Good, cursive is stupid. School already finds so many idiotic ways to waste your childhood, removing this one seems like a solid win. As for the "tyranny of re

Good, cursive is stupid. School already finds so many idiotic ways to waste your childhood, removing this one seems like a solid win. As for the "tyranny of relevance", sure, we shouldn't only learn things that are strictly "beneficial". Abstract thinking is important and I can buy an argument that cursive forces our brain to think about language differently. Well, I can't buy it because I see no support for that let alone support for it being a better investment than, say, an additional hour of reading, or an additional hour of learning a new language, etc. The discussion here is about whether this segregates the population into "those who have access to cursive materials and those who don't" but if anything that's a great case for not having cursive - it was a mistake then, it's a mistake now. I find it odd that one student would choose not to read handwritten letters altogether because they're in cursive. Surely there's a transcript, and if your goal is to glean the emotion from the weight of the penmanship, I don't think that cursive will be a significant barrier. Or just learn cursive, I think an adult can likely learn cursive well enough to read it in an hour? It's... not hard. Reading crazy old cursive was never something we were taught, so no one has regressed there, that shit that just looks like '/-/-/-///--/----/~~~~' may as well have its own name, it isn't cursive. I mean, I guess that's kind of critical to this whole article - it maintains that only a few will be trained it it, but it's not a difficult skill and I suspect anyone who cares that they are "locked out" of that world would just pick it up in a weekend. IDK, I get the point, and for a lot of things I see this as an issue, but fuck cursive Rest In Shit