> Now, I refuse to print anything unless I have to. Cursive is so much easier, so much faster, so much more legible, so much neater.
I respectfully disagree. As someone who has had the "pleasure" of trying to grade college level assignments from best to worst: typed, printed, and then cursive as a distant last.
Cursive is faster to write, but it being more legible and neater is debatable. Obviously it varies based on who wrote the cursive or print, but broadly speaking print is a lot more consistent between individuals than cursive is.
A lot of doctor scripts now need to be printed, because cursive caused too many enquiries/bounces and incorrect prescriptions. Although bad hand-writing often comes up when the talk of electronic patient records is discussed/promoted.
Cursive's only real benefit is speed. Maybe someone could argue that it is visually "prettier" to look at (I'd agree). But in terms of productivity speed is the only main draw.
I appreciate the respectful counterpoint. I don't mean disrespect for the other side of the debate either. It's hyperbole -- so I don't understand why I'm being downvoted for bringing a legitimate point.
I think you and the other commenter are missing my point. Like all languages that use the Roman alphabet, English has a printed form and a scripted form. It seems they're going to only teach one of the two, and for what? Typing? Typing is only useful if you use a computer, and writing is part of basic literacy.
Don't get me wrong -- I am happy I know how to type. But I'm also happy I know how to write cursive. I don't understand what they're adding to the curriculum that's so important that they are dropping cursive.
Perhaps you had a hard time reading the cursive papers, and that's understandable. But if their papers were that messy, then it seems to me that the solution is to spend more time on perfecting their cursive -- not throwing up our hands and eliminating script entirely from the curriculum.
I respectfully disagree. As someone who has had the "pleasure" of trying to grade college level assignments from best to worst: typed, printed, and then cursive as a distant last.
Cursive is faster to write, but it being more legible and neater is debatable. Obviously it varies based on who wrote the cursive or print, but broadly speaking print is a lot more consistent between individuals than cursive is.
A lot of doctor scripts now need to be printed, because cursive caused too many enquiries/bounces and incorrect prescriptions. Although bad hand-writing often comes up when the talk of electronic patient records is discussed/promoted.
Cursive's only real benefit is speed. Maybe someone could argue that it is visually "prettier" to look at (I'd agree). But in terms of productivity speed is the only main draw.