This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Indiana curses the cursive: No more cursive writing in curriculum
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Sweetscot
Incidentally besides all the other arguments posed thus far, there is also the point to be made that in written communication, cursive is the standard way for educated adults to write. It seems reasonable to me that learning cursive can be seen analogously to learning complicated grammatical forms or uncommon vocabulary - we don't do it purely for some proven objective advantage, but because being unfamiliar with such knowledge generally places one outside the norms of educated society.
The issue is that it has become more "because being unfamiliar with such knowledge generally place[] one outside the norms of educated society" because people so seldom communicate by written word anymore. Everything is typed or entered into a computer form, who would even know if you couldnt write in cursive now?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
coursework, job applications, memoranda
All of these I've completed by computer. When I have completed forms, they've given strict instructions to complete them in "BLOCK CAPITALS" (or at least print) and in black ink.
Besides, if they're going to judge on the basis of legibility of written work for any job where that isn't a necessity, I'd probably have grounds to file suit in my country under the basis of Disability and Equality act since my dyspraxia precludes me from being able to write legibly. I also type at approximately double my writing speed.
I don't follow. After however many lessons of what?
Lessons on how to do cursive. When one is writing with a deadline, legibility is the last concern... One fellow might not join an "x", another might not bother to dot his "i".
Again, this especially breaks down in the UK where a minority of letters are even joined up. I specifically remember being mocked because I joined capitals to non-capitals and other such trivial mistakes.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Who suggested anyone would "judge on the basis of legibility"?
cursive is the standard way for educated adults to write.
Post by
613797
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Thror
CURSE OF THE CURSIVE!
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Snark is not helpful.
You seem to be responding to points only vaguely related to things I've said.
In context, you stated that an educated adult would need to use cursive for job applications, stating that "everyone writes cursive eventually" and "more legible to others" (than a non-standard version of joined up writing). Should I pursue a job application which requires hand-writing, I would have grounds to file suit should they dismiss my application for not utilising the "standard way for educated adults to write".Where's the disconnect?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I'm simply pointing out that the way we communicate influences how people see us
I'm simply pointing out that should someone judge me because I cannot handwrite to the standards they require, I would have a legal case against them. Likewise if someone is passed over for their job based on the fact that they were born outside of the country. I don't think I'm constructing a strawman out of your argument, merely that you're disowning the logical consequences of it.
Incidentally one question that's gone unasked here is, why teach printing? Cursive is designed to be handwritten; printed letter forms were made for, er, printing (of the mechanical sort). If we're only going to teach one I'd say we'd be better off with cursive.
That'd be a poor approach because the wealth of literature and learning materials related to handwriting are printed. Children would have to learn how to draw the cursive and printed iteration of characters and would most likely start writing in print anyway. I've certainly never seen a child younger than about 7 join their writing.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
"well if an employer passes me over for a job because of my clothes accent I'll sue them"
Now this is a strawman. I'm talking about what's covered under employment law in the UK. Sure, they may make unconscious decisions, I'm not denying that. I am contending that they don't have the legal right to do so here, which is why it's not a good defence for learning cursive anyway.
Likewise people will gain familiarity with both forms no matter what we do; one cannot become a literate adult without doing so, the only question is which one to have kids explicitly practice earliest.
Cursive also comes in many forms if you look it up. Should children be forced to learn them all to suit whichever employer or member of the higher echelons of society they want to impress? The form of cursive dyspraxics find easier is likely less legible on the whole than someone writing with their feet. Dyspraxic children tend to also find writing with a pen easier, but in England at least, they insist all children use pencils until children are about 9 or 10 so that they can correct their mistakes. As I pointed out, dyspraxics also find it far, far easier to type rather than to handwrite at all, but that is rarely accommodated until tertiary education.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
They don't have the legal right to make unconscious decisions? I don't even know what that would mean. Either knowing cursive is something society generally expects of educated adults or it isn't; if it is, then it's a disservice to kids to lightly remove it from their curriculum. UK employment laws are not at issue, they relate only to one illustration of one argument for the issue.
Sorry, I was in a rush to get to a lecture. They don't have the legal right to discriminate on the basis of handwriting in the UK, at least in the case of individuals with dyspraxia. They might unconsciously store that information as "ah, this individual doesn't take proper care in writing", but should there be evidence that they systematically reject people on that basis, they could lose their own job.
The original contention was that being able to write in cursive is as superfluous to most people's work due to the prevalence of typed communication. I'd say for most people it's no more useful than being able to tell an Aligoté from a Chardonnay, how to distinguish whether a fork is a fish fork or a salad fork and where to deposit cutlery depending on whether one has finished a meal or wants to resume at some point (this is still used as a form of subtle discrimination at Oxford interviews, inexplicably, since it's saturated the public unconscious) and would be vastly inferior to knowing whether to ask for the toilet or the lavatory in England.
In short, using "job applications" for discriminating against those not utilising cursive really is indefensible.
Do you think something I wrote implied that society generally expects educated adults to know every form of cursive? If so, what was it? If not, you don't need me to answer this.
You've proposed that a system of cursive is the fastest and most legible system and that in order to write in cursive efficiently, one has to be taught it. The prevalence of multiple competing methods of writing in cursive challenges this view (is there an empirical way to determine which is fastest, or does it depend on the individual?) - especially if one employer is biased towards a system common to Berkley, say. Typing courses are far more practical, Latin (or calligraphy) courses more useful for appearing sophisticated. Just as an aside, calculus comes in handy for determining dps cycles and the Magna Carta can be used in support of an encoded constitution in the UK.
These are fine arguments in favor of using pens and/or typing in education, but what do they have to do with printing vs. cursive?
Well, that was mainly in response to this "I googled dyspraxia and cursive and the links I checked all seemed to suggest that kids with dyspraxia generally prefer cursive or find it easier". If one is really concerned with ensuring dyspraxic kids keep up with their peers in writing assignments, the optimal solution is to provide 'em with a PC at first opportunity.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I'd assume that dyspraxics find flowing handwriting easier, but I'm not sure if teachers would rate it as being either legible or a recognised style of cursive. I'd find it hard to believe that they'd find more intricate styles of cursive simpler; I was certainly massively relieved when it was no longer a requirement for written assignments.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.