[Luca]

I say it is. We spend so little time writing things by hand these days that a minuscule time savings at the cost of legibility is simply not worth any amount of time or effort. Most people who write in cursive are so bad at it that I can't even read what they write. At least with scrawled printing I can read what they're saying. And good-looking, legible cursive is not only a rarity but it's also almost as time-consuming to write as quick printing.

I could see spending a little time just to teach kids enough to be able to read cursive, but there's no point in teaching them how to write it, much less require them to write their papers in it. In third grade I was already typing up and printing out papers for my class, not writing them by hand.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/...ndwriting.html

Teachers maintain that the unending demands of modern education make it nearly impossible to fit cursive handwriting into the curriculum. Technology’s ever increasing presence requires that educators devote more time to teaching media literacy. Add to that the demands of No Child Left Behind, and there’s little time left for the beautiful, yet impractical ancient handwriting tradition. Diane Desmond, a fourth grade teacher in Massachusetts, told The Boston Globe that the importance of test scores has led to a noticeable decline in students learning cursive. “Cursive was always taught in the third grade,” she said. “In the last four or five years, I've had more students who have trouble with it. … They have trouble reading it, too.” The issue has some teachers and experts concerned. Susan Reimer of The Baltimore Sun writes, “There are real scholars on this subject who worry that the next generation will not be able to read the Declaration of Independence because it is written in something that looks like hieroglyphics to them.” Furthermore, according to Reimer, cursive is still taught in Maryland elementary schools, but “testing required by No Child Left Behind and new state standards” leave little time for it. “Teachers are more likely to spend time on keyboarding skills, and they believe their students write more and write better when they type,” she reports. The Globe reports that a 2007 Vanderbilt University survey found that though most U.S. elementary schools do teach script, only 12 percent of teachers were adequately trained to teach it. Many see cursive's decline as part of a shift developing in teaching methods, and in the way educators relate to students. With the variety and complexity of demands facing teachers and students today, skills like cursive that are not considered marketable or progressive can easily be forgotten. According to BusinessWeek, memorization is also not as applicable to students “now that a Google search delivers vast storehouses of information in seconds.” Research and analysis skills are more important, and educators may need to allow even more technology—mobile devices, for instance—to infiltrate the classroom “to further the educational mission of the school.”

[pscates2.0]

I've not written this way in ages. I remember hating it in school, all the looping and curly stuff.

"Can I just write regular?"



I currently write in a weird half-print/half-scrawl (it's pretty awful, and gets worse the longer I write). But I type about 3,000 wpm, so...



But it is kinda sad to know that traditional, old-school letter-writing and correspondence will go the way of the horse and buggy. Probably in my lifetime. Once my little niece and nephew (currently five- and three-years-old) reach their 20's or 30's, nobody will be left who does it "the old way". And people like me will be 65, rocking the 11th-generation iPhone and writing on my 35" iMac. I probably won't even have a pen or notebook in my house.

[PKIDelirium]

I only use cursive for my signature, and even then, I often get lazy and just scrawl it. I always hated it.

[zippy]

I say ditch it. To use the 'ability to read the Declaration of Independence' as a reason why it should still be taught is grasping at straws. It's not like you can't get it in type on the Internet in 3 seconds. And the last time I tried to read it in person was... um, never?

If someone wanted to learn cursive later in life, they should be able to tackle it in about a week assuming average intelligence. It's not rocket science.

[Kickaha]

As long as it's faster than block printing by hand, it has a use.

I'm firmly of the belief that typing something into a computer is a great way to keep a note about it, but *writing* it cements it in the brain much, much better.

[kretara]

My wife threw a fit when she found out our 9 yo was not being taught cursive in school. The teachers said they couldn't fit it in.
I said F' it. Cursive sucks and we have no need of it anymore. The teachers agreed.

My poor kid has to 'study' cursive at home now. LOL!!!

My teachers asked me to NOT write in cursive because I have such bad writing. Plus, I write super tiny

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Kickaha As long as it's faster than block printing by hand, it has a use. I'm firmly of the belief that typing something into a computer is a great way to keep a note about it, but *writing* it cements it in the brain much, much better.

Given how little time we spend actually writing things by hand anymore, I doubt it saves enough time to offset the extra time needed to teach everyone how to read and write it. Also, it takes longer to read, completely offsetting the time savings. I learned cursive in third grade like most others yet I have major difficulty reading the writing from one of my coworkers and I often have to go to her and ask for clarification on several things when she leaves me notes. If her handwriting was equally bad but in print instead, at least I'd be able to read it. That's not the case with most people who write in cursive - most of my coworkers, being older, tend to use it as well, and I've only ever had a problem with this one woman - but it happens often enough that I think it's not worth it. I can't read my mom's cursive either.

Handwriting is still important, but maintaining two writing systems is unnecessary. Saving 1-2 seconds when you write a note in cursive vs. printing isn't worth the hassle.

[pscates2.0]

It's been a while since I've actually attempted to write in that cursive style I learned in school.

Here are the terrifying results, starting on line three...



The first line is my normal, quick-note-taking. Only I can read it, after a few paragraphs. The second line is me slowing down...that's about as neat as I can get and still write with any sort of speed or efficiency.

The third and fourth lines are me realizing I've forgotten how much loops, swoops, tails and "ligatures" to make, where they go, etc. It was quite funny, as I was writing (notice my "w" has about three lower arcs).

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Luca Given how little time we spend actually writing things by hand anymore, I doubt it saves enough time to offset the extra time needed to teach everyone how to read and write it.

And yet we whinge and wring our hands over milliseconds saved on computing tasks...

Also, it takes longer to read, completely offsetting the time savings.

Huh, what? Not unless someone's writing is horrible. At which point you're in a circular argument: because we don't teach it, quality drops, which means we shouldn't teach it.

I learned cursive in third grade like most others yet I have major difficulty reading the writing from one of my coworkers and I often have to go to her and ask for clarification on several things when she leaves me notes. If her handwriting was equally bad but in print instead, at least I'd be able to read it.

Sorry, that makes no sense. If it's unreadably bad, it's unreadably bad.

That's not the case with most people who write in cursive - most of my coworkers, being older, tend to use it as well, and I've only ever had a problem with this one woman - but it happens often enough that I think it's not worth it. I can't read my mom's cursive either.

So because two people can't be bothered, we should all ditch it? Sorry, don't buy that either.

Handwriting is still important, but maintaining two writing systems is unnecessary. Saving 1-2 seconds when you write a note in cursive vs. printing isn't worth the hassle.

It is when it's a lecture you're trying to keep up with. Computer entry absolutely sucks for mathematics, graphics, and a multitude of other information types that are necessary for basic education. Writing is critical for data retention in such cases, and speed is similarly critical. Therefore, ergo, and QED: quick writing styles should be taught, and cursive is the most common and a good solution.

And I say this as someone whose cursive is pretty bad - the vast majority of my notes are in about 6pt block print. 0.5mm mechanical pencil FTW. I can whip out something that looks like architect blueprint font *almost* as fast as cursive - but I kick back into cursive when I need raw speed.

[Dorian Gray]

That's probably as good as mine, pscates2.0.

There is a good deal of sentimentality attached to cursive handwriting (we called it joint writing in my primary school), but I don't see it as having much more practical value today than knowing how to use a slide rule (which also has its beauty). Frankly, even when I was in primary school (I'm 27) it wasn't considered terribly important. I emerged from primary school with a semi-cursive writing style that I still have today.

Kickaha, if speed is so important perhaps we should all learn stenography?

And speaking of speed, typing is faster than any handwriting, if you touch type well. Yet at least in the UK the average kid emerges from high school with woeful self-taught typing skills, lots of bad habits, and maybe 50 or 60 words per minute on a good day. Surely touch typing is more important than cursive handwriting?

Writing personal letters is another thing that is clearly falling out of custom. I suppose my generation is really the last one to keep bunches of letters in shoe boxes. Even the average twenty-year-old has written only a handful of letters in his or her lifetime.

[kretara]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Huh, what? Not unless someone's writing is horrible. At which point you're in a circular argument: because we don't teach it, quality drops, which means we shouldn't teach it.

I was taught cursive in third or fourth grade and had to use it (despite my poor handwriting. Some teachers made me turn in 2 papers -- one in cursive and a copy in print) through college.

I find ANY cursive, and I don't care how nice your handwriting is, to be almost unreadable. It takes me 4-5 times longer to read anything in cursive than it does in print.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Kickaha, if speed is so important perhaps we should all learn stenography?

Not a bad thought, and one I considered learning myself, when an undergrad. Would have come in handy.

And speaking of speed, typing is faster than any handwriting, if you touch type well. Yet at least in the UK the average kid emerges from high school with woeful self-taught typing skills, lots of bad habits, and maybe 50 or 60 words per minute on a good day. Surely touch typing is more important than cursive handwriting?

I dare them to type a calculus lecture, or a physics lecture. As I said earlier, paper and pen/pencil isn't going to go away for certain types of data. At least, not until we can just sketch on a screen as well, simply and efficiently as on paper. We're still not there. Not everything can be represented on a keyboard.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by kretara I was taught cursive in third or fourth grade and had to use it (despite my poor handwriting. Some teachers made me turn in 2 papers -- one in cursive and a copy in print) through college. I find ANY cursive, and I don't care how nice your handwriting is, to be almost unreadable. It takes me 4-5 times longer to read anything in cursive than it does in print.

That's just bizarre, IMO. Never had that problem, unless, as Luca said, the cursive is just horrible. But then, horrible print handwriting is just as hard to read. Horrible is as horrible reads.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Not a bad thought, and one I considered learning myself, when an undergrad. Would have come in handy.

I considered it too, even going as far as buying a book on it. That's as far as I got!

[Kickaha]

Quitter!

(Hey, I never even bought the book... )

[Banana]

Just to indulge my curiosity, are horrible handwriting a result of inefficient writing system?

Put it other way- if we had a different alphabet set that was easier to write, would it facilitate handwriting?

Yet another question- I don't know a squat how it works out nowadays in Asian countries, but I understand that historically they put a lot of emphasis on calligraphy- it was *necessary* that your calligraphy be up to snuff, else it could never convey the meaning correctly. Does this system still work?

I suppose I'm trying to figure out if we have the "Windows" version of alphabet and whether we should be looking for "Mac OS X" version.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Banana Put it other way- if we had a different alphabet set that was easier to write, would it facilitate handwriting?

Yep. We're just waiting on a Dvorak for Arabic.

[Luca]

Sorry Kick, but I can't disagree with you more on this. I've seen horrible print and while it's not fun to read, I can usually figure it out. But anything less than perfect cursive is almost unreadable for me. I find most cursive to be an absolute mess, made worse by the fact that it's usually written in smudged pencil or too-thick pen. The best I can hope for is a cursive-printing hybrid, where, for instance, you might have cursive-style letters that are written much more separately than in traditional cursive, with very little emphasis on the little trails connecting one letter to the next.

The only time cursive is useful is, as you say, for taking notes, where its speed can actually help. But unless you are a cursive master, those notes will be unreadable even to the writer. It seems you have a gift for deciphering cursive that most do not have.

Hell, why not also teach calligraphy? It's about as useful as cursive these days.

Kretara, you mean your college professors made you turn in assignments in cursive? You must be older than me... by 5th or 6th grade, cursive was no longer required, and I remember being so happy to be rid of it.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Luca Sorry Kick, but I can't disagree with you more on this. I've seen horrible print and while it's not fun to read, I can usually figure it out. But anything less than perfect cursive is almost unreadable for me. I find most cursive to be an absolute mess, made worse by the fact that it's usually written in smudged pencil or too-thick pen. The best I can hope for is a cursive-printing hybrid, where, for instance, you might have cursive-style letters that are written much more separately than in traditional cursive, with very little emphasis on the little trails connecting one letter to the next.

I'm beginning to think you have a faulty pattern recognition unit.

The only time cursive is useful is, as you say, for taking notes, where its speed can actually help. But unless you are a cursive master, those notes will be unreadable even to the writer. It seems you have a gift for deciphering cursive that most do not have.

Possible, but I'm not willing to put one anecdotal data point up against another to determine a general policy on this.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Kickaha I'm beginning to think you have a faulty pattern recognition unit.

I wish I had an example to show you. Alas, at the moment, I don't. All I can say is the coworker whose writing I can't read does not close her o's or a's at the top, and her s's aren't little wedge-shaped things but rather just simple loops easily confused with o's, and anytime there are several m's, n's, r's, or other similar letters in a row, it all turns into just a bunch of random peaks that could mean any number of things. But seriously, even if you think cursive is just as easy to read as printing, just look at what people are saying... a LOT of people have trouble reading cursive, not just me and a few others. That alone should be reason enough to kill it. Printing is easier to write and easier to read, and there's no need to waste any class time teaching kids an obsolete second writing system.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Luca I wish I had an example to show you. Alas, at the moment, I don't. All I can say is the coworker whose writing I can't read does not close her o's or a's at the top, and her s's aren't little wedge-shaped things but rather just simple loops easily confused with o's, and anytime there are several m's, n's, r's, or other similar letters in a row, it all turns into just a bunch of random peaks that could mean any number of things.

Showing *an* example of really horrid cursive doesn't show a trend, it just shows *an* example of really horrid cursive - and I'd probably agree that it's horrid. This coworker should probably stop using it.

But seriously, even if you think cursive is just as easy to read as printing, just look at what people are saying... a LOT of people have trouble reading cursive, not just me and a few others. That alone should be reason enough to kill it.

Perhaps we're just each reading what we want to here, but I see people saying "Some people's horrible cursive is hard to read", and you see people saying "Cursive is hard to read". Just because some people have horrible cursive isn't a reason to ditch the baby with the bathwater, any more than because some people can't spell is any reason to stop teaching spelling. i meen unles u thnk this iz k, sins u kan reed et allsew...

Printing is easier to write and easier to read, and there's no need to waste any class time teaching kids an obsolete second writing system.

Morse code is even more unambiguously clear... Seriously, there are multiple vectors of requirements here, and it won't be really obsolete until it is trumped on all of them. Consider cursive advanced writing. Some people can do it, some can't. I think Dorian's suggestion of stenography is a great idea, personally. Even faster, and designed for readability even when a bit wonky.

[flounder]

When I was in elementary school we had to learn denelian. If you don't know what that is, count yourself as lucky.

It was supposed to help transition you into writing cursive, but all it accomplishes is ruining the quality of your printing.

[Banana]

What I never got was why they didn't just teach kids to use the same stenographer they use in courts instead of QWERTY or Dorky keyboard. Seems to me if we train a generation of kid on this thing, we'd be seeing >100 WPM even for slowest typists.

Same applies to handwriting, I can't but wonder if the writing system is ineffective and the poor handwriting are more of symptom than a indictment against one's pensmanship...

But what do I know?

[Naderfan]

I agree with Luca - most people's cursive that I've seen is indecipherable. And that includes people from older generations who wrote just about everything.

A part of me hates to see it die, simply because it seems important (as a historian, when you're doing research you run into a lot of handwritten stuff), but I think it'll become like calligraphy - a specialized form of writing that some folks decide to take up for fun.

And getting rid of cursive doesn't mean getting rid of paper and pencil...it would just mean more printing, which seems to be what most kids revert to anyway.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Perhaps we're just each reading what we want to here, but I see people saying "Some people's horrible cursive is hard to read", and you see people saying "Cursive is hard to read". Just because some people have horrible cursive isn't a reason to ditch the baby with the bathwater, any more than because some people can't spell is any reason to stop teaching spelling. i meen unles u thnk this iz k, sins u kan reed et allsew...

I'd say that in my experience, most people have pretty poor handwriting, and furthermore, if they write in printing it's at least readable. Cursive turns into a garbled mess so quickly if you're not good at it and I can't stand it when people use it for anything that is to be read by someone other than the writer. In light of that...

Originally Posted by Kickaha Consider cursive advanced writing. Some people can do it, some can't. I think Dorian's suggestion of stenography is a great idea, personally. Even faster, and designed for readability even when a bit wonky.

I think cursive should be removed from early elementary school because it's not a useful form of writing but for one thing - taking notes. As you said, especially in math and science classes, handwritten notes are way better than computer notes for formulas and so on. So have a "study skills" class that kids take at some point during junior high where they learn not just cursive, but other shorthand and notetaking techniques. Then those students will not see cursive as "that annoying writing we have to do" and "used for papers and other formal things that others will read," but rather as a form of quick and dirty writing that helps you take notes for yourself.

[Foj]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Here are the terrifying results, starting on line three...

Geez, that looks like some kind of a ransom note.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Luca I think cursive should be removed from early elementary school because it's not a useful form of writing but for one thing - taking notes. As you said, especially in math and science classes, handwritten notes are way better than computer notes for formulas and so on. So have a "study skills" class that kids take at some point during junior high where they learn not just cursive, but other shorthand and notetaking techniques. Then those students will not see cursive as "that annoying writing we have to do" and "used for papers and other formal things that others will read," but rather as a form of quick and dirty writing that helps you take notes for yourself.

I could get behind that, as long as kids were taught to *read* clear examples of cursive writing early on. Let the be able to read cursive, but not necessarily teach them to write it unless, as you suggest, they need it for speed. Think of it as backward compatibility.

[zippy]

I don't buy the speed argument Kick. Go peddle yer crap on some other street corner.

I learned cursive in 3rd grade - back when it was considered very important and hand ample time dedicated to it's teachings. We had to use it exclusively through junior high - that's about 5 1/2 years.

In those 5 1/2 years, I never achieved any speed advantage over my standard handwriting. As soon as I was allowed to go back to printing, I did - with no loss in speed. And as others have said, that the faster you write, the harder it is to read. Same goes with printing, but at least it's still legible (usually). If you can set some blazing speed marks with your cursive, more power to you. But you're probably the only one who can read it when you're done.

[Kickaha]

Sorry, zip, but that's what the purpose of cursive is *for*... you don't have to lift your pen/pencil from the page in between letters, so it is faster. Maybe you were just slow.

Further, look at the design of the letters - the 's' in particular, reduces the amount of distance you have to traverse to hit the significant features of the letter. If you eliminate the 'connecting lines' between letters, cursive and printing are almost identical. Just print without lifting your pen, and you're 90% of the way to cursive.

[Kraetos]

I'd like to see the time devoted to cursive be reallocated to teach typing and basic computer skills. I'm a 21 year old college student, and there are still a number of people around me who barely know how to use Word.

Basically, there needs to be a lot more time dedicated to computer literacy in American grade schools than there currently is.

I 100% agree with Kick on one thing, though: taking math notes on a computer is a PITA. Ironically, in my English and Government classes, I could (but I don't) take notes on my laptop. But in my computer hardware class, I have to take notes on paper! Circuit diagrams, karnaugh maps, hex arithmetic... all much easier to do on paper than through a keyboard on the first pass. Seems backwards, right?

You can pry my black Pilot 0.7mm G2 gel pen and college-ruled notebook from my cold, dead fingers. It's how I take all my notes. Thing about notes is, I rarely reference them later. Especially considering most of my professors post their notes online. I take notes because the act of writing it helps me assimilate the information, and a pen is more conducive to those ends than a keyboard is.

I still don't think cursive is necessarily a worthwhile skill to teach, though. When I was in elementary school, we all learned cursive in second grade, and we all switched back in third grade. I just think that the loss of readability isn't worth the slight speed increase, and there are other, more important things to be learning at that developmental phase, like computer basics.