Why do they bother to teach us cursive in school?

September 25, 2005 10:44 AM

Why do they bother to teach us cursive in school?

When I was in elementry school, they spent a whole lot of time teaching us cursive handwriting. Why? What made them think that cursive was an essential life skill? Wouldn't that time have been better spent teaching us math or reading?

posted by afroblanca to education (102 comments total)

I thought cursive was a way to speed up handwriting...

maybe today in the digital world, it isn't as necessary anymore?
posted by phredhead at 10:46 AM on September 25, 2005

Before the ubiquitous presence of computers, knowing how to write on paper was a critical life skill.
posted by Rothko at 10:47 AM on September 25, 2005

I'm a proficient writer, yet I find writing in a mixture of cursive and print to be fastest. On some combinations, cursive wins for speed (d to e, f to u, u to l, are good examples) but for legibility, print wins nearly every time.

Fact is, they spent a lot of time teaching us a lot of useless stuff at school. I'm appalled that people generally leave school having spent a couple years learning French or chemistry, yet have no idea about economics, law, how to handle their personal finances, how to run a business, or how to behave in society.
posted by wackybrit at 11:02 AM on September 25, 2005

Momentum probably
posted by delmoi at 11:05 AM on September 25, 2005

but for legibility, print wins nearly every time

Well, that's part of the reason they teach you cursive: if you have good penmanship, your cursive is legible to people who have also learned cursive, and it is much faster to write.

And wackybrit, school is all about how to behave in society: shut up, sit down, and do what you're told. As for the subject matter, generally schools don't teach you vocational things because the world teaches you vocational things. School is the place for learning things that are worthwhile but whose uses are not obvious. My life was certainly enriched by learning French and chemistry, and the the skills I used to learn such are applicable in learning anything else after--like how to run a business.
posted by dame at 11:10 AM on September 25, 2005

This must be an age thing. I'm in my late 30s, and I almost never print. I work on a computer all day, and I type quickly, but I still need to write people notes and letters, leave messages for people, address cards, sign cheques, and write grocery lists. Printing is slow, and looks childish to me. Besides, how can you take notes in lectures or read letters from your grandparents without knowing cursive?

I don't remember it taking that much time to learn-- a few classes in third grade. We were required to use it until sixth grade, when we were allowed to write however we wanted.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 11:12 AM on September 25, 2005

your cursive is legible to people who have also learned cursive

and completely illegible to those who haven't. I find it very difficult to read a lot of Americans' handwriting, even though we're taught a type of cursive in the UK too.
posted by bonaldi at 11:28 AM on September 25, 2005

Good lord -- it's useful. I just came back from a professional conference which involved several long, information-packed sessions at which I wanted to capture a great deal of what was said. It also involved site visits at which I took a lot of notes and did some sketching of exhibit styles. If I couldn't write cursive, I would have missed a tremendous amount of information. Laptops are nice -- but I type faster than most people, and I still type slower than I write. Plus, typing's noisy, and also it's not possible to work on a laptop while wandering through a field site.

All the practice in cursive is to build spinal memory that will stay with you through life, so that at any point you'll be able to write smoothly and quickly with minimal concentration on the physical act. It's not so essential as an adult that you write the Palmer method, or whatever; it's just essential that you've evolved a fluid, fast, readable style.
posted by Miko at 11:31 AM on September 25, 2005

My normal handwriting is in cap small cap--the "comic book" font--but once I started doing most of my drawing and writing with quill pens, I had to teach myself cursive. I did this in college.

It was clear to me that the whole reason for the existence of cursive was to facilitate the movement of a nib; if you try to go in certain directions with a nib, it will jam into the paper and splatter ink everywhere.

My feeling is that cursive was initially taught in elementary school because they used to use fountain pens. Similar nib, similar ink flow. Now that fountain pens are no longer used in most elementary schools, the teaching of cursive is probably just a leftover from a forgotten era that no one's really thought about.
posted by interrobang at 11:32 AM on September 25, 2005

Well, that's part of the reason they teach you cursive: if you have good penmanship, your cursive is legible to people who have also learned cursive, and it is much faster to write.

Ok, given - there IS a reason for teaching cursive. I would still argue that the time would be better spent teaching us math and reading.

I don't remember it taking that much time to learn-- a few classes in third grade.

I recall it taking a lot longer than that - usually some amount of time every day, over the course of a year or two. There was also homework, if I recall.
posted by afroblanca at 11:32 AM on September 25, 2005

I haven't written in cursive(script) in thirty years now. I gave up in junior high school as I couldn't ever manage to make it even remotely legible and have printed ever since. I've never really missed it as a skill, I seldom every have to write anything that anyone else reads. I keep a daily work journal in a notebook but that's really the only thing that I ever need to write by hand other than my signature on forms.

I haven't sent or received a postal letter in years, if I want to leave someone a note I use email or IM. Checks are all electronic and grocery lists come out of my laser printer. And I took notes during lectures on my laptop.
posted by octothorpe at 11:37 AM on September 25, 2005

Also, Miko - I get what you're saying. However, I've never found that my printing was of insufficient speed. I've always hated cursive, never really got the hang of it, and abandonded it as soon as possible. I've never felt the lesser for it, and I can guarantee that it hasn't halted my career advancement.

Besides, if someone finds that they don't write fast enough for a job or whatever reason, couldn't they just take a class or something? From what I recall, shorthand classes are still popular among some professions, and they don't feel the need to burden us with THAT in elementry school.
posted by afroblanca at 11:41 AM on September 25, 2005

I find it very difficult to read a lot of Americans' handwriting, even though we're taught a type of cursive in the UK too.

Yeah, I'd wager there's two things going on: Many Americans have atrocious penmanship, even in printing. (I often have to decipher others' writing for work, and let me tell you, it's apalling.) Also, different countries teach different penmanship: that the French "p" doesn't come together at the bottom always gives me pause.

I would still argue that the time would be better spent teaching us math and reading.

Really? I am pretty freaking literate and numerate and I am very proud of my penmanship (printing, formal cursive, and informal cursive). Seemed to be enough time to me. If a school doesn't have time to teach all three, then maybe the problem is with the school.

Anyway, I like knowing cursive, so I suppose I defend it because I'd like others' to have the chance. Unlike octothorpe, I still write by hand a lot.
posted by dame at 11:46 AM on September 25, 2005

I'd also like others to not misuse apostrophes despite my unfortunate example.
posted by dame at 11:47 AM on September 25, 2005

Beyond 3rd grade, only my 7th grade english teacher insisted on cursive, an old biddy who was completely out of touch with the 70s.

My printing is barely legible to anyone but me.
posted by mischief at 11:48 AM on September 25, 2005

Really? I am pretty freaking literate and numerate and I am very proud of my penmanship (printing, formal cursive, and informal cursive). Seemed to be enough time to me. If a school doesn't have time to teach all three, then maybe the problem is with the school.

I would say that you are in the minority. Take a look at the stats that I linked to in the original post. Also, if you have time, take a look at some of the other educational data in NationMaster. The data on American education is sad, sad, sad.

Of course, it would be great if they could teach us everything we ever might want to learn in the space of the 12-or-so years that they have us. However, since they can't, doesn't make sense to cut out something that (A) doesn't do much to prepare us for the world and (B) doesn't make us better/smarter people?

I think that ending cursive education would fall under the category of "modernizations."

Heck, maybe they could use that time to teach computer literacy. That way, when those kids become adults, they can back up their own d*mn Outlook and Entourage files instead of assaulting the computer personnel at their company.

/agenda
posted by afroblanca at 11:53 AM on September 25, 2005

In kindergarten or grade one we learned how to print. There were a couple weeks of classes on it and after that it just became part of how we did our work. A couple of years later cursive was introduced in the same manner. There were some intensive classes at first but after that it was just how we completed our work. I believe work was incorrect if it wasn't in cursive but I might be wrong.
posted by substrate at 11:53 AM on September 25, 2005

One other thing. Communication is an important part of life, and learning cursive writing is part of communication. I mostly print now (most of my writing consists of flow charts and equations - things that don't really lend themselves to cursive writing) but outside of engineers most written communication is done with cursive (at least in my experience).
posted by substrate at 11:56 AM on September 25, 2005

This must be an age thing. I'm in my late 30s, and I almost never print.

I dunno. I'm in my mid-thirties, and I haven't written anything except my signature in cursive since sixth grade. Every second that I spent learning it was a waste of my time. I have nothing against those who enjoy it or find it useful, but I don't see why it should be required. My 'penmanship' is poor, I suppose, but you'll never know, since you'll never receive a written note or letter from me.
posted by bingo at 11:56 AM on September 25, 2005

This must be an age thing. I'm in my late 30s, and I almost never print.

This must not be an age thing. I'm in my late 30s, and I almost never write.

I print faster and more legibly than I write.

I type 10x faster and more legibly than I print.

disclaimer: one summer job during post-sec required me to print using a very specific style, while tranfering legal data from source document to data entry form. it is through this i learned to print quickly and very, very legibly.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:10 PM on September 25, 2005

school is all about how to behave in society: shut up, sit down, and do what you're told.
Almost. (In my experience), school is where people teach you how to behave in society while pretending they are teaching you other, loftier things. I'm not sure why they feel this lie is necessary.

generally schools don't teach you vocational things because the world teaches you vocational things.
In a perfect world, maybe we'd all learn vocational and life skills from our parents. Most of us don't. Most of us arrive at adulthood clueless as to how to run our finances, clueless about sex, clueless about fixing simple machinery if it breaks downs, etc.

School is the place for learning things that are worthwhile but whose uses are not obvious.
Sort of. But you can only do this (wonderful) sort of education in an environment centered around exploration and fun. You can't teach Shakespeare by forcing it on people. All you do is create a generation of people who hate Shakespeare. In general, teaching "how to behave in society" doesn't mix well with learning for pure enrichment of the soul.

HERE'S WHAT SCHOOL REALLY IS:
A place where underpaid workers are expected to force students to grapple with certain subjects. These subjects are generally chosen by people who, though they may care about children, are influenced by all sorts of gratuitous baggage: religious ideals, political agendas, pseudo-scientific thinking, desire for career advancement, etc. Since the teachers are underpaid (and not necessarily picked with great care), they generally just follow the suggested curriculum without giving it much thought: you must read this book because I was told to force you to read it. Since no one wants to feel like a drone, teachers will generally convince themselves (and try to convince you) that the curriculum is good for you.

One of my most vivid memories from my schooling is the time I was pulled into the hallway by my anthropology "teacher," Mr. Malette. Since he never bothered to read any of the texts he assigned to us, his trick was to tell us to take out a sheet of paper and write down ten questions we thought should be on the test (and the answers to these questions). He would collect the papers, randomly choose thirty of our questions and get the school secretary to type them up and photocopy them. Then he would give us this test. After taking the test, he would tell us to pass it to the person behind us, and we would grade each other's tests. The one fun thing about this class was that you could write bogus questions and they'd actually wind up on the exam.

Anyway, since these test questions were all written by high school students who didn't have an understanding of how real anthropology was done, most of the questions were trivial and useless: "What colors were the eyes on the statue found in Ethiopia?" One day, after finishing an exam with 30 of these Trivial Pursuit questions, I dealt with my disgust by flipping over the paper and, on the back, drawing a (quite well-rendered, if I do say so myself) picture of a hippo eating a test. Which is why Malette pulled me into the hallway and yelled at me, "ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH MY TESTS????!!!!"

"Well," I said. "They seem to be noting but useless trivia and facts."

"Yeah, well, Mr. Smarty," he replied. "That's what anthropology is. Facts. As in artiFACTS!"

So... that's why you spent weeks learning cursive in elementary school.
posted by grumblebee at 12:10 PM on September 25, 2005 [3 favorites has favorites]

Maybe learning cursive at a young age helps to establish a more modular understanding of language. It prevents the mind from setting hard definitions, like Thought->English->Print. Suddenly there are options, and although they may not be exercised fruitfully until a much later date, they might keep the young brain flexible.
posted by hartsell at 12:13 PM on September 25, 2005

I would say that you are in the minority.

If so, it's a fairly large one. I'm hardly the only literate, numerate person with good penmanship.

The data on American education is sad, sad, sad.

Yes. But you don't think it has something to do with American culture not valuing education and intelligence, and not treating teachers well? You really think if only we got rid of penmanship class everything would be magical?

doesn't make sense to cut out something that (A) doesn't do much to prepare us for the world and (B) doesn't make us better/smarter people?

Cursive does do both (A) and (B). Metafilter is hardly a cross section of society, and many people do still write by hand fairly often. For instance, I have a crappy printer and bad internet, yet I still need to make lists and leave notes. As Miko has noted, some people still write faster than they type and prefer to take notes that way. I have to write for work when marking up proofs. Just because some people have constructed their lives around not writing doesn't mean that is inherently the most efficient way to approach communication (and notice what all those people who don't write are bad at).

Further, one could argue that penmanship classes help to develop children's fine motor skills. You use your fine motor skills every day in hundreds on ways.

So I'm gonna say the answer to the original question is: they teach cursive because it is useful and beautiful, and the skills required are easy to apply to other things. Placing it in opposition to reading or math is illogical.
posted by dame at 12:20 PM on September 25, 2005

hartsell - Your theory, if true, would provide a good reason to teach cursive.

However, once again I ask the question - "What about math and reading?"

(invitation to look at stats)
posted by afroblanca at 12:27 PM on September 25, 2005

Cursive = speed just doesn't fly. Actually learning shorthand would be much more useful for that.
posted by NucleophilicAttack at 12:29 PM on September 25, 2005

How about you answer this one: But you don't think it has something to do with American culture not valuing education and intelligence, and not treating teachers well? You really think if only we got rid of penmanship class everything would be magical?
posted by dame at 12:30 PM on September 25, 2005

Although it's nice to be able to write fluidly, it's too bad the cursive they teach in (American) elementary schools is so clunky. A chancery-style italic is more similar to basic printing and more legible than the weirdly Victorian Palmer method besides. Ugh, those majuscules!
posted by letourneau at 12:36 PM on September 25, 2005

There are very few essential life skills taught in school, so using that as a criteria for teaching something or not is misguided. Reading, yes. Very basic math, yes. History, no. Science, no.
posted by smackfu at 12:36 PM on September 25, 2005

If so, it's a fairly large one. I'm hardly the only literate, numerate person with good penmanship.

No, you're not. But, according to the data, it is against the odds that you would get those skills from the American public education system.

You really think if only we got rid of penmanship class everything would be magical?

No, but I think that part of good education is emphasizing more useful material over less useful material.

As Miko has noted, some people still write faster than they type and prefer to take notes that way. I have to write for work when marking up proofs. Just because some people have constructed their lives around not writing doesn't mean that is inherently the most efficient way to approach communication (and notice what all those people who don't write are bad at).

I'm not saying that cursive shouldn't be taught - I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be taught in schools. People could still learn it on their own time, or their parents could enroll them in penmanship classes.

My guess is that, as typing becomes more pervasive, cursive will increasingly be seen as a vocational skill, which it pretty much already is.

Further, one could argue that penmanship classes help to develop children's fine motor skills. You use your fine motor skills every day in hundreds on ways.

Don't parents enroll their kids in extracurricular music lessons for the same reasons?

Placing it in opposition to reading or math is illogical.

How is it illogical? I'm suggesting that we reconsider how school time is allocated. Instead of teaching subject (C), I'm saying that we should spend that time teaching (A) and (B) instead.

Reading and math don't need to be the only benificiaries of this. I would also be happy to see computer literacy, science, and art get cursive's timeshare.
posted by afroblanca at 12:41 PM on September 25, 2005

I am pretty freaking literate and numerate and I am very proud of my penmanship (printing, formal cursive, and informal cursive)

That's your business, but that seems an exceedingly odd thing to be proud of -- as if you, as an adult, were proud of your dodgeball or hopscotch skills, or of your ability to assemble dioramas inside shoe boxes.

they teach cursive because it is useful and beautiful

Useful, maybe marginally so. I think it would be more useful to just teach kids skills at faster and more accurate printing. Beautiful is of course in the eye of the beholder, so I'll say that to me most cursive writing is a horrible spiky mess that drifts into illegibility-through-idiosyncracy far faster than printing does.

One could argue that cursive develops fine motor control, but if you want to achieve that goal there are surely better sets of exercises.

ISTR an earlier thread on this here or MoFi wherein it was revealed that cursive has dropped off the agenda in at least some modern elementary schools.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:43 PM on September 25, 2005

How about you answer this one: But you don't think it has something to do with American culture not valuing education and intelligence, and not treating teachers well? You really think if only we got rid of penmanship class everything would be magical?

Well, I think it's all of a piece. Not treating teachers well is a part of it, but so is having a curriculum in need of modernization.
posted by afroblanca at 12:44 PM on September 25, 2005

smackfu: There are very few essential life skills taught in school, so using that as a criteria for teaching something or not is misguided. Reading, yes. Very basic math, yes. History, no. Science, no.

I guess is this at the center of the discussion, and in the end it seems a question a values, a very subjective one. To me, history is an essential life skill, at least if you live in a country with a functioning government. It is through history that citizens are able to gain perspective on the larger questions of their times; it is through learning the lessons of history that we attempt to progress. But some people would say that isn't a life skill and I don't think either of us would be objectively right.

Likewise, I could argue that being able to manipulate complex systems and being able to interpret evidence and form and argue theories (things that both history and science teach through different content) are life skills.

ROU_Xenophobe: that seems an exceedingly odd thing to be proud of -- as if you, as an adult, were proud of your dodgeball or hopscotch skills, or of your ability to assemble dioramas inside shoe boxes.

That assumes that cursive is something you don't do every day. I do. I like that I can write things down well enough that the vast majority of other people can read them. (That aside, I mentioned it because I wanted to give context to my defense of cursive because it does feel a little silly to me. Yet correct. And I was a wicked kickball player.)

Beautiful is of course in the eye of the beholder, so I'll say that to me most cursive writing is a horrible spiky mess that drifts into illegibility-through-idiosyncracy far faster than printing does.

Only because it's done badly. Besides, I don't think you can make printing faster than cursive, since it has all those stops and starts. The fastest seems to be something similar to the italic linked above (which is essentially what I called by informal cursive)--it keeps some letters linked but avoids the extra motions required by cursive.

One could argue that cursive develops fine motor control, but if you want to achieve that goal there are surely better sets of exercises.

One could. But it is the combination, no? When done well, cursive makes for more attractive writing than printing and enables one to write faster. And does the motor skills. As afroblanca alludes to with music lessons: beauty and usefulness.
posted by dame at 1:09 PM on September 25, 2005

Afroblanca: Well, I think it's all of a piece. Not treating teachers well is a part of it, but so is having a curriculum in need of modernization.

Given the state of American schools and the structural reasons for such, beginning with the curriculum does have an air of deck chairs on the Titanic, rearrangement thereof. (In my opinion, of course, like everything else.)
posted by dame at 1:12 PM on September 25, 2005

doesn't make sense to cut out something that (A) doesn't do much to prepare us for the world and (B) doesn't make us better/smarter people?

So you're okay with us getting rid of art, music, and gym? Doing away with the teaching of Shakespeare and the Classics?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 1:19 PM on September 25, 2005

But, according to the data, it is against the odds that you would get those skills from the American public education system.

Yes. But that is a little skewed, isn't it? Anyone whose parents care about education and had the means would go to private schools: schools that do manage to teach all three things well. So your argument is that crappy schools can't do all three. Well, duh, they're crappy. Fix that.

I'm not saying that cursive shouldn't be taught - I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be taught in schools.

That's essentially saying it shoudn't be taught to the majority of people. And that's an argument. But you may as well admit that it's your argument.
posted by dame at 1:22 PM on September 25, 2005

That's your business, but that seems an exceedingly odd thing to be proud of -- as if you, as an adult, were proud of your dodgeball or hopscotch skills, or of your ability to assemble dioramas inside shoe boxes.

The art of elegant handwriting is nothing to be ashamed of! It would be really great if, instead of teaching us kids that half-assed cursive currently employed (which maybe 10% of people really pick up on anyway (I write in a mix of cursive and print, so I can't really talk)) they taught some really calligraphic hands. I once read an article about an LAPD (I think) officer who had taught himself out of a late-19thC manual how to write in (some form whose name I can't recall—Morris', I think), and everyone thought it delightful.

Fact is, they spent a lot of time teaching us a lot of useless stuff at school. I'm appalled that people generally leave school having spent a couple years learning French

Yeah, French is totally useless.
posted by kenko at 1:23 PM on September 25, 2005

Only because it's done badly.

Nup. Palmer and copperplate-style cursive writing are just plain ugly. A big mess, with spikes all over the place jabbing your eyeballs and loops going every goddam which way and stuck onto everything that doesn't have a spike stuck onto it, even when it's all done correctly.

When done well, cursive makes for more attractive writing than printing and enables one to write faster.

Maybe the latter, not the former. Printing is clear, direct, cheerful, and legible in spite of the inevitable personalizations and idiosyncracies of the writer. Palmer or copperplate cursive writing is none of those things. It is jumbled, complexified, and excessively and uselessly ornamented instead of being simple, clear, and geometric. It is spiky and officious instead of being cheerful. When it is inevitably personalized, it devolves into a random array of spikes instead of something consistently legible, even when it remains "neat."

I think all you can say is that when done in ways you like, cursive makes for writing that you prefer. Which doesn't say much.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:24 PM on September 25, 2005

teachers need to cover every possible base for letting children know how inadequate they are.

cursive was the grade that always kept me from straight a's in elementary school. *grumble*
posted by bryak at 1:24 PM on September 25, 2005

Printing is clear, direct, cheerful, and legible in spite of the inevitable personalizations and idiosyncracies of the writer.

You have obviously not seen the vast ranges of illigeble printing that I have been presented with.

I think all you can say is that when done in ways you like, cursive makes for writing that you prefer.

But you can say all cursive is ugly? I mean, we can either both say we prefer one sort and that's not much or we can argue that our preferred *really is better.* I think it is abvious I prefer the latter. But when people print outside a form, I do think it looks childish. Cheerful, not so much.
posted by dame at 1:31 PM on September 25, 2005

This must be an age thing. I'm in my late 30s, and I almost never print.

Maybe not - I'm shy of 30, can type very quickly, and find myself frequently setting down marks on paper in cursive.

Sure, cursive may not be as important now as when fountain pens were the norm, but I feel that being able to write well, in either print or cursive, is an important life skill.

Why do they teach kids art, music, woodworking, cooking, poetry, literature, how to dismantle a lawnmower engine and put it back togather again, and physical fitness in schools? School curriculae should cover a broad range of subjects and writing well is an important one.

Now if only schools taught kids how to pilot starships.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 1:34 PM on September 25, 2005

Did anyone ever pause to consider that part of what school is about, especially at the elementary school level, is learning how to learn? In that sense, teaching children anything, whether it be cursive or history or what have you, is furthering the purpose of schooling at that age. You know, pay attention to the teacher, do the assignment as directed, repeat the exercise until you know it by heart. But I too find it ridiculous that people are arguing that learning cursive is pointless. Seriously? I have poor handwriting and write in half-cursive half-print, but that half-cursive writing is far, far faster than printing, and quite frankly, a lot of later schooling depends on being able to take good notes, which frequently means knowing how to write fast. We aren't such a wealthy society that we can expect all children to be able to afford devices to type their notes on from elementary school on.

Also:
Yes. But that is a little skewed, isn't it? Anyone whose parents care about education and had the means would go to private schools: schools that do manage to teach all three things well.

No. That is wrong. In some areas of the country private schools are better than public schools but that is by no means universally true.
posted by ch1x0r at 1:34 PM on September 25, 2005

In some areas of the country private schools are better than public schools but that is by no means universally true.

Well it isn't true in wealthy districts where instead of paying money to the school people pay the money to the mortgage company. But are there many places that have good general schools and low to moderate property values?
posted by dame at 1:38 PM on September 25, 2005

So you're okay with us getting rid of art, music, and gym? Doing away with the teaching of Shakespeare and the Classics?

Things that I think either prepare us for the world or make us smarter/better people : art, music, gym, Shakespeare, Classics

One thing that doesn't do either : cursive

Yes. But that is a little skewed, isn't it? Anyone whose parents care about education and had the means would go to private schools: schools that do manage to teach all three things well. So your argument is that crappy schools can't do all three. Well, duh, they're crappy. Fix that.

According to the data, most American public schools are crappy. I propose that one of the ways to fix this is to modernize the curriculum.

That's essentially saying it shoudn't be taught to the majority of people. And that's an argument. But you may as well admit that it's your argument.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be taught to the majority of people. I'm just saying that we have a limited amount of time to teach children, and that time would be better spent teaching them things other than cursive.

Hell, I would be happier if they had mandatory instrument lessons or art appreciation.

(or computer literacy)
posted by afroblanca at 1:41 PM on September 25, 2005

You have obviously not seen the vast ranges of illigeble printing that I have been presented with.

I teach college. I've seen printing and cursive writing both that would curl your hair. But I have far less trouble with messy printing than I do with idiosyncratic cursive writing of the middle-school-girl stereotype (wide, less slanted, more stylized, etc).

But you can say all cursive is ugly?

In exactly the same way that you can say it's more beautiful. Both are just our opinions, but if you can state your opinion as bald fact, I can state mine that way.

But when people print outside a form, I do think it looks childish.

You can think whatever you like. Concentrating on the content rather than the penmanship seems generally wiser to me.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:43 PM on September 25, 2005

cursive was the grade that always kept me from straight a's in elementary school. *grumble*

Wow! That was my experience too. "Handwriting" (the class in third grade where they taught us cursive) was the first class I got a "D" in, and was my first experience in hating school. It was so dull and tedious, sitting there practicing letters that I already *KNEW* how to print perfectly well.

My 3rd grade teacher was merciless, and made us do extra writing just to get practice. Whenever we had homework, she would make us re-write the question before writing the answer. "Write the question, write the answer. Write the question, write the answer" was her awful little cadence on the subject.

Add to that the fact that I was a bright youngster, already reading several levels above my grade. I wanted to actually learn things, not do a bunch of tedious busywork.

In the end, cursive practically ruined my handwriting. Before third grade, I had a pretty normal printing style. After third grade, I started to incorperate some aspects of cursive into my printing, which made it illegible for years to come, until I finally learned to WRITE REALLY BIG.

Although, I do have to say, my hatred of cursive and lack of skill at it made me embrace computers all the more when I got my first computer (an Apple ][e) that same year. Word processing saved my ass. So maybe cursive wasn't so bad, although I will say that the time I spent with my Apple ][e was far more valuable.
posted by afroblanca at 1:43 PM on September 25, 2005

I've never found that my printing was of insufficient speed.

It depends what you're using it for. For several years I worked in journalism and took notes on the fly, by hand, in reporters' notebooks. Cursive was invaluable. I can and often do print, block-letter engineering-style, but it would have been impossible to print at the speed people talk. I take pride in being able to take notes verbatim and never had to paraphrase any quotes (which, I'm sorry to say, journalists who can't write well sometimes do). In this type of work, printing is of insufficient speed.

In my coursework and professional life, I sometimes find printing inefficient, as well. That's because I take copious notes, not outline-style notes. If I were picking out short words and phrases, printing would be fine. But I prefer to come close to transcribing ideas.

Shorthand might be faster, but why learn it when I already know cursive and can write it fast enough?
posted by Miko at 1:44 PM on September 25, 2005

Concentrating on the content rather than the penmanship seems generally wiser to me.

But that's nearly impossible when you have to decode erratic writing. When people don't write in some sort of standard form, you spend a lot more time trying to figure out what their letterforms are supposed to represent, which draws your attention away from content.
posted by Miko at 1:45 PM on September 25, 2005

In exactly the same way that you can say it's more beautiful. Both are just our opinions, but if you can state your opinion as bald fact, I can state mine that way.

You do know that this was my point? I mean, you read the whole paragraph?

And yes, I don't say in my opinion before I give my opinion. I assume you are smart enough to know the difference betweenn fact and opinion and hope you think the same of me.
posted by dame at 1:47 PM on September 25, 2005

Did anyone ever pause to consider that part of what school is about, especially at the elementary school level, is learning how to learn?

True. But while you're "learning how to learn," wouldn't it be better if the content of what you were learning was something that had a really good chance of benifiting you later in life?
posted by afroblanca at 1:48 PM on September 25, 2005

Well it isn't true in wealthy districts where instead of paying money to the school people pay the money to the mortgage company. But are there many places that have good general schools and low to moderate property values?

Yes. I grew up in Tallahassee, FL, which is a town full of middle class people, and pretty much universally the public schools there are better than the private ones. In fact, I believe in many middle-class dominated areas the public schools are good. It's much more a problem in actively poor areas.
The "public schools are awful" canard seems to me extremely overblown. But if everyone believes this, it gives the people that want to get rid of the notion of public financing of schooling a boost to their agenda. Certainly it is worth re-evaluating what this widely-held belief is actually based on.
posted by ch1x0r at 1:48 PM on September 25, 2005

Miko - it sounds like knowing cursive or shorthand is essential to your career. I'm guessing that in that, you are in the minority. I provided shorthand as an example because it is a skill that helps a certain number of professions, but is usually taught outside of public schools.

Besides, would it have been so bad if you had to learn some sort of "speedwriting" in college or on your own, if it meant that elementry school education was better on the whole?
posted by afroblanca at 1:54 PM on September 25, 2005

My mother, a former elementary school teacher, always told me that penmanship was taught for the same reason grammar and spelling are taught. Standardized communication creates efficiencies for readers. In general, most readers find it easier to read standardized writing, grammar and spelling. Teachers, being people, also find this easier. When they find it easier to read something, they are more inclined to give it good marks or at least spend time providing helpful comments. Thus, by learning proper penmanship, you are setting yourself on the course to go to university. My mom said that, in university, she actually read some studies that showed students with better handwriting got better marks. She said that neatness and orderly presentation were the keys to getting good marks. For example, when I wanted to go to the science fair, she suggested I glue my note cards on coloured construction paper and that I use felt pens that matched that paper. She suggested I use rulers to make sure everything was in order. She always told me to use tables of contents and lots of white space. My mother knew the secret to pleasing other teachers.

I always had horrible cursive. I got terrible marks in penmanship. Although I knew how to write, I always seemed to have trouble holding the pen steady, keeping my fingers from smudging the Papermate ink, waiting until the white-out was sufficiently dry, avoiding putting holes through the paper with my pen eraser, and what-not. My mother taught me to type as soon as possible. By seventh grade, I got my hands on a wordprocessor, which saved my skin. At some point in high school -- long after cursive was taught -- I suddenly started writing neatly. This had nothing to do with learning cursive.

Despite my rocky start with cursive, I went on to do a masters degree, have a professional career and even receive compliments on my writing. But I think this all has more to do with accepting that penmanship had more to do with understanding how a system works, then working to meet the expectations of that system, while still meeting my own needs. In time, I learned to master enough of the hops that penmanship didn't matter so much.

FWIW, grammar and spelling arose came about as a result of the rise of mercantilism. When people needed to make complicated trades, they needed things in writing. They were less likely to need to get lawyers involved if the writing, grammar and spelling were standardized. True story.
posted by acoutu at 2:03 PM on September 25, 2005

Although it's nice to be able to write fluidly, it's too bad the cursive they teach in (American) elementary schools is so clunky. A chancery-style italic is more similar to basic printing and more legible than the weirdly Victorian Palmer method besides. Ugh, those majuscules!

Hear, hear. That's pretty much the style I learned, and I still can do cursive only by more or less drawing the letters. Even my signature is a bit clunky.

I'm not sure when I learned to print... certainly before entering kindergarten. Then, four or so years later, in US third grade, I was taught this ugly, clunky, inefficient writing style, and took every future opportunity not to use it. In my opinion, anyone who is subjected to such a method and later develops a smooth, efficient script learns the sort of writing they actually use outside of school.

When I took the SAT in my junior year of high school, the hardest part of the test for me was... writing out the honor pledge thing in cursive. I couldn't do it in the allotted time and had to come back and finish it in bits of extra time.

Besides, how can you take notes in lectures or read letters from your grandparents without knowing cursive?

I can read even the most garbled script... I just can't write it effectively. And I take notes in print just fine... I think I clocked it a few years ago at "up to" 35 words per minute or so. Typing, of course, is about twice that fast. When I print very quickly, the text does start to flow a bit in places, as cursive does, but if I actually tried to write using the Zaner-Bloser method I learned in elementary school I'd never come close to keeping up.

Besides, I don't think you can make printing faster than cursive, since it has all those stops and starts. The fastest seems to be something similar to the italic linked above (which is essentially what I called by informal cursive)--it keeps some letters linked but avoids the extra motions required by cursive.

Well, that's fair. But my fast printing is similar in motion to that italic, only the writing implement tends to lift slightly between letters so things don't look quite as connected. There aren't a lot of stops and starts, certainly not as many as there are in Palmer cursive with its loops and serifs.

If I had been taught an italic such as the one linked instead of Palmer-style cursive, I might be using it today.
posted by musicinmybrain at 2:03 PM on September 25, 2005

My mother also taught me to proofread, but I seem to exercise that skill with some variation.
posted by acoutu at 2:05 PM on September 25, 2005

acoutu - It doesn't surprise me that you were able to do well in life despite a lack of cursive skill. I have a similar story.

Good communication skills are very important, but cursive is by no means necessary for good communication skills.
posted by afroblanca at 2:12 PM on September 25, 2005

The "public schools are awful" canard seems to me extremely overblown. But if everyone believes this, it gives the people that want to get rid of the notion of public financing of schooling a boost to their agenda. Certainly it is worth re-evaluating what this widely-held belief is actually based on.

That's an interesting point, ch1x0r. Where I grew up and where I live now, the case is as I stated it. But thinking that public schools are crap doesn't make me want to get rid of them--I wish they were better, but I don't think people have the political or social will to fix them.

Then again, people think public schools suck because of statistics like those cited by afroblanca. So if it is overblown, why are the numbers so bad?

Also, afroblanca, why did you ask a question if you already knew what you think the answer is?
posted by dame at 2:23 PM on September 25, 2005

In my mid-20's, and I now almost always write in cursive. Initially in highschool I simply printed, but decided to force myself back into cursive because I thought it more aesthetic.

Another fact, I've been in a managerial position in which I reviewed handwritten resumes. Call it my own bias, but the resumes written in nice cursive always got placed on top of the stack, unless the answers were simply inanely stupid.

"Have you ever been fired?"

"Yeah, for being late and not showing up for work, but I was going to quit anyways."

I think one reason that cursive is not so prevalent today is ismply the lack of enforcement of penmanship. Both my parents write in cursive and so did their parents. I had one teacher who required papers to be written in ink and cursive, all the rest simply didn't care.
posted by Atreides at 2:28 PM on September 25, 2005

Also, afroblanca, why did you ask a question if you already knew what you think the answer is?

I've never claimed to know why cursive is taught, although this thread has been instructive in that regard. I still haven't been convinced that the teaching of cursive should continue.
posted by afroblanca at 2:47 PM on September 25, 2005

Whether or not anyone can dream up any possible value for it in the course of an internet discussion thread, the answer is: NO, it should not continue to be taught. I also remember hour upon hour of mind-numbing tracing, repetition, repetition, tracing, repetition... and being graded on it. What an asinine waste of time. From what I recall teachers saying, it was supposed to be faster and more sophisticated (but only if you could get it *right* hence the hours of repetition).

They should teach typing now, if anything. I use a pen once a month, to write my rent check, and I wouldn't even have to do that if I bothered to work around it.
posted by scarabic at 3:04 PM on September 25, 2005

Just to be clear, if it weren't like an hour+ per day it wouldn't have been so bad. But it stands out in my memory as one of the most time-consuming endeavors that the educational system set me on. And I literally never write in cursive. Not even when I have a reason to hand-write anything. Never.
posted by scarabic at 3:07 PM on September 25, 2005

Miko - it sounds like knowing cursive or shorthand is essential to your career. I'm guessing that in that, you are in the minority. I provided shorthand as an example because it is a skill that helps a certain number of professions, but is usually taught outside of public schools.

I don't use much math in my career. Does that mean the time would have been bettter spent on reading and writing? Unfortunately, until high school students are treated as generalists, in order to build synaptic connections in their brains and in order to make sure they are well enough grounded in all areas to specialize in an informed manner later on.

Besides, would it have been so bad if you had to learn some sort of "speedwriting" in college or on your own, if it meant that elementry school education was better on the whole?

It's much easier to learn any physical skill when you are young. Once you rech college age, you begin to develop intellectual skills, but it becomes far more different to learn physical and small-motor skills. This is why people who go on to be outstanding in musicianship, athletics, or art almost universally began learning the skill before the age of ten. Go to any ski slope and watch 5-year-olds learn; then watch adults learn. Take a class in a musical instrument you've never played as an adult, then compare notes with a child who has the same amount of instruction. Try teaching an adult to ride a bike (I have; it's not pretty).

It's important to lay the groundwork for all physical skills at an age when your brain is more suited to adapting to the demands of the skill.
posted by Miko at 3:32 PM on September 25, 2005

I hate cursive.

I learned it in third grade. I am left-handed, and thus I naturally slant my handwriting in a "wrong" way, because it is much easier for me to do with my left hand. I nearly failed fourth grade because a f*ckng bleep of a teacher failed me or gave 'Ds' on many assignments simply because the stupid idiot didn't like my handwriting.

I stopped using cursive as soon as they let me. It was not only a waste of my time, it actively hurt my education. I wonder how many other left-handers have had this experience?

I used to have to read handwriting of many people in a job. Without fail, cursive was always harder to read. Some of the "neatest" writing was the worst. In the few instance where I could not figure something out, it was probably cursive writing 10-1.

We teach cursive because is traditional. That's probably about the extent of it.
posted by teece at 3:41 PM on September 25, 2005

I just want to chime in with the observation that cursive writing is vastly different in other parts of the world. Having grown up in north american and then living in europe for two years (mainly France and Switzerland) I found huge differences in the handwriting between nations, but great consistency within. I'll never get the hang of french cursive numbers.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:44 PM on September 25, 2005

I don't use much math in my career. Does that mean the time would have been bettter spent on reading and writing?

While you may not have much use for calc or stat or differential equations, I'm sure that you often use the kinds of math being measured in the NationMaster data on K-12 education

Unfortunately, until high school students are treated as generalists, in order to build synaptic connections in their brains and in order to make sure they are well enough grounded in all areas to specialize in an informed manner later on.

Right, and what I am saying is that there are better ways to accomplish that end then through cursive.

It's much easier to learn any physical skill when you are young.

It's much easier to learn ANYTHING when you're young. That is why I think that we need to look at that period of time as being finite, and give priority to activities that will do them the most good in the long run. I would say that on the whole, writing cursive is of little benefit, especially compared to other skills that students could be learning.
posted by afroblanca at 3:55 PM on September 25, 2005

When I was in school, I couldn't wait to learn script. It was like a secret code that all the adults were using and I wanted the magic decoder ring, dammit!

However, I've been hearing rumors that cursive is no longer being taught in schools since students are learning to type instead.

I still practice my penmanship pretty regularly even though I know it's pretty useless these days. Oh well, I enjoy it.
posted by idiotfactory at 4:21 PM on September 25, 2005

Well, you seem very passionate about this issue. I'd say there are far more serious concerns about the aims of public education, but if this is the one you really want to challenge, you can begin by attending your local school board with some evidence you've amassed and ask them to remove it from the curriculum. I'm not going to present any more arguments, because it's clear you have your mind made up and in fact already did when you posted the question.
posted by Miko at 4:23 PM on September 25, 2005

Anything that takes up so much of your american schooling - aand then pisses you all off - should be reformed. Let's face it, so many of you have this awful standardised writing, with little individual character but spiky and discordant flow, that it could only be an improvement if just a few lessons in what we call 'joined up writing' were given, and then each correspondent went there own way. That's what the rest of the world does.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:33 PM on September 25, 2005

Today a lot of schools are skipping block lettering entirely and using the D'Nealian cursive system at a young age. This eliminates a period of re-learning (D'Nealian transitions easily from block lettering to cursive forms), and gets kids ready to communicate with teachers on paper a lot sooner.
posted by dhartung at 4:34 PM on September 25, 2005

When I took the GREs, there was a non-disclosure agreement we had to sign, and it had a paragraph or so of text saying something to the effect of "I will not repeat the contents of this test to any other person on penalty of such and such", and underneath it there was a box with instructions to fill it out in cursive. Everybody there with me sort of looked at each other in disbelief. It was the most harrowing part of that whole test. Anybody else have this experience?
posted by Hildago at 5:08 PM on September 25, 2005

Well, you seem very passionate about this issue.

You know, I didn't realize it until about halfway through the thread, but you're right. I had no idea that I felt so strongly on the issue. I think the issue really only occured to me because I saw this Simpsons episode the other night where the family moves to a different school district and Bart is put in remedial education where he must learn cursive.

That said, it is good to know that I'm not alone in having been traumatized by cursive.

I'm not going to present any more arguments, because it's clear you have your mind made up and in fact already did when you posted the question

I asked two questions. (1) Why do they teach us cursive? and (2) Wouldn't the time be better spent on math or reading?

Admittedly, my mind was pretty much made up on (2), but as for (1), I really didn't have any idea.

Thanks to everyone for their input on this matter.
posted by afroblanca at 5:12 PM on September 25, 2005

I remember learning cursive and thinking, at the time, "This is an exercise in discipline, not something useful."

As a physician, I know that cursive kills patients because it is poorly legible and can easily be misread. In charts, I only ever print in draftsman-style block caps, except for the parts of the admission note that no one reads anyway.
posted by ikkyu2 at 5:31 PM on September 25, 2005

Who uses cursive anymore?
posted by caddis at 6:33 PM on September 25, 2005

I learned cursive in third grade and stopped using it totally when my teachers stopped making me. I had much more fun making up my own personal cursive, which is variable in legibility/speed, and reflects many years of teaching myself to adapt the printed word for speed and elegance. I also taught myself how to type, letting my hands move freely across the keyboard as they need to.

Lots of elements of standard cursive just didn't make any sense to me. You have to go back and cross your t's and dot your i's AFTER ending the word? That destroys the flow. I usually just make the dot of the i part of the next letter. And all of the cursive capital letters have these flourishes that strike me as absolutely unnecessary and contrary to the whole idea.
posted by Laugh_track at 6:53 PM on September 25, 2005

I think you have to learn to write cursive in order to be able to read cursive. I remember scribbling big connected loops on paper and telling my parents that it was cursive writing, because to me, when my parents wrote something it just looked like scribbled loops. I could only read printing. So I guess we learn it so that we can understand the words of the generations before us! :)
posted by srah at 7:06 PM on September 25, 2005

Hildago: You're right! I had forgotten about that. So I revise my statement above to read:

"...I haven't written anything except my signature in cursive since sixth grade, except for the non-disclosure agreement paragraph on the GRE."
posted by bingo at 7:06 PM on September 25, 2005

In the days when most written communication was by pen, and given that cursive is supposedly designed to be faster/more efficient to write, then the justification for teaching cursive is that children should have a skill in the most efficient and standardized form of written communication. Secondarily, or stealthily primarily, it's just another of the many socially stratifying tasks of education and is about status.

As the rationale for cursive becomes more and more tenuous, the primary justification becomes much weaker and the true fucntion is nothing more than a social signifier.

I mean, I have a very, very "classic" liberal arts education. In my school's context, there's a lot of effort spent in validating the education in terms of objective value. The critics, however, see it is mostly a snobbish cultural elitism. The reality, of course, is somewhere between the two viewpoints. There can be good, practical reasons for teaching something initially that later becomes anachronistic and far more about an inherent conservatism. Personally, I think that this is true of cursive.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:09 PM on September 25, 2005

Mark me down as another one that hated cursive and quit using it as soon as possible.
Just checks now, and I'm not even sure how to do z's in cursive anymore ... oh yeah, now I remember its that funky thing that looks nothing like a z.
posted by forforf at 7:48 PM on September 25, 2005

In all likelihood, cursive exists only because it "trickled down" from the privileged classes. As a class distinction device, it would have worked quite well back in the days of courtly courtship and serfs. As with a number of fashion trends, the lower classes would adopt the habit, no matter how ridiculous. Eventually it would have settled into the culture as "the way 'real' adults write." (Printing being something children do.)
posted by five fresh fish at 7:51 PM on September 25, 2005

Another of the "This nonsense kept me, a bright little boy, from getting straight A's lots of times, therefore it's stupid and for doodieheads" camp.

It's probably not an accident that all of the people who've stuck for cursive (and whose sex can be noted in their profile, or inferred from their userid) are women. Cursive is taught at a point when lots of boys just don't have the fine motor control in their fingers to master it with any reasonably degree of ease.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:31 PM on September 25, 2005

When I was learning cursive, we were assigned additional cursive worksheets as punishments for various indiscretions.

I hate cursive and never use it.
posted by baphomet at 8:33 PM on September 25, 2005

The problem with cursive is that bad cursive is harder to read than bad print. Good cursive is much more pleasant to look at than good print.
posted by Apoch at 8:44 PM on September 25, 2005

The hardest part of the SAT, for me, was the cursive part that went something to the effect of "I did not cheat on this stupid test" and you had to remember all those cursive letters you haven't used since second grade.

Yes, cursive is a vestigial organ of the American school system. It's purpose is now irrelevant as we no longer correspond by hand, everything is electronic. Yes a lot of people still hand write but walk into any office in the US and basic word processing skills are required. The serious problem is for those who the system forgot or let slid through and now can't complete basic tasks, a burden to our economy. I believe most school systems are deemphasizing cursive and allocating more time to learn computing basics. The fact that the majority of people do not use cursive testifies to the uselessness of this means of writing. Besides cursive can be more easily learned by an adult with fine motor skills if they need to learn it. In my experience picking up cursive is much easier for an adult than learning to type.
posted by geoff. at 8:52 PM on September 25, 2005

Kids that start learning to read and write have very strange and awkward ideas about how print letters are supposed to be written. They start drawing a letter from the "wrong" side, often inconsistently (leading to mirrored letters), mix up caps and lowercase, and draw the letters as if they are images.
I think cursive gives them a better idea of the concept of writing from left to right, which helps in learning to read/write.
posted by easternblot at 9:00 PM on September 25, 2005

OMG! Girls are better at something. Let's get rid of it!!!! People who are good at cursive use it. Those who don't work around around it. Thus cursive is useful. Doodyheads.
posted by dame at 10:13 PM on September 25, 2005

OMG! Girls are better at something. Let's get rid of it!!!!

My real annoyance is that they insist on teaching it so early. If you're gonna teach it, teach it when you can expect all of your students to have the motor control to actually do it instead of berating them for a few years because they don't, as if it were some choice on their part. I can't think of any reason why the world would explode if people didn't learn cursive until middle or high school, assuming they learned it at all.

The traditional pattern of teaching printing, which you're then almost immediately forced to abandon in favor of cursive, which many people then re-abandon in favor of printing again, seems absolutely the worst of all possible worlds. Seems far more sensible to me to teach printing alone for several years, until it's actually well mastered, and then teach cursive if that's really necessary, or some other hand.

But, yes, it's a skill I don't have, and obviously therefore not really worth having. After all, I am the calm center around which the world revolves, the true neutral moderate in a world of insane extremists, the only really unbiased observer of things like this. Aren't you?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:29 PM on September 25, 2005

I share the left handers common outrage at cursive. It did nothing but discriminate against my writing, and it caused me MUCH grief as I agonised over each letter.
It seems to me it is a vestige from nibbed pens, and I suspect we might have even been told that, as I remember one class where we used fountain pens and blotting paper to show us how it used to be done.
posted by bystander at 10:30 PM on September 25, 2005

My (American) wife writes in that odd American cursive, and I always joke that it looks like 'granny-writing', the crabbed hand that I associate with birthday cards from my elderly relatives.

Like dash_slot, I learned the basics of 'joined-up' writing and went from there. It's usually quite decent at ensuring legibility without turning things into a Victorian calligraphy class. I very rarely need to shift to printing letters, and there's more 'flow' between brain and pen than when typing.

Why is it still done in American schools? As others have said, it's vestigial, and coming up with an alternative in an environment dominated by the keyboard is probably now considered a waste of time.

A interesting point of comparison, perhaps, might be French and German schools, where fountain pens are still used from an early age, and you'll find a decent array of 'school pens' for the purpose. There's a different cultural sense, especially in France, of the relationship of penmanship to creative expression; l'écriture is covered in excruciating detail.
posted by holgate at 11:28 PM on September 25, 2005

I too was the bright child who could not deal with penmanship. To this day I am in awe of people who can, neatly and beautifully, print or write, evenly, in the allotted space.

I abandoned writing as soon as allowed. I developed a fast printing style. Latter, I learned to print very neatly to fill coding forms in some of those ancient programming languages. Still latter, I learned to type very fast.

Sadly for me, I also couldn't deal with spelling, so I had two strokes against me in grade school. I don't deal with memorization, the tedium is actually painful to me. Somehow, like magic, I started spelling properly. I am amazed every time I click spell-check and find no mistakes. (and puzzled by mistakes I still always make)

I embrace the idea that 3rd grade is no place to demand kids replace their printing skills with this other crap. Typing and grammar are far more appropriate in today's world.
posted by Goofyy at 11:56 PM on September 25, 2005

This thread is fascinating. Cursive, or rather handwriting with linked letters, is much more revealing than print. Handwriting experts would not seek to abolish it. When I took an introductory course about handwriting from an expert, we learned that people who prefer to print are generally less sociable and more guarded than those who write in normal handwriting. (When I say "normal" I do not refer to the Palmer method only, but rather linked, practical handwriting.) The exceptions would be for Mexico and a couple other countries that do not teach cursive.

It seems many people here have transferred their feelings about how they were taught cursive handwriting to the actual act of handwriting. "I failed my class in elementary school" or "Mrs. So-and-so was a real *&#(!" do not sound like any reason to seek to abolish one of the fundamental tools of a literate society.

And yes, handwriting can indeed make you smarter. Just as children need to progress through certain movements in infancy to develop areas of their brain, certain parts of cursive writing can stimulate the brain as well. Some European countries use a style which is better than the Palmer method in this aspect.
posted by MightyNez at 1:49 AM on September 26, 2005

Cursive, or rather handwriting with linked letters, is much more revealing than print. Handwriting experts would not seek to abolish it.

So cursive can be used to put you in jail. Good reason for it.

When I took an introductory course about handwriting from an expert, we learned that people who prefer to print are generally less sociable and more guarded than those who write in normal handwriting.

And did the expert show that handwriting analysis was a more useful guide to psychology than phrenology, astrology, or palmistry? Was there any evidence to back up the claim that handwriting analysis was of any real value whatsoever and not just plain-old (if popular) quackery?

Just as children need to progress through certain movements in infancy to develop areas of their brain, certain parts of cursive writing can stimulate the brain as well.

If that's true, and Mexico doesn't teach cursive writing, then we would expect all Mexicans educated in Mexico to be functionally retarded. Is this so?

It seems many people here have transferred their feelings about how they were taught cursive handwriting to the actual act of handwriting.

The discussion is about cursive instruction. Nobody ever said that people who write in cursive would be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:36 AM on September 26, 2005

OMG! Girls are better at something. Let's get rid of it!!!!

Personally, I don't care who is good at it. I think that it is a waste of time. Just because some people can be good at it doesn't mean that it should be required learning in elementary school.
posted by afroblanca at 6:53 AM on September 26, 2005

Nobody ever said that people who write in cursive would be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Hmmm, what an interesting idea.

A few years ago a friend stated that he had lost the ability to write in cursive through disuse. I laughed. Then I realized how little I still use it. When writing for someone else to read I always use print just to make it easier for them. I still use cursive to write notes for myself, but that is a pretty limited use. I am not in school anymore and I take limited notes in meetings, someone usually prepares minutes for important meetings anyway.

I think cursive is still a good skill to have. Shorthand would be really nice to know. However, most schools in our area no longer stress it, which seems about right to me. Teach it, but don't make a big deal out of it. Most assignments are prepared on the computer and printing is allowed except for those assignments geared to teaching cursive writing.

By the way, didn't we have a question on this subject a while ago? I can't seem to find it.
posted by caddis at 8:07 AM on September 26, 2005

It seems many people here have transferred their feelings about how they were taught cursive handwriting to the actual act of handwriting. "I failed my class in elementary school" or "Mrs. So-and-so was a real *&#(!" do not sound like any reason to seek to abolish one of the fundamental tools of a literate society

I don't think it's a matter of just hating the way that it's taught by a single person. The fact is, to learn cursive requires many many hours of tedious practice. How do you propose that we get around that? Also, part of the negative feelings toward cursive have to do with its relative lack of utility - something that I sensed even in the third grade.

I would in no way call cursive "one of the fundamental tools of a literate society." If that were the case, then I would be a functional illiterate.

And yes, handwriting can indeed make you smarter. Just as children need to progress through certain movements in infancy to develop areas of their brain, certain parts of cursive writing can stimulate the brain as well.

I'm not saying that cursive can't accomplish this end - I'm just saying that there are better ways to do it, i.e. through a musical instrument.
posted by afroblanca at 8:08 AM on September 26, 2005

You can write in the dark in cursive, and it will still be mostly legible when you put the lights back on. Useful if like me you have all your best ideas in the middle of the night!
posted by methylsalicylate at 9:06 AM on September 26, 2005

It seems many people here have transferred their feelings about how they were taught cursive handwriting to the actual act of handwriting. "I failed my class in elementary school" or "Mrs. So-and-so was a real *&#(!" do not sound like any reason to seek to abolish one of the fundamental tools of a literate society.

MightyNez, I expressed myself poorly because I am still emotional about the evil woman that turned me off to school in 4th grade. The baggage from that idiot's decision still haunts me to this day.

But what I was really getting at is that, aside from having a rather dubious practical application, cursive actively discriminates against left-handed people. American cursive is designed for right-handed people, it is much harder for lefties to adopt. And yet, when I was in school, you adopted the right-handed method, or you failed. I can, and do, write very neatly. But if forced to write like a righty, I write very poorly. My writing was quite legible in 4th-grade. I could easily write things my teacher could read (because my teacher in third grade was a good teacher, and let me adopt a style of cursive that was partially my own and better adapted to a lefty). My teacher in 4th grade decided, since my cursive was slanted "wrong" that all of my work deserved a failing grade, until I learned to write "properly."

That is complete bullshit, but that is the way cursive is taught in America, sadly.

Left-handed people make up 10% of the population. They are actively discriminated against in cursive classes. That fact alone should be enough to abolish its antiquated use.

(And the argument about hand-writng analysis strikes me as totally irrelevant).
posted by teece at 10:16 AM on September 26, 2005

I was almost held back for the way I held my pencil. I don't demand that we get rid of pencils.
posted by dame at 10:49 AM on September 26, 2005

Nobody thinks we should get rid of pencils. However, I think we should get rid of teachers who think that someone's pencil-holding style is worth holding them back for.
posted by afroblanca at 10:53 AM on September 26, 2005

You could write perfectly well holding the pencil your own way. We can write perfectly well without cursive. In all, education would be better off if we cared more about math and reading and less about pencil-holding styles and cursive.
posted by afroblanca at 10:56 AM on September 26, 2005

Are you left-handed, dame? I think you are being pretty blithe in your dismissal of the problems cursive (in the form I learned) causes lefties. Tell you what, how about we try a lefty-slanted cursive, and see how much uproar it would cause, and whether you would like being forced to do it? It'd be great to have an alternate reality machine to make you experience it. Suddenly this tool you love and cherish could become the albatross around your neck, and I think you'd change your mind.

Afroblanca is right: the result is the ends, not the means, here. Being failed for trivial details is stupid. That's not a problem of just cursive, but any need to learn cursive is not a defense of that.

Can my teacher read my paper? That is what matters. Not superficial details. Admitting that has nothing to do with saying cursive should or should not be taught. Indeed, if it should be taught, a different system should be seriously considered, especially if you think cursive is important, as you seem to. Because I guarantee you the current system discriminates against 10% of students.

But you seem to be conflating 'good for you' and 'important.' Why, then, is it wrong for me to conflate 'bad for me' and 'not important?' I know the answer to that. So do you. Which is why your last post doesn't contribute a hell of a lot either way. It's not the idea behind what I was saying, anyway.
posted by teece at 11:10 AM on September 26, 2005

You're right, teece, it doesn't. It was just a silly passing thought because overall I think this thread is silly.

There are a fair number of reasons to learn cursive that have been brought up. If nothing else, it enables you to read other people's cursive. Clearly, though, many people hate it and nothing is going to convince them otherwise. So I'm just poking. Because it's silly.

Anyway, I'll stop. It's rude. But I did teach myself to write with the left-handed slant, too. And we can agree that it is being taught badly. Like most other things in America's schools. And that does worry me.
posted by dame at 11:49 AM on September 26, 2005

Hmm, I'm a lefty, and never had a problem with it. When I see other left-handers writing (and the results), it just looks weird. But then again I do turn the paper at a ninety degree angle to where I'm sitting in order to write.
posted by methylsalicylate at 11:31 AM on September 27, 2005

So cursive can be used to put you in jail. Good reason for it.

As well as establish legitimacy of documents, protect you from identity theft and fraud, and enable people to identify authors of documents. Interesting how you assume identity equates with jailtime.

Just as children need to progress through certain movements in infancy to develop areas of their brain, certain parts of cursive writing can stimulate the brain as well.

If that's true, and Mexico doesn't teach cursive writing, then we would expect all Mexicans educated in Mexico to be functionally retarded. Is this so?

If you read what I wrote, you would notice that I said it can stimulate the brain, not that it was required to avoid being "functionally retarded." It was in response to the statement that it was of little benefit.

Cursive handwriting allows for increased speed, better spelling, and it has more character. Perhaps some who are so hostile to cursive writing have a problem?
posted by MightyNez at 5:36 PM on September 27, 2005