needed in the everyday world mostly, and would not be difficult to teach smarter kids.... and of course we have no problem there, as smarter children ought to be (and are) seperated from their duller peers, so the less intelligent kid would not feel left behind in their clsses by the 'boffs' or 'ear'oles'.

metre:
A rather denigrading assessment of less fortunate children that does you no credit. Here, in contrast to many other wrong applications, we can use language legitimately to highlight what you recommend. Everybody knows that only about a 1000 words are needed to function normally in everyday life. Now, why bother to teach them many more?

Why bother?
To assert that teaching imperial improves children’s maths skill is about as valid as asserting crawling propels people faster than walking.
Before the introduction of the decimal currency children had to waste countless hours on the 12 multiplication table to get a rudimentary understanding of an obsolete currency.
As Mr. Phelps study shows, teaching USC handicaps children.
Besides, I am not aware of any study that supports a contrary view. (Fact and opinion)

Only very selfish people waste children’s time to learn an obsolete measuring system when that uselessly squandered time (in the US 1968 hours per child annually) can be utilised to much greater benefit learning other, much more rewarding subjects. Would be interesting how many million/billion wasted school hours that number would produce?

As to speaking other languages, English-speaking people fall dismally short in that respect and for good reason. Their minds are numbed with those long hours of useless rote learning to understand and use an obsolete measuring system.

<<
Some have trouble grasping one system let alone two systems.
>>

Really? I don't see what there is to "grasp". The concept of measurement is not difficult to understand, and there is not really much to learn, as such, when dealing with measurement. I am sure that if teaching units of measurement were eliminated entirely from the curriculum, students would learn it anyway, just by observing the world and living in society.

Am I seeing things or is the old man back to regurgitating his old nonsense again?

BTW - what is the point in handicapping more able students by teaching them at the same rate as less able ones?

What a dimwit!

Martin:
Some have trouble grasping one system let alone two systems.
Bud:
Really? I don't see what there is to "grasp". The concept of measurement is not difficult to understand, and there is not really much to learn, as such, when dealing with measurement. I am sure that if teaching units of measurement were eliminated entirely from the curriculum, students would learn it anyway, just by observing the world and living in society

metre:
What a primitive view of civilisation. Why bother to teach anything at all? After all children have mastered to speak by the time they enrol at school, so what's the point in wasting time on consolidation and exploration?

You obviously think like all other imperialists that Mr. Phelps studies can be dismissed because they don't fit your preconceived ideas? That is of course everyboy's prerogative, but tells us that imperialists arguments have no basis in harsh reality.

Richard P.Phelps:
Does it make a difference in math and science achievement that we confuse our students with two measurement systems? Apparently so. At the 4th grade level in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, American students performed above the international average in all of the seven content areas but one, "measurement, estimation, and number series," where they scored well below the average. By the 8th grade, the overall U.S. performance had slipped relative to other countries', but the average "percent correct" was, at worst, within a few percentage points of the international average in all of the seven content areas but two: geometry, where the U.S. percent correct was 8 percentage points below the average, and measurement, where the percent correct was 11 percentage points below the average.

metre:
What is so hard to grasp in that simple statement?

I would be very obliged if an American poster could tell me how many school hours 1 to 8 graders spend weekly on measurement related subjects. Any takers?

When I was in elementary school (grades 1-5), we had 6 hours of school a day, divided approximately as follows.
1 hour reading/writing/grammar
1 hour math
1 hour science
1 hour social studies (history, geography, etc.)
2 hours activities (gym, art, music, etc.)

The science was purely qualitative. The only place measurement would be encountered would be in math. Math is about a lot more than measurement, but there usually is a chapter on measurement in most books. If you assume that 8 chapters were covered over the course of the year, this gives .125 hours, or about 8 minutes, a week spent on measurement. (Of course, it is not spread out over the entire year.)

In middle school (grades 6-8) there is no formal instruction in measurement. In science classes, it may be necessary to measure when taking observations in a lab.

Re: Metrication re-visited August 26 2004, 8:50 AM

Bud:
The science was purely qualitative. The only place measurement would be encountered would be in math. Math is about a lot more than measurement, but there usually is a chapter on measurement in most books. If you assume that 8 chapters were covered over the course of the year, this gives .125 hours, or about 8 minutes, a week spent on measurement. (Of course, it is not spread out over the entire year.)

In middle school (grades 6-8) there is no formal instruction in measurement. In science classes, it may be necessary to measure when taking observations in a lab.

metre:
Thanks for your figures.
The question I am now confronted with is this, whom shall I consider the expert on that matter, you, or Mr.Phelps?
Considering that Mr. Phelps has put his findings into the public arena in bookform and on the net for everyone to check and contradict, the safe bet would be Mr.Phelps. So far I am not aware of any challenge contradicting his findings. Sure there are hundreds, if not thousand pro imperial/USC articles out there, but all of them deal in wishful thinking only. If you, or anybody else happens to know some analysis that stands up to serious scrutiny please let me know.

Just a reminder.
R.Phelps:
By the 8th grade, the overall U.S. performance had slipped relative to other countries', but the average "percent correct" was, at worst, within a few percentage points of the international average in all of the seven content areas but two: geometry, where the U.S. percent correct was 8 percentage points below the average, and measurement, where the percent correct was 11 percentage points below the average.

Mr. Phelps' quote that you just posted says nothing about measurement. It mentions neither imperial nor metric. It says that math standards in America are fairly poor, which I am quite ready to believe. But it says nothing about measurement.

1968 hours per child anually!! If by some theory children spent a whole EIGHT hours a day learning measurements, it would take them 246 days out of the year to do so! Obviously this in not fact but mere fiction. That sounds like the estimated total time children spend in school a year.
Futhermore has anyone even noticed that most fourth graders haven't learned how to properly deal with fractions yet? It's no wonder 4th graders have trouble reading inch rulers when they havent properly learned their fractions yet.

The real problem arises not with the hours spent in the classroom using the measurements that have been taught but with the hours *not* spent outside the classroom using them.

Re: Metrication re-visited August 27 2004, 8:51 AM

Bud:
Mr. Phelps' quote that you just posted says nothing about measurement. It mentions neither imperial nor metric. It says that math standards in America are fairly poor, which I am quite ready to believe. But it says nothing about measurement.

metre:
How can you overlook the obvious?

Please read it again.
R.Phelps: Verbatim
By the 8th grade, the overall U.S. performance had slipped relative to other countries', but the average "percent correct" was, at worst, within a few percentage points of the international average in all of the seven content areas but two:
geometry, where the U.S. percent correct was 8 percentage points below the average, and MEASUREMENT, where the percent correct was 11 percentage points below the average.

metre:
May I remind you that both Mr.Phelp's excerpts originally posted deal with learning 2 measurements and give statistics that show the disadvantage of the antiquated system.

Fact & Fiction August 28 2004, 4:14 AM

Roth:
1968 hours per child anually!! If by some theory children spent a whole EIGHT hours a day learning measurements, it would take them 246 days out of the year to do so! Obviously this in not fact but mere fiction. That sounds like the estimated total time children spend in school a year.
Futhermore has anyone even noticed that most fourth graders haven't learned how to properly deal with fractions yet? It's no wonder 4th graders have trouble reading inch rulers when they havent properly learned their fractions yet.

metre:
You should buy his book that shows the methodology used to arrive at this figure.
Apart from that, no serious analyst on education issues puts his reputation and livelyhood at risk to come up with unqualified nonsense.

Fractions:
Thanks for your honest observation. Your compatriot (Bud) on this board steadfastly maintains that it is childsplay to read an inch ruler and no amount of contrary evidence will convince him otherwise.

Re: Metrication re-visited August 28 2004, 7:41 AM


Martin:
The real problem arises not with the hours spent in the classroom using the measurements that have been taught but with the hours *not* spent outside the classroom using them.

metre:
Precisely, it makes them, apart from everyday used units, semi illiterate in both.

What is the name of this book? If the library can get it for me then i'll take the time to check it out. I'm not so consumed with the matter as to actually pay money and puchase it however.
As for my comment on 1968 hours annually, I'm just doing basic math there.
Would an explanation for such an excessive amount of hours be online anywhere?

Re: Metrication re-visited August 31 2004, 5:24 AM

Roth:
What is the name of this book? If the library can get it for me then i'll take the time to check it out. I'm not so consumed with the matter as to actually pay money and puchase it however.

metre:
Here is his home page, richardphelps.net/ - 31k

martin:

<<The real problem arises not with the hours spent in the classroom using the measurements that have been taught but with the hours *not* spent outside the classroom using them. >>

When was the last time you used pythagorus's theory in a day 2 day scenario?

You appear to forget that people choose to speak how they feel in measures that they are happy with. In the UK this happens to be imperial with metric sounding rather "scientific".

Steve H wrote

<<
When was the last time you used pythagorus's theory in a day 2 day scenario?
>>

I think that you meant "theorem" not "theory".

In fact last week - I was calculating the distance between two towns using data from the National Grid in response to a letter that I was writing to a newspaper. (The letter was not published - the editor in fact published a letter that was more concise than mine).

"In fact last week - I was calculating the distance between two towns using data from the National Grid in response to a letter that I was writing to a newspaper."

Can I make a suggestion?
Go to www.theaa.com and put the two town names in there (using the routefinder).

"(The letter was not published - the editor in fact published a letter that was more concise than mine)."

Was the published letter in miles, and was your letter in km perchance?

SteveH wrote

<<
Was the published letter in miles, and was your letter in km perchance?
>>

On the contrary - both letters were saying the same thing.

erm, miles?

August 25 2004, 12:18 PM, Steve said: Am I seeing things or is the old man back to regurgitating his old nonsense again?

Response: I, too, seem to remember putting this matter to rest – and quite handily I might add (all pontificating, etc. aside).

Now, regarding the Phelps excerpts. Dual measurement is not the cause of the symptom hinted to in the reading. Teachers these days tend to be more concerned with a child’s self-esteem than its education. Hence, you get studies revealing that American students do much more poorly in math relative to their Japanese and European counterparts; but studies also show that these same Americans feel MUCH better about their math skills than do Japanese and Europeans.

In a recent post, I stated that according to Mr. R.Phelps, American children waste 1968 hours annually on learning two measurement systems. I arrived at that figure by multiplying Mr. Phelps 82 annually wasted school days by 24 hours, which is of course wrong. My unreserved apology for that glaring mistake.

Niles:
Now, regarding the Phelps excerpts. Dual measurement is not the cause of the symptom hinted to in the reading. Teachers these days tend to be more concerned with a childÂ’s self-esteem than its education. Hence, you get studies revealing that American students do much more poorly in math relative to their Japanese and European counterparts; but studies also show that these same Americans feel MUCH better about their math skills than do Japanese and Europeans.

metre:
How do you arrive at that conclusion? Re -read what Mr.Phelps wrote.

>>Does it make a difference in math and science achievement that we confuse our students with two measurement systems? Apparently so. At the 4th grade level in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, American students performed ABOVE the INTERNATIONAL AVERAGE in all of the SEVEN content areas but one, "MEASUREMENT, ESTIMATION, and NUMBER SERIES," where they scored well BELOW the average. By the 8th grade, the overall U.S. performance had slipped relative to other countries', but the average "percent correct" was, at WORST, WITHIN A FEW PERCENTAGE POINTS of the international AVERAGE in all of the seven content areas but two: GEOMETRY, where the U.S. percent correct was 8 percentage points below the average, and MEASUREMENT, where the percent correct was 11 PERCENTAGE points BELOW THE AVERAGE.<<

metre:
To emphasise Mr. Phelps findings, I put the relevant words into upper case. Sorry that blows you theory sky high.

Which conclusion, Eric? (there are at least two that are relevant to my statement) I’ll be happy to field your question, but you’ll have to be a little more specific.

I may have misspoken in my careless haste. Maybe this will confuse you less, Eric.

In my original post, I said “Dual measurement is not the cause of the symptom hinted to in the reading.” Perhaps a more accurate statement would be “Dual measurement is not the cause of the symptom revealed by the Phelps document (as Eric (metre) would have us believe).

Just doing a simple background search on this Mr. Phelps with a basic search engine will reveal that he is not an unbiased educational authority. I'm surprised metre did not bother to check his "Qualifications" before quoting him, but why should he bother when he supports the quote.

"figure by multiplying Mr. Phelps 82 annually wasted school days by 24 hours, which is of course wrong. My unreserved apology for that glaring mistake."



Not very good with measurements are we, eric?

btw can anyone see the irony in him posting the quotes of a certain individual and then making a poor mistake directly interweaved with the intent of his posting?
Mad!

Next he'll be claiming the truth about the Iraq war by using the findings of the great US historian "Michael Moore".

Steve said: Next he'll be claiming the truth about the Iraq war by using the findings of the great US historian "Michael Moore".

Response: So you guys also noticed he makes stuff up, huh? We're told by National Public Radio that all Europeans (lumping the British in there as well -- sorry folks) love Michael Moore and beleive everything he says.

Anyone who can grin in self-satisfaction while talking about Iraqi children being killed like its great to feel over-the-moon at such a horrible thing just for ego-driven political gain is the worst form of scum available.

I think that the main person that talks about how succesful Moore is in Europe is Mr Moore himself - and bear in mind his record for accuracy there!

BTW - there's nothing wrong with associating the UK with Europe, as they *are* our nearest neighbours, I see it as the distinction that "north America" is with "America".

However I - like many of my compatriots - hate being associated with that thing called the "EU"!

Well said. I, either due to media indoctrination or laziness, tend to think of Europe and the 'EU' as the same thing. I apologize. Any percieved slight against Europe in general should be seen as being against the EU. (although, the EU also has good points. For example, I like the fact that they seem to care about what is allowed into your foodchain -- unlike our own FDA that still allows cows which could possibly be infected with mad cow into our foodchain.)

Unfortunately 'Europe' and 'EU' get wrongly associated a lot.

Which is a pain.

Did you say that the EU allows food into the foodchain? ;-)

BTW - I've got a good friend/work colleague called Mike Moore. Poor chap.

Steve said: Did you say that the EU allows food into the foodchain? ;-)

Response: Well, according to NPR (National Public Radio). But then, this is the radio network that would have me believe that only am imperceptible minority of Europeans are not socialist. And no, NPR does not view ‘socialist’ as a derogatory term – they think they are complimenting Europeans when they talk about the laws in some countries that restrict the number of hours in the week and days in the year that one can work (and also their miracle ‘free’ state healthcare systems that are somehow supposed to be magically supported by legislatively created stagnant economies).

Addendum September 1 2004, 6:47 AM

Niles:
I may have misspoken in my careless haste. Maybe this will confuse you less, Eric.

In my original post, I said “Dual measurement is not the cause of the symptom hinted to in the reading.” Perhaps a more accurate statement would be “Dual measurement is not the cause of the symptom revealed by the Phelps document (as Eric (metre) would have us believe).

metre:
So, what is? Please enlighten me.

Re: Metrication re-visited September 1 2004, 7:40 AM

Bud:
Just doing a simple background search on this Mr. Phelps with a basic search engine will reveal that he is not an unbiased educational authority. I'm surprised metre did not bother to check his "Qualifications" before quoting him, but why should he bother when he supports the quote.

metre:

Just leaves me wondering where all the counter arguments are to disprove Mr. Phelps finding? As I said before, Imperialists are incredibly busy writing meaningless defences in support of their antiquated pet subject, but so far none that can be taken seriously.
There is no point in accusing him of blind metric bias if you can't furnish watertight aruments to the contrary.
Mr. Phelps finding has to stand till another study proves it untenable.

Being an USC lover, you obviously never rock the boat. That is fine, but don't hold against other people if they are not as stagnant as you.

Nile:
So you guys also noticed he makes stuff up, huh? We're told by National Public Radio that all Europeans (lumping the British in there as well -- sorry folks) love Michael Moore and beleive everything he says.

metre:
All Europeans is somewhat exaggerated, but most thinking ones do.
You guys need to learn the basic difference between making something up compared to presenting something in a way that well and truly drives stupidity home. The lying took and takes place on the Bush side and only blind bats haven't seen that yet.

eric(metre) asks: “So what is?” (referring to my statement ‘Dual measurement is not the cause of the symptom revealed by the Phelps document (as Eric (metre) would have us believe).’)

Response: Please refer to my post of August 31 2004, 11:35 PM. Res ipsa loquitur.

re (SteveH): "...there's nothing wrong with associating the UK with Europe, as they *are* our nearest neighbours, I see it as the distinction that "north America" is with "America". However I - like many of my compatriots - hate being associated with that thing called the "EU"!"

REPLY:

There is a popular saying which goes like this:

"The Atlantic Ocean is smaller than the English Channel.
Across the Channel are neighbours.
Across the Atlantic Ocean are family"

Since I first heard it, I thought that this had a lot of force, despite my ancestry being 50% Central European.

Nearly all British opinion poll surveys show that the ratio of those who feel closer to America than Europe is always around 2:1, with some saying that there is no difference. It may well be that there is a slight shift over time towards feeling closer to Europe. It seems that tens of millions of holidays to Spain have not brought us any closer to Europe

Re: Metrication re-visited September 2 2004, 2:37 PM

Niles:
Response: Please refer to my post of August 31 2004, 11:35 PM. Res ipsa loquitur.

metre:
I did, and it makes still no sense.

Niles:
Response 31 2004, 11:35 PM. ipsa loquitur

metre:
Sorry I missed that one "Res ipsa loquitur"

I am not impressed by your latin, but I am dissapointed about your obscure answer.

eric said: I am not impressed by your latin.

Response: And this affects me... how?

Since you have read my response twice and still have not comprehended it, let me parse it for you:

If children do poorly on academic problems dealing with measurement, the problem lies not with the existence of two measurement systems, but with the quality and focus of the teaching.

Metre, consider the controlled variables and experimental variables in Mr. Phelps' study.

Controlled variables: none (The US and other countries are very different in many ways, and he made no noticeable effort to take this into account.)
Experimental variable: he claims it is the fact that the US has 2 systems of measurement, but I can name a hundred others (that should have been controlled but weren't).

In any case, if the Republican National Committee does a study and says that Bush is the best candidate for president, you can't believe it, even in the absence of proof to the contrary. Similarly, when a member of USMA does a study and says metric is better, it cannot be believed. (I do not know that he is a member, but he definitely agrees with them.)

Martin,

Could you find out if Mr Phelps (what's all this "Mr" stuff) is a member of USMA?

Cheers pal.

All this Mr stuff is due to the fact that we do not know him. If I do not know a person, I refer to them as their name-entire, their surname, or as Mr./Mrs./Miss <insert surname here>.

Incidentally, soemthing that really annoys me is people who refers to celebrities as if they know them, and by their first name. "Oh my God, have you seen Drew's clothes lately?" "Who the hell is Drew?" "Ya know, Drew Barrymore". This is a true story, people. I hate it.

Steve, I have no idea whetehr or not Mr Phelps is a member of USMA. His employer's (Pelavin Research) website can however be viewed at

http://www.air-dc.org/site_descriptions/mainoffice-main.htm

Anotehr of Richard Phelp's publications can be viewed at
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs96/96003.pdf

I will leave you to read through his works and to find other refernces to him on the web. (There are lots of them).