Also known as "long hand" writing, this technique for penmanship has been around for ages. In this age of txting and electronic signatures, some people believe cursive/long hand is archaic and unnecessary. What do you think?
sort by best latest
Thank you. :) I found this cool too. It seems to be much the same as doing tasks w/ classical music. We often listened to it in occupational therapy classes when I was in college.
That's beautifully said! When I want to get my thoughts flowing, I write. I don't think, "I'm going to write in cursive." It's just how I write. I wouldn't even dream of writing in archaic print. Cursive does make the words flow!
I agree! Writing in my journal is so much more relaxing than typing on the keyboard even though they are both expressive. There is just something special about the flowing curves and loops. :)
Yes, yes and yes! Thank you for the wisdom of this comment. 'Cursive' connects you to yourself and to your own thoughts. It should not be allowed to become a thing of the past.
Au fait, our feelings on this subject sync almost entirely. Thanks for sharing.
So true easylearningweb!
Fundamental..I agree!! The world will change for the worse if people stop learning to write. Printing is for books. Cursive is for people. It's human.
Yeah! I didn't think about the handwriting analysis. That's another great point. Dang, we need to start some kind of petition--a movement to keep cursive writing!!!
Handwriting analysis is done just as easily on print as it is cursive. Haven't you ever watched CSI or Bones? It's really quite simple and unscientific and I'm pretty sure not admissible in most courts so it's a moot point.
I love Bones, but I've never noticed their analyzing handwriting in print. I think I'm more interested in watching Booth. LOL!
Victoria Lynn, I'm with you--Booth is worth watching! LOL
Here's an interesting article on handwriting analysis and the law--and job applications [which say "please print", BTW]: http://www.hollinslegal.com/2011/08/17/handwriting...
Excellent point, IDONO!
I own a copy of the Dec. of Ind. and it's barely legible because it uses archaic cursive forms I wasn't taught. I read the printed transcription that came with it when I need a quote fast. Learning all forms of cursive over millennia isn't practical.
For how long do we teach kids archaic knowledge as a required part of the curriculum? I know cursive, and can't read German newspapers from 125 years ago, nor can I read my grandma's Germanic cursive, for example. Exposure I favor, but not mastery.
JLopera, great points!
I totally agree! There are so many new things to be learned that children of yesteryear didn't need to know that some things have to give way to the modern world's new need-to-knows in order for our kids to learn it all. Sports, music, and art, too.
Why is print more needed than cursive? Cursive is more practical, I would think. It's how names are signed, it's more professional-looking, and it's much faster and efficient.
I've never found it faster or more efficient. To this day I am still one of those people who somehow writes in both cursive and print sometimes in the same sentence. I also think it's harder to read if someone doesn't write it neatly. JMO
Computers can't "read" cursive as easily, neither can most people. Also, you can't do math or science equations in cursive--it's in print or Latin characters. Printing is the must-know to move to the future: universally recognized, in my opinion.
It doesn't take long to learn and it is an enjoyable activity. Don't give up on cursive. It is a basic.
JLopera, I haven't given up on it. It's a technology that's on the way out--it has already been supplanted by computers and print. It's the aspect that I am against--just as we don't require students to take Latin or hieroglyphics.
I agree with JLopera. And comparing it to hieroglyphics, Laura--it's just not the same thing. Latin, on the other hand, would be helpful to require, as we would all better understand language. Seriously. All this discussion is interesting!
Victoria, thanks for answering. My question was inspired by a local school announcement they are doing away with cursive writing; it is refreshing to hear not all teachers think it is is useless.
For cursive proponents: what percent of the things you READ daily are actually in cursive outside of a classroom setting? Street signs, cereal boxes, prescription bottles, books, newspapers... <1% for me. It's technological. And perhaps generation
Not "pro or con" argument. Just an answer (not the %) - I write & read my own diaries. There is no way I use a computer for that. Plus all of my previous correspondence. & Prescriptions! Again - just an example, not an argument.
What about signing their names or writing in class? Printing takes forever. Or being able to read people's writing? It seems to be a skill they need.
I agree, Victoria Lynn. And in a society that seems geared for whatever is faster and more convenient one would think cursive would be quite valued!
Sorry, I respectfully have to agree with suzettenaples 100% on this one. Something has to "give" in the curriculums to make time to learn modern technology, besides. Either that or lengthen the school day.
I agree with Victoria.
the50marathons17, I am a novelist, and when I get an idea at night find it easier to jot down my thoughts than run to the comp and bring up my word program. So yeah, I think it comes in handy.
Cursive is faster to WRITE than print, but print is faster to READ than cursive. Usually, people want to read quickly. Street signs, books, forms--formal output is print rather than cursive, except for personal correspondence (non-urgent reading).
Nowadays (in my son's school, they are not allowed to write in pen. Pencil only - and it is Grade 5.) They don't leave enough space between lines - and everything is a mess. How can anyone study like that? The result is as messy as the method.
Cursive, even/especially written by masters, is just plain hard to read, too. I looks beautiful, but it is an inferior form of mass communication whose time has come to let go of. It should be optional, an elective class.
Laura, I have always found writing cursive superior, faster and allows for more artistic penmanship than the print children are forced to learn early on.
I do too, bethperry. If they're going to choose one, it should be cursive. It's faster, more artistic and creative. I write extremely fast I cursive; it's great for taking notes at meetings . . . or whatever.
My dad was a fine artist, so my cursive was always held to too-high standards by teachers: I could never meet them and was shamed. I can't read my own cursive now. I sign my name, print, & touch-type fast when I am feeling creative. Works for me.
Laura, don't feel bad! My cursive penmanship became awful after I learned short-hand, lol. But I still much, much prefer it over printing.
bethperry, where were you when I was failing Handwriting in 5th grade? :-) Thanks!! I no longer feel badly about that, but growing up, typing then computers became my 1st choice for fast creative output. Shorthand should be taught... that's an idea.
cjarosz, I think so, too.
The Amish stopped adopting new technologies and letting go of old ones at a certain point. I see this as a similar scenario: the world has moved on and kids should be allowed to choose/not choose to study old technology while living in the present.