4 ms·

The hate on cursive seems a peculiar American thing - as is the "it's slower to write" mantra (when you write it correctly your pen moves less vertically - the

The hate on cursive seems a peculiar American thing - as is the "it's slower to write" mantra (when you write it correctly your pen moves less vertically - the slower axis - so it's actually significantly faster) Do schools just suck at teaching it?

falcolas 10y ago
US cursive looks rather different from the cursive taught in the rest of the world; its dissimilarities with printed words makes it more of a specialized task to read and write. It's much more decorative than fast, IMO. For example: US cursive 'Q' looks like the number 2. 'Z' is the number 2 with another loop below the line. 'F' and 'T' look like letters you'd see in an illustrated manuscript as the leading letter.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  That... sounds horrific.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Yup. To second Tropo below - the cursive I was taught is the D'Nealian Script: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive#/media/File:Cursive.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive#/media/File:Cursive.sv... It is not fast, but it does look pretty when written with a steady and constant hand.
tropo 10y ago
Yes. It's teacher-by-teacher of course, not part of testing, and without defects being pointed out in later years. Instructional materials show examples but don't bother to explain which aspects of letter form actually matter. For example, it is important to distinguish points, humps, and loops. This has to be reliable. Many other things are not so important, but you might not guess which ones just from looking at examples. Also, a fine-point mechanical pencil is a must. Ball-point pens need too much pressure and normally the tip has a bit of wiggle to it. Other kinds of pens leave ink blobs when you stop. Old-style pencils get too wide as they wear down.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  This sounds... crazy. I learned cursive in the UK as a young child with a ball-point and it made very little difference to writing. Yeesh, no wonder the US has such a hate-on for it.
  - tropo 10y ago
    You probably used UK-style joined-up writing. Americans tend to use something like D'Nealian cursive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Nealian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Nealian It takes time to correct a student's mistakes. If this isn't done, poor legibility becomes a habit. Tracing oversized letters isn't going to lead to quality cursive. Yes, of course you can use a ball-point, but typical cheap American ones have a wobbly tip (flexible body, flexible ink tube, and a loose fit between them) and require lots of pressure. Maybe you have nice ones in the UK. Students here would normally learn with a traditional wooden pencil. This works well if you constantly sharpen it.
    - abritinthebay 10y ago
      Yeah, UK joined-up is basically a simplified classical English Round Hand: http://www.cursivewriting.org/images/JoinitC1alpha.jpg http://www.cursivewriting.org/images/JoinitC1alpha.jpg It's... not hard, easy to learn, and looks very nice. It also allows you to progress to the (imo) nicer roundhand style if you really want fancy calligraphy.

falcolas 10y ago

US cursive looks rather different from the cursive taught in the rest of the world; its dissimilarities with printed words makes it more of a specialized task to read and write. It's much more decorative than fast, IMO. For example: US cursive 'Q' looks like the number 2. 'Z' is the number 2 with another loop below the line. 'F' and 'T' look like letters you'd see in an illustrated manuscript as the leading letter.

abritinthebay 10y ago
That... sounds horrific.
- falcolas 10y ago
  Yup. To second Tropo below - the cursive I was taught is the D'Nealian Script: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive#/media/File:Cursive.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive#/media/File:Cursive.sv... It is not fast, but it does look pretty when written with a steady and constant hand.

tropo 10y ago

Yes. It's teacher-by-teacher of course, not part of testing, and without defects being pointed out in later years. Instructional materials show examples but don't bother to explain which aspects of letter form actually matter. For example, it is important to distinguish points, humps, and loops. This has to be reliable. Many other things are not so important, but you might not guess which ones just from looking at examples. Also, a fine-point mechanical pencil is a must. Ball-point pens need too much pressure and normally the tip has a bit of wiggle to it. Other kinds of pens leave ink blobs when you stop. Old-style pencils get too wide as they wear down.

abritinthebay 10y ago
This sounds... crazy. I learned cursive in the UK as a young child with a ball-point and it made very little difference to writing. Yeesh, no wonder the US has such a hate-on for it.
- tropo 10y ago
  You probably used UK-style joined-up writing. Americans tend to use something like D'Nealian cursive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Nealian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Nealian It takes time to correct a student's mistakes. If this isn't done, poor legibility becomes a habit. Tracing oversized letters isn't going to lead to quality cursive. Yes, of course you can use a ball-point, but typical cheap American ones have a wobbly tip (flexible body, flexible ink tube, and a loose fit between them) and require lots of pressure. Maybe you have nice ones in the UK. Students here would normally learn with a traditional wooden pencil. This works well if you constantly sharpen it.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    Yeah, UK joined-up is basically a simplified classical English Round Hand: http://www.cursivewriting.org/images/JoinitC1alpha.jpg http://www.cursivewriting.org/images/JoinitC1alpha.jpg It's... not hard, easy to learn, and looks very nice. It also allows you to progress to the (imo) nicer roundhand style if you really want fancy calligraphy.