4 ms·

It does have advantages, just not for users. The advantage is providing a way to control pupils: a student's work will not be accepted unless it is written in t

by ionfish 17y ago

It does have advantages, just not for users. The advantage is providing a way to control pupils: a student's work will not be accepted unless it is written in the correct way. The implicit message is clear: you must conform to our pointless strictures, or you will not be accepted (human beings experience the rejection of their work as a rejection of their selves, even when this is irrational). The pointlessness of "joined-up" handwriting (as it is referred to in the UK) is part of its utility to the system, as it demonstrates that conformity is the ultimate requirement, not practicality.

lucumo 17y ago
Oh, come on. Not everything done on schools is a conspiracy to keep pupils in check. Teaching the students to respect their teachers is useful and without doubt it's taught in schools. It helps students to absorb the knowledge from their teachers without the teacher having to prove every detail, which in turn helps more to be taught. (Some things really don't need a proof until you're working in much more detail. Most people don't need to know why 2 + 2 = 4, they just need to know that it's true.) Really, if indoctrinating them would be the point of cursive writing there'd be much more effective ways to do it.
- ionfish 17y ago
  I admit that my tongue was planted rather firmly in my cheek when I made my remarks. However, neither your assertion that "Not everything done on [sic] schools is a conspiracy to keep pupils in check" nor the claim that there are more effective ways to indoctrinate pupils are actually arguments against my conclusions. My recommendation in this regard would be "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence". It avoids having to explain why one would want to teach joined-up handwriting, and has the added effect of doing down the school system—something that will almost always make one popular here.
- philwelch 17y ago
  "Most people don't need to know why 2 + 2 = 4, they just need to know that it's true." While most people don't need a rigorous proof that would take Russell and Whitehead hundreds of dense pages to reach that point, even a small child has to have enough of an intuitive understanding of how addition works for 2 + 2 = 4 to be meaningful to them. That's why we do exercises with pennies and talk about "if you have 2 cookies and I give you two more cookies" to drive the point home. "Really, if indoctrinating them would be the point of cursive writing there'd be much more effective ways to do it." You argue as if cursive writing is the sole means by which schools teach children to accept arbitrary, irrational authority. I don't think it's a "conspiracy" per se, just part of how the system works: when the system is characterized by regimentation and submission to arbitrary authority, it's a lot easier for useless things like cursive to be taught.
billybob 17y ago
"The implicit message is clear: you must conform to our pointless strictures, or you will not be accepted." So THAT'S why they made us shave our heads and break rocks 5 hours a day in middle school.

by ionfish 17y ago

lucumo 17y ago

Oh, come on. Not everything done on schools is a conspiracy to keep pupils in check. Teaching the students to respect their teachers is useful and without doubt it's taught in schools. It helps students to absorb the knowledge from their teachers without the teacher having to prove every detail, which in turn helps more to be taught. (Some things really don't need a proof until you're working in much more detail. Most people don't need to know why 2 + 2 = 4, they just need to know that it's true.) Really, if indoctrinating them would be the point of cursive writing there'd be much more effective ways to do it.

ionfish 17y ago
I admit that my tongue was planted rather firmly in my cheek when I made my remarks. However, neither your assertion that "Not everything done on [sic] schools is a conspiracy to keep pupils in check" nor the claim that there are more effective ways to indoctrinate pupils are actually arguments against my conclusions. My recommendation in this regard would be "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence". It avoids having to explain why one would want to teach joined-up handwriting, and has the added effect of doing down the school system—something that will almost always make one popular here.
philwelch 17y ago
"Most people don't need to know why 2 + 2 = 4, they just need to know that it's true." While most people don't need a rigorous proof that would take Russell and Whitehead hundreds of dense pages to reach that point, even a small child has to have enough of an intuitive understanding of how addition works for 2 + 2 = 4 to be meaningful to them. That's why we do exercises with pennies and talk about "if you have 2 cookies and I give you two more cookies" to drive the point home. "Really, if indoctrinating them would be the point of cursive writing there'd be much more effective ways to do it." You argue as if cursive writing is the sole means by which schools teach children to accept arbitrary, irrational authority. I don't think it's a "conspiracy" per se, just part of how the system works: when the system is characterized by regimentation and submission to arbitrary authority, it's a lot easier for useless things like cursive to be taught.

billybob 17y ago

"The implicit message is clear: you must conform to our pointless strictures, or you will not be accepted." So THAT'S why they made us shave our heads and break rocks 5 hours a day in middle school.