Hard disagree. I am an ecologist and paper notes are very common just for reasons of practicality, taking notes on a tablet or field computer can be really difficult with glare, managing power, overheating, rain. The faster and more legibley you can write, the better you’ll be on the job. I doubt that ecology is the only field where this is true. Not everyone has a dang office job.
But cursive is more useful and practical than writing print. If you’re taking notes, you want to take them quickly and still be legible. Cursive is a system for this.
I don’t disagree with that! Maybe we should start learning shorthand.
I do think it is valuable to read cursive though, for historical study. I joined an informal LGBT history study group and we got to spend a lot of time reading love letters people sent each other. Not everything is transcribed, so I’m glad I was taught to read cursive.
You could argue that only historians should learn it, but I think that historical research is something that should be widely accessible, and also it’s easier for young kids to learn language skills. I don’t think there is any harm in teaching cursive.
Reading cursive should be a thing, I think with kids being so digital centric you could probably just teach it to them as a font? It is, after all, supposed to be English text written in the Latin alphabet, just all joined up.
Hard disagree. I am an ecologist and paper notes are very common just for reasons of practicality, taking notes on a tablet or field computer can be really difficult with glare, managing power, overheating, rain. The faster and more legibley you can write, the better you’ll be on the job. I doubt that ecology is the only field where this is true. Not everyone has a dang office job.
handwriting proficiency should be taught. cursive can fuck off.
But cursive is more useful and practical than writing print. If you’re taking notes, you want to take them quickly and still be legible. Cursive is a system for this.
If you want legible from me, I’ll be continuing to use print.
fair lol
I would argue shorthand is probably more valuable than cursive for this.
I don’t disagree with that! Maybe we should start learning shorthand.
I do think it is valuable to read cursive though, for historical study. I joined an informal LGBT history study group and we got to spend a lot of time reading love letters people sent each other. Not everything is transcribed, so I’m glad I was taught to read cursive.
You could argue that only historians should learn it, but I think that historical research is something that should be widely accessible, and also it’s easier for young kids to learn language skills. I don’t think there is any harm in teaching cursive.
Reading cursive should be a thing, I think with kids being so digital centric you could probably just teach it to them as a font? It is, after all, supposed to be English text written in the Latin alphabet, just all joined up.