Metric is vastly easier, and fully as precise as our system. But if you grew up on our system, the transition is painful. The worst situation is a helter skelter mix of the two, which is what we have in the US.
So, is it a good idea to have engineers who can only work with the "vastly easier" system designing aircraft and bridges?
Working with a slide rule can be tedious, but do we want people who don't have the capacity to deal with a slide rule designing spacecraft?
Digital calculators make arithmetic problems simple and easy, but do we want people who never develop enough number sense to solve 297^2 / 17^3 using a pencil and paper designing nuclear reactors?
Wrong questions. Irrelevant.
You can find the number of sheep in a flock by counting the legs and dividing by four. But there is an easier way.
There are a great many engineers in the world who design aircraft and bridges using only the metric system, or use the old system only incidentally. They seem to be doing alright.
SLIDE RULE???? Dear me. 'Tis quaint. At one time, I was very proficient with mine. I keep it as a momento. Haven't had reason to seriously use it in about 50 years.
Whether a person can or can't calculate squares and quotients by hand is irrelevant to the discussion of which system is better.
I have no stake in persuading you. I'm quite happy to let you work in whatever system you like. But I do take exception when some of the other posters give foolish and uninformed reasons for their choice, or resort to name calling.
