As long as I'm web browsing
I know conuly discusses this sometimes, but I happened to stumble upon this article about someone who is shocked and dismayed that schools do not necessarily still teach cursive. And it is full of how people who can't write in cursive are at a serious disadvantage. Which I find ... laughable. Really ridiculous.
I was taught cursive. We started it in second grade. It was mandatory in third grade. By sixth grade though all of my teachers made it clear that assignments were to be handed in in print.
I have kept over a dozen hand-written journals. Almost all of them were in print. I used cursive only when I wanted a small degree of extra security for my writing, because I knew that it would make it far more unpleasant for anyone to read what I had written, myself included.
I wrote ... I have no idea how many letters - those paper things, with stamps - to people over the years, including love letters. I wrote them in print.
I took notes in college, by hand. I did so in print.
Not writing cursive is not the same thing as not being able to write. I haven't seen anyone suggesting we not teach children how to write. And I haven't seen much of a benefit to cursive. It's no faster than print. It's harder to read. Maybe for some people it isn't. I probably have dysgraphia (it's related to dyslexia, but it's a disorder of output that affects one's ability to write rather than one of input that affects one's ability to read), and that makes writing particularly difficult for me. Print is a problem too, but cursive is definitely worse, because it's connected, so when my hand goes the wrong way, as it inevitably will now and then, it makes it even messier and more illegible. The spacing between letters makes it easier to read print, probably much the same way that a bit of space between spoken words makes it so much easier to understand spoken speech. People without difficulties processing things might not notice the difference.
Anyhow, as print has a few small advantages, and I've never found any advantage to cursive other than that I felt very proud to be learning it in second grade and impressed that one of my classmates already knew how to write her name in cursive before we started studying it, I just don't see the point.
As to signatures, you can invent a signature out of print or out of cursive. Again, we're not discussing not teaching children how to write. And I honestly have trouble believing those stories or if they happened that cursive would have been enough to fix it, because if all the people needed was the ability to write, I doubt they lacked it.
And if we really wanted to spend a lot of time in school teaching a system of writing - and it was a lot of time, daily drills every single school day for years at my school - then maybe we can consider spending the time on something useful like shorthand? I never learned it, but it certainly does seem useful. And it would solve a lot of those problems of people needing to take notes quickly and by hand. Did you know that some alphabets don't even have a print/cursive distinction? It's not like it's inherent that if there is to be writing you need to learn four forms for every letter (since English also has case distinctions, which again not every alphabet does, and then those case distinctions vary between print and cursive). Four forms for every single letter... that really is a lot if you think about it.
Admittedly, my first through third grade teacher found time to have us do it and still have cool assignments like create a self portrait in the style of Modigliani. But as an adult, while I appreciate the way both enriched my education, I've really only used cursive about as much as I've used self portraits in the style of Modigliani. I don't resent the time I spent on it, but if teachers think they could spend the time on something better, I don't mind education adapting to what the world is like now and what it is developing into. I'll save my outrage for those who don't want to teach blind children to read and write at all or those who want to switch over from grade two Braille to grade one Braille. I'm all for literacy - reading and writing - but there's a huge difference between not teaching a particular form of writing and not teaching writing at all.
I was taught cursive. We started it in second grade. It was mandatory in third grade. By sixth grade though all of my teachers made it clear that assignments were to be handed in in print.
I have kept over a dozen hand-written journals. Almost all of them were in print. I used cursive only when I wanted a small degree of extra security for my writing, because I knew that it would make it far more unpleasant for anyone to read what I had written, myself included.
I wrote ... I have no idea how many letters - those paper things, with stamps - to people over the years, including love letters. I wrote them in print.
I took notes in college, by hand. I did so in print.
Not writing cursive is not the same thing as not being able to write. I haven't seen anyone suggesting we not teach children how to write. And I haven't seen much of a benefit to cursive. It's no faster than print. It's harder to read. Maybe for some people it isn't. I probably have dysgraphia (it's related to dyslexia, but it's a disorder of output that affects one's ability to write rather than one of input that affects one's ability to read), and that makes writing particularly difficult for me. Print is a problem too, but cursive is definitely worse, because it's connected, so when my hand goes the wrong way, as it inevitably will now and then, it makes it even messier and more illegible. The spacing between letters makes it easier to read print, probably much the same way that a bit of space between spoken words makes it so much easier to understand spoken speech. People without difficulties processing things might not notice the difference.
Anyhow, as print has a few small advantages, and I've never found any advantage to cursive other than that I felt very proud to be learning it in second grade and impressed that one of my classmates already knew how to write her name in cursive before we started studying it, I just don't see the point.
As to signatures, you can invent a signature out of print or out of cursive. Again, we're not discussing not teaching children how to write. And I honestly have trouble believing those stories or if they happened that cursive would have been enough to fix it, because if all the people needed was the ability to write, I doubt they lacked it.
And if we really wanted to spend a lot of time in school teaching a system of writing - and it was a lot of time, daily drills every single school day for years at my school - then maybe we can consider spending the time on something useful like shorthand? I never learned it, but it certainly does seem useful. And it would solve a lot of those problems of people needing to take notes quickly and by hand. Did you know that some alphabets don't even have a print/cursive distinction? It's not like it's inherent that if there is to be writing you need to learn four forms for every letter (since English also has case distinctions, which again not every alphabet does, and then those case distinctions vary between print and cursive). Four forms for every single letter... that really is a lot if you think about it.
Admittedly, my first through third grade teacher found time to have us do it and still have cool assignments like create a self portrait in the style of Modigliani. But as an adult, while I appreciate the way both enriched my education, I've really only used cursive about as much as I've used self portraits in the style of Modigliani. I don't resent the time I spent on it, but if teachers think they could spend the time on something better, I don't mind education adapting to what the world is like now and what it is developing into. I'll save my outrage for those who don't want to teach blind children to read and write at all or those who want to switch over from grade two Braille to grade one Braille. I'm all for literacy - reading and writing - but there's a huge difference between not teaching a particular form of writing and not teaching writing at all.