3 ms·

The common discussion around this topic reminds me of how people got upset about Pluto being demoted to a "dwarf planet", or how they value spending hours of on

The common discussion around this topic reminds me of how people got upset about Pluto being demoted to a "dwarf planet", or how they value spending hours of one's life reading fiction novels while scoffing at shows and video games as lower forms of art. I know older folks who think it's a bad thing that their nieces and nephews aren't being taught cursive handwriting. People have a visceral reaction to change, especially when it comes to things that were romanticized, or at least emphasized in childhood. Knowing how to write in cursive is like knowing how to churn butter, how to tie a horse to a hitching post, or (more aptly) using a typewriter. Said skills might be selectively useful, but they are generally obsolete. It's great that people want to know that I have to do those things, but don't expect me to have to learn outdated things that have no use for me.

linuxftw 8y ago
Learning how to write fluently on paper and the ability to read older source documents is a skill. Learning that Columbus showed up in 1492 is trivia. Public school spends >50% of time on trivia, and skills are being removed. I consider written language a part of a language culture. Getting rid of cursive writing is like telling people they can't speak Spanish because it's an outdated language and everyone should just use English because it's more modern, and all the computer stuff is in English anyway.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Latin would be a better comparison than Spanish here. It has its uses, but it's very situational these days and most modern people will never need it.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    most people will never need Latin in the sense that they are unlikely to read original works written in Latin unless they become a classics professor. you could say the same thing about most classes in elementary through high school. rarely if ever do I directly apply my knowledge from biology, history, english lit, etc. once we start looking at indirect applications, I think Latin and Greek are easily as useful as any other subject. even if you can't read them fluently, having a firm grasp of grammar and vocab in these languages is a huge advantage when it comes to proficiency in English. complex terminology in other fields becomes much easier to understand when you know the roots.
  - ravenstine 8y ago
    Even Latin still makes sense to learn in some capacity. It's obsolete(or dead, really) as a form of communication, but it's still helpful to know in order to better understand the words that we use today, many of which stem from Latin. Understanding etymology and some Latin has helped me understand the meaning of words without even having to look them up. Cursive, on the other hand, still exists for its own sake. It's an obsolete skill because few people write actual letters anymore or rely on handwriting often. We still use English every day, which is why learning Latin is a better use of one's time than to learn cursive.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      I imagine it has practical value for historians who have to read cursive documents, and as an art form it's just as valid as any other sort of calligraphy. But yeah, outside of a few narrow areas it doesn't have much modern use.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> Learning how to write fluently on paper and the ability to read older source documents is a skill. No. It is two skills. Cursive isn't a language. It is a script, a simple transposition of symbols. Anyone who can read english type can learn to read cursive, to access those older source documents, in a matter of hours. Writing cursive is a totally different thing, a collection of muscle memories that take years to acquire. The former is an important but easy skill to master, the later is difficult but increasingly irrelevant.
cgriswald 8y ago
Cursive is no more 'generally obsolete' than writing in print letters; and it's easier on the hand and more efficient. Schools don't want to teach it because they're trying to meet standards and cursive isn't required. They also don't want to teach it because their students turn in assignments written on computers rather than by hand. These aren't good reasons.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  Yes, it is. Print is clearer and closer to printed typography, and people just don't write enough these days for the efficiency of writing cursive when cursive is much more difficult to read. Schools don't want to teach it because it's a waste of time. Kids these days are learning and doing most of their work on computers. When I was in elementary school, we had computers, but they complemented our handwritten work. Now they are doing homework on the computer as well. There's simply not enough practical work for children to practice their cursive on; they won't get good at it doing it an hour every day, and the skill will quickly devolve once they are out of school. Ever since my elders accepted email as a superior communication medium, the only thing I've ever used cursive for in the last 20+ years is my signature. Like most people's, it's just a semi-unique scribble at this point. For most people, the skill of cursive writing serves no appreciable purpose. If we're going to teach kids cursive in the 21st century, we might as well teach them all how to spin yarn, navigate with a magnetic compass, shoe a horse, and balance a paper checkbook.

linuxftw 8y ago

Learning how to write fluently on paper and the ability to read older source documents is a skill. Learning that Columbus showed up in 1492 is trivia. Public school spends >50% of time on trivia, and skills are being removed. I consider written language a part of a language culture. Getting rid of cursive writing is like telling people they can't speak Spanish because it's an outdated language and everyone should just use English because it's more modern, and all the computer stuff is in English anyway.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Latin would be a better comparison than Spanish here. It has its uses, but it's very situational these days and most modern people will never need it.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  most people will never need Latin in the sense that they are unlikely to read original works written in Latin unless they become a classics professor. you could say the same thing about most classes in elementary through high school. rarely if ever do I directly apply my knowledge from biology, history, english lit, etc. once we start looking at indirect applications, I think Latin and Greek are easily as useful as any other subject. even if you can't read them fluently, having a firm grasp of grammar and vocab in these languages is a huge advantage when it comes to proficiency in English. complex terminology in other fields becomes much easier to understand when you know the roots.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  Even Latin still makes sense to learn in some capacity. It's obsolete(or dead, really) as a form of communication, but it's still helpful to know in order to better understand the words that we use today, many of which stem from Latin. Understanding etymology and some Latin has helped me understand the meaning of words without even having to look them up. Cursive, on the other hand, still exists for its own sake. It's an obsolete skill because few people write actual letters anymore or rely on handwriting often. We still use English every day, which is why learning Latin is a better use of one's time than to learn cursive.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    I imagine it has practical value for historians who have to read cursive documents, and as an art form it's just as valid as any other sort of calligraphy. But yeah, outside of a few narrow areas it doesn't have much modern use.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> Learning how to write fluently on paper and the ability to read older source documents is a skill. No. It is two skills. Cursive isn't a language. It is a script, a simple transposition of symbols. Anyone who can read english type can learn to read cursive, to access those older source documents, in a matter of hours. Writing cursive is a totally different thing, a collection of muscle memories that take years to acquire. The former is an important but easy skill to master, the later is difficult but increasingly irrelevant.

cgriswald 8y ago

Cursive is no more 'generally obsolete' than writing in print letters; and it's easier on the hand and more efficient. Schools don't want to teach it because they're trying to meet standards and cursive isn't required. They also don't want to teach it because their students turn in assignments written on computers rather than by hand. These aren't good reasons.

ravenstine 8y ago
Yes, it is. Print is clearer and closer to printed typography, and people just don't write enough these days for the efficiency of writing cursive when cursive is much more difficult to read. Schools don't want to teach it because it's a waste of time. Kids these days are learning and doing most of their work on computers. When I was in elementary school, we had computers, but they complemented our handwritten work. Now they are doing homework on the computer as well. There's simply not enough practical work for children to practice their cursive on; they won't get good at it doing it an hour every day, and the skill will quickly devolve once they are out of school. Ever since my elders accepted email as a superior communication medium, the only thing I've ever used cursive for in the last 20+ years is my signature. Like most people's, it's just a semi-unique scribble at this point. For most people, the skill of cursive writing serves no appreciable purpose. If we're going to teach kids cursive in the 21st century, we might as well teach them all how to spin yarn, navigate with a magnetic compass, shoe a horse, and balance a paper checkbook.