Slashdot Mirror
Finland Dumps Handwriting In Favor of Typing
mikejuk writes It seems incredible that in the 21st century schools are still teaching children to scratch marks on paper. Well in Finland they are taking a step in the direction of the future by giving up teaching handwriting. The Savon Sanomat newspaper reports that from autumn 2016 cursive handwriting will no longer be a compulsory part of the school curriculum. Instead the schools will teach keyboard skills and 'texting'. The idea of teaching proper keyboard skills to children is unquestionably a great idea, the idea of texting is a little more dubious and many will mourn the loss of a traditional skill like cursive writing. So what about a world where cursive writing is forgotten? What do you do when your computer is dead and you need to leave a note? The death of cursive script probably isn't the death of handwriting but the death of doing it quickly and with style. Some no doubt will want to master it just for the sake of it — like driving a stick shift. I know some U.S. schools have done the same; how proficient should kids be with cursive?
No more STEM or business ideas scribbled on the backs of napkins and other foolscap.
when i was in grade school, they taught cursive still but they were starting to also teach typing. we had apple ][ (on a computer bus... it traveled to each school in the district, was trippy) and we would spend 1 day a week for about an hour in there learning how to type. by the time i hit middle school we didnt even have to learn or use cursive anylonger. by high school I was bringing a laptop to school and doing all my work on the laptop instead of a notebook.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What a great idea! (insert sarcasm here)
All we need now is a country-wide electrical failure and the entire country, having grown up without learning to write and now unable to communicate using cell phones, effectively can be taken over in less time than it takes to make a meatball sandwich. Stroke of fucking genius. This brainwave must have come from a "teaching professional" or an "MBA". Written communication is the only thing that will keep working throughout history and they want to stop teaching it.
Brilliant.
They only people left on the planet that can read cursive are the third grade teachers who are tasked with teaching it.
I don't know about you, but I can jot-down quick notes on scraps of paper a hell of a lot faster than I can get out an electronic device, open a note-taking program, and attempt to use an on-screen keyboard to type the same notes with any degree of accuracy.
I had a meeting a couple of weeks ago with several coworkers and an outside vendor, and it was a quite technical meeting. I had to be able to follow all of the jumps between topics and to keep my notes straight and organized. I later reorganized my notes when I typed them for e-mail, but what I took was stream-of-consciousness at best, and would not have been immediately sendable to others. Since I had to reorganize the notes anyway, using paper was a lot more practical than attempting to do it electronically.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Sign on the dotted line ... ernnn, uh, well, you see, it's like this ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I remember learning cursive all throughout middle school. It never served any functional purpose afterward. Almost nobody used it and the few people who still insisted on it were the ones whose handwriting nobody wanted to have to read because it was so difficult to make out. In college, many professors will not accept a paper written in cursive for that same reason. I still think handwriting is important, but to hell with cursive. Why waste time teaching it when the vast majority will never use it?
I would hope that they're dropping the archaic cursive style of writing because it's just that: archaic. OTOH, ceasing to teach kids how to write in a legible block "font" would be mind-blowingly stupid. No matter what people need to be able to write, but they don't have to write "fancy".
(Not to mention I can't actually manage to *read* most people's cursive writing, no matter what era they were taught it in.)
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
Even when we learned cursive, it was more about writing "pretty" with nice, flowing curves than writing efficiently. If they wanted that, they'd teach us stenography. Kind of the grade school version of learning Latin, high degree of sophistication but of little practical value anymore. Typing with ease on the other hand is valuable both to concentrate on the actual task instead of the typing and because good typing skills + auto complete lets you use long, sane names and verbose comments with very little extra effort. Second to the developers who code like they paid by the line I hate the ones who code like they get docked in pay per letter used almost equally much.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This article could be a complete misconception, based on a translation error. The article says that Finnish children will only be taught "texting". In English, texting usually means writing SMS messages and such. The article refers to a Finnish article, where they talk about "tekstaus". In Finnish, "tekstaus" means writing block letters (or print writing) separate letters by hand. That's different from cursive, where the letters are joined.
According to Wikipedia, in English-speaking countries, children also learn block writing first and MAY learn cursive. It doesn't mention how common it is.
If so, this article is nonsense.
The currently taught Finnish cursive is not very different from "tekstaus" anyhow. I personally nowadays mainly use the older cursive, for the exact reason that it has become rare.
It seems incredible that in the 21st century schools are still teaching children to scratch marks on paper.
It seems incredible? Hello, what sort of bizarro world does this come from? I know that handwriting is becoming less important, but WTF is this? Treating it as some sort of Amazon rainforest tribe barbarity?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I moved to United Kingdom when I was 13. I was never taught cursive in school. I am doing fine. However I don't think it is a good idea to teach texting, because different kind of input method may come along and make texting obsolete, e.g. Swype.
There is a definite cognitive connection between writing by hand and brain function. For example, I am a better writer when I write by hand. Furthermore, I enjoy the task better because I can to make the cursive squiggles. I use a fountain pen which makes it even more enjoyable. But then I am a luddite. I write letters by hand and put them in the mail. I do it partially because I write prisoners but I also have regular correspondents. It's much better than e-mail.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
I have driven several cars with manual transmissions this year. I have not used cursive once unless you count my signature which my cursive writing instructor (from 3rd grade many decades ago) would have flunked for illegibility. As long as people can write in some legible manner with a pen or pencil there is no good argument to beat them up with cursive; just let them go from handwriting to typing.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Just switch the automatic transmission to manual mode - using +1/-1 stick pushes. I haven't seen that in U.S. cheap cars but all EU automatic transmissions have also manual mode.
The article is appears to be a mix of bad translation provided by google translate and a cultural misunderstanding.
Preface: I'm a Finn. I read OP, was very confused that I never heard about this happening, went to the original article and understood why I never heard about it.
Original article is here: http://www.savonsanomat.fi/uut...
What the article actually says is that teachers will now be allowed to not teach writing in cursive if they choose to do so. They will still be required to teach writing skills, they'll just drop the requirement to teach cursive. Specifically this is a part of update of legal requirements for schools which is a part of larger legislative package that's coming in 2015. Nothing has been decided yet apparently, this is just one of the main suggestions. The change suggested would require complete overhaul of school books, which is not a cheap or easy feat in a country with only 5 million people, meaning far less buyers of said books that pushes up the prices significantly. It would also require massive investments in hardware for poorer students who may not have access to necessary hardware. We are very big on "no child left behind" principle here. That means that some of the poorer regions would have to update their schools. Regions have wide reaching autonomy around here, and can have as few as a few thousand people, so schools for little children tend to be equally small and operate on tight budgets.
Considering that "most teachers are very confused by this requirement" and that teachers in this country are required to have master's degree in education by law and as a result get significant leeway in designing and implementing course work, something that is often considered to be of key importance to Finland's high PISA standings, I don't think we're looking at this change happening on large scale outside a few schools in larger cities any time soon. The article also notes that there are a lot of practical issues with the idea and the article is prefaced with a photograph text under which says that 4th grade student doesn't like this change because "writing in block letters is much slower than in cursive"
Overall this looks like your standard US citizen reading a story about a different country that has a completely different culture and ways of doing things, projecting their own culture upon it, and running away with insanity that results from this heap of misunderstandings. The actual change here is that the schools will likely have teaching of typing skills added to curriculum at much earlier date than before. Not dropping of cursive.
andnothingofvaluewaslost
Just emojis thanks
Man, it's amazing how many people who think they rock at writing, really suck at reading. They're not stopping teaching writing with pen and paper. They are stopping teaching cursive. Printing is faster for note taking anyway, cursive is just a way of trying to make your writing prettier.
Works fine with printed; cursive not required.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
"Texting" ("tekstaus" in Finnish) means writing in a different font, that is markedly different from classic cursive writing. It has nothing to do with computers or mobile phones as such. You can see the font here.
- Ismo
I don't know why....but it's universal.....I need a Rosseta stone to decode MD writting
So what about a world where cursive writing is forgotten? What do you do when your computer is dead and you need to leave a note?
What do you do? The same thing that I do now, you print it. No reason to put anyone, including myself, through trying to decipher my cursive writing. Idiotic question!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Then blame Timmay for posting a shitty summary that says "giving up teaching handwriting". Notice it does not say "cursive only".
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The reason to learn and use cursive is because it's much more efficient in terms of writing large amounts. It's not the fault of cursive if people like you can't be bothered to use it correctly any more than it's the fault of the OS that people click on things they shouldn't be clicking on.
I've tried taking notice with regular printing and it just doesn't work out well. I can write far more with cursive before my hand starts to ache.
Before you bring up laptops for taking notes, I'd like to point out that I hate those assholes for making all that noise while I'm trying to concentrate on the class. Not to mention the fact that it's easy to have material wind up on the page that wasn't in the lecture because you're not really thinking about what you're typing.
Historical records in many countries are written in cursive, and not just English wring ones. Only a complete idiot would want to sever children from their past.
I spent years in grammar school trying to write cursive well, because everyone told me that when I got to middle school, cursive would be required! When I actually got there, cursive was forbidden because nobody can read anyone else's cursive handwriting. And besides, we were already typing everything. Every handwritten form I've ever seen says "Please print" on the top. Why did I spend all of that time learning cursive if everyone always tells me to print?
The main benefit of cursive is less effort/time required to write since you don't lift your pen/pencil from the page between characters. So it has a very practical use. It also is a part of culture, that is slowly being stripped away and being discarded.
There isn't a car (at least in the US) where the brakes can't overcome full throttle. All those "unintended acceleration - I was pushing on the brake" reports just point to driver error, at the very least, they weren't pushing on the brake.
But yes, I think in general that M/T drivers do tend to be more aware of how the whole system works.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You can downshift an automatic transmission. The torque converter will give higher torque at low output shaft rpm. you have no point, you are ignorant
I'll leave it to people to search for themselves, but there's been some interesting studies that show the process of writing by hand involves different aspects of the brain than typing on a computer (there's also differences between a typewriter and PC type keyboard).
There are still writers/authors who write by hand before having their work transcribed, feeling that their creative process is better (or different) when writing manually.
Anyway, it sounds like they're still teaching printing, not cursive yes? So that makes some more sense.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
"The Savon Sanomat newspaper reports that from autumn 2016 cursive handwriting will no longer be a compulsory part of the school curriculum."
I mean... sure, it's slashdot tradition to not read the article, but to not even read the first 3 sentences of the summary...
How do you write without hand writing on a flip chart?
On a white board? How to sketch in the sand?
It seems incredible that in the 21st century schools are still teaching children to scratch marks on paper.
Incredible? Wow, without handwriting skills quite a lot of jobs are out of the question as is lots of fun stuff.
Want to sail a boat? Want to have a SRC/LRC (short/long range radio certification)? How do you think you put a received radio call into your log? How do you think to translate it, if you are in european waters and the call was in english?
I guess with a bit of thinking I find you 100 jobs you just can forget to apply for if you can not write with your hand, without a computer/pad.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Printing is faster for note taking anyway, cursive is just a way of trying to make your writing prettier.
Bullshit. Cursive is several times faster than printing.
And thus the communication method that's most efficient should take priority.
I'd rather kids spent times learning how to use the words than how they are drawn. Especially if they are left-handed, clumsy, short-sighted, etc.
My mother stormed up to my school innumerable times to point out this very fact to them.
"He's handwriting is messy"
"But is the answer right?"
"Well, yes, but it's messy."
"But you could read it, and the answer was right?"
"Well, yes..."
At that point the schools tended to change tack, because they were realising the logical problem with their argument. Sure, neat handwriting in Art or Design, I get that. Handwriting neat enough for others to read (but, hell, I just print if that's necessary), I get. But maths teachers fucking about with getting me to join an "a" to another letter in THEIR preferred way rather than the myriad ways that it's possible? Get lost.
Handwriting is dead in the water. It's long-winded, hard-to-teach, a practical skill not an intellectual one, and in the end it matters SO LITTLE in the modern world that it's laughable. Teach how to write, by all means, but spending years perfecting cursive writing? Stuff that. Cut that shit out, and put an extra English, Maths or Science lesson in there instead.
As others point out, all forms say "Please print". You read a hundred times more text on a font than you do in cursive. Even the handwriting you do in school is printed out BY USING A TYPEFACE, teachers do not hand-write it! Even back in my day, photocopied sheets for practice were with typescript letters.
Pissing time away on a dead art is wasteful, especially so in education. I can't remember the last time I had to do more than jot a note on a Post-It by hand. And since the smartphone era, I just use Google Keep apps. Doctors have computerised systems now. Authors have been required to submit typewritten manuscripts for decades.
Sorry, but it was a waste in my day (and I was told off by my teachers for doing so much on computer instead of by hand, and I can't say it's hurt my career at all). It's a waste now. It's going to be a waste in 20 years time, which is where the country noted in this article is in education terms compared to the UK or US.
Communicate. By removing the shit associated with it such that communication is a pure art focusing on the words and their meaning, not how pretty they look.
Several uses huh? Name one other than signatures. As a rule nobody else can read your cursive, and shorthand is far superior for note taking.
As for historical documents - the same way historical documents in Babylonian or any other abandoned written language are read: If you actually want to read the things you either learn the language or find a translation. Why should the other 99% of the population be forced to learn a largely useless alphabet?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I seem to be seeing a trend of technology making people dumber, lazier, and more unskilled than ever before, and it really disturbs me.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
...cursive is just a way of trying to make your writing prettier.
No, it is most certainly not. You're missing the point. It's not for looking pretty, it's for writing quickly quick while retaining legibility.
My handwriting sucked until sometime in 3rd of 4th grade I quit trying to make my writing look like what was in the copy-books and started figuring out how to form the letters in a way that was fast *for me* and still neat for those trying to read it. Within a year I went from bottom of the class to having my handwriting shown off as an example, and I still receive compliments on it. And I can write much faster than most people I know.
And I'm a leftie, even.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
A lot of historical documents are written in Olde English or Saxxon.. how far back do we go before we cut the cord on what is 'general' knowledge? Only a complete idiot would expect every child to be able to read Fraktur script in several languages for records that have minimal impact on their day to day lives.
We already have that. So do they.
We older folks sit together and talk to each other. We smile, frown, roll our eyes, laugh, and more, all while undertaking integrated forays into spoken language and listening comprehension.
They sit there mute, heads folded halfway over, tapping madly on their smart-phones while occasionally sniggering to themselves. I've seen whole tables of them doing this, many times. It's like the others at the table don't even exist, except inasmuch as they might be connected via those same smart-phones.
And when you try to engage them in conversation, just watch how long it takes before they're head-back-in-smartphone.
It's a fascinating social development. But I'm not at all certain it is a positive one.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Apparently signatures and computer fonts that mimic cursive aren't used either?
And for those who want to imitate block lettering, MS-Comic font to the rescue! :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Talk about your ancient technology. I've been using my (whoa, nice ass) Mindwriter 5000 for (shut up you damned dog) years and have (mmm, chocolate) had no problems whatsoever.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The word "cursive" isn't used much outside North America. "(Hand)writing" (as contrasted with "printing") has much wider currency.
Also, if actually done beautifully, cursive is not speedy at all. If you slop it out, sure. But then again, if speed is the goal, you can print shorthand and exceed the rate of typical speech -- and cogent thought.
The efficiency argument is fairly weak overall.
My affection for cursive is more related to the calligraphic aspect of it; I am under the fairly strong impression that for those who are artistically inclined, it's one of the first taught interactions where we can detect that.
I'm quite partial to copperplate. Wish my handwriting looked like that. But my aptitudes land more in the musical domain.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And riding a rocket-powered sled is faster than driving. But driving is sufficient to our needs.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Saying "not teaching cursive" is equal to "not teaching handwriting", is like saying "not teaching spoken poetry" is equal to "not teaching your child to speak".
Cursive is _a form of_ handwriting. You know, as in not all handwriting is cursive, but all cursive is handwriting (funky fonts notwithstanding).
Does anyone even edit this place anymore? Wait, don't answer that.
Nokia says: People at Microsoft don't outlaw pens.
Finland says: Pens are a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.
I say: People will get problems when throwing a cultural heritage over board. Especially that many neurological studies show a direct link between motion training, creativity and intelligence.
It's not the writing. It's the reformulation. Which you can do better with a normal text editor or word processor. Further, I suspect that retention is enhanced by the action of not only writing, but editing and reformulating what one is writing.
Don't think your argument takes into account what the alternatives do.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
>The death of cursive script probably isn't the death of handwriting but the death of doing it quickly and with style.
So I'm thinking over all the cursive I've seen in my life and, with the exception of a couple people with a calligraphy hobby, the only "styles" that spring to mind range from "bad" to "completely illegible". And where speed is concerned shorthand wins hands down, cursive typically only grants a 10% or so boost over printing, whereas with practice shorthand can double or more your writing speed.
Personally I suspect cursive was invented primarily as a "secret language" to separate the educated elite from the functionally literate. The only real advantage it has over block writing is "prettiness" when done well, and the fact that it's far more difficult to write legibly than to print.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I can't help being reminded of the scene in Wall-E which scrolls past the portraits of the ship's Captains. Their signatures becoming more and more illegible as the machine takes control.
Our family preserves letters, notes, cards and such that document over two hundred years of family history, They remain readable and expressive, exposing age and emotion in ways that print cannot --- in many ways tmore intimately than any photograph.
This Thanksgiving what I saw as a quest at a family dinner was a near total self-absorption in the gadget. The smartphone. the tablet, The need to text as over-powering as the need to drink, no matter how inappropriate the setting or that there was nothing left to say.
It's simple enough to learn to read cursive if you ever need it.
Generalize much? Things are never the same for everybody. I haven't done joined-up writing since the beginning of high school, but my time to write the same sentence is currently about 40% faster in rough print against illegible cursive. Maybe if you're comparing it to formal block writing like you do on a form, but not for note-taking rough printing.
If my cursive was several times faster, I'd set fire to the paper with the friction.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Historical records in many countries are written in cursive, and not just English wring ones. Only a complete idiot would want to sever children from their past.
There's a difference between being able to read cursive (i.e. "joined up" in Commonwealth English) handwriting and actually being able to write it yourself. Besides which, even *my* joined-up handwriting isn't the same style as some of the more elaborate "copperplate" styles favoured in the past.
And while we're talking about it, the headline "Finland dumps handwriting"- which the original story used and Slashdot copied- is misleading anyway. From the article itself, it's joined-up writing that's being dumped, not writing altogether. The latter would be far more serious- IMHO kids should learn to write, but joined-up? Well, it makes me slightly uncomfortable to think of ditching it, but then *I* remember how little I actually write these days. (*) As long as they can at least write half-competently, that's the main thing.
FWIW, I certainly think that kids should be being taught basic typing skills, and if you're going to explicitly teach it anyway, it makes sense to go with touch typing. I'd been using computers for around 15 years before I learned to touch type in the late 90s, and that only happened because I explicitly learned to do so. I'd got pretty good at "hunt and peck" (**), but I would never have picked up touch typing skills from that alone.
I used Mavis Beacon, and to be honest, it didn't take *that* long to become good enough that I switched completely to touch-typing. I'm pretty sure that most kids could pick it up as fast, so it shouldn't waste too much schooltime anyway, even if typing (say) became obsolete in fifteen years time.
"Texting" skills, OTOH... stupid waste of time. Smacks of a slightly out-of-touch and conservative middle-aged person having belatedly caught up with this new "texting" fad and mistaking it for an important skill. Even if old-style (numeric keypad) texting needed a bit of practice to learn, it's not something that kids needed to be- or should have been- taught. More importantly, that typing style is being quickly rendered obsolete by the move to smartphones that use virtual QWERTY keyboards instead.
(*) And how rubbish it is often when I do- mainly because the speed of typing has made me impatient with writing speed- even though rushing it doesn't speed things up that much. If I actually make an effort to write, I'm still as neat as I ever was.
(**) My classmates were quite impressed with my typing speed, but this was back in the late 80s/early 90s when computers hadn't permeated everyday life as much, and most domestic use by non-geeks was for games or very basic use that didn't need much typing skill. (I was a geek, of course!)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Historical records in many countries are written in cursive, and not just English wring ones. Only a complete idiot would want to sever children from their past.
It's not when they grow up that they won't be carrying around devices in their pockets that have camera's that can see the cursive documents and translate them. Plus, how many historical documents wouldn't have typed out versions sitting right next to them?
A lot of historical documents are written in Olde English or Saxxon
Wasn't that a popular diagonally-scrolling shooter in the Early Middle Ages?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
At my kids' K through 8 school, they had 1 hour a week of Spanish class just so the school could say they taught a second language. I'd just as soon they didn't have it. Not because I don't think a second language is valuable, but because I don't think one hour a week accomplishes much. Middle school kids had no recess. I think they'd be better off using that hour and lengthening the school day a bit to get some recess in there.
Further, the kids spend much less time on music, art, and gym than when I was a kid. Personally, given all the time that was devoted to practicing cursive, I'd say there are more important things that kids can be doing with their study time. It's not that I don't think it has any value, but to me it's less valuable than things that are already lacking.
... how many kids can operate a slide rule?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Small metal cylinder with rechargeable battery and a head of little pins that prints one letter at a time as you move it across the paper.
Voice input, of course.
Hilarity would ensue when several people are attempting to use voice input for note taking in class, or in a meeting.
This space unintentionally left blank.
| ...cursive is just a way of trying to make your writing prettier.
"No, it is most certainly not. You're missing the point. It's not for looking pretty, it's for writing quickly quick while retaining legibility."
Not only that. At least when properly done, handwriting is faster to read than printing because letters in a word get conected together and are basically more recognized than read.
It's been a lot of time and research to produce tipesettings that more or less reach that level when done by machines, forget about that coming from a human.
.. it was done with ball pens and later maybe with ink pens but done the same as ball pens, and already it was quite not the same as writing in 1920 or 1883 was done. There was debate about this like two decades before I was born and frankly, people before learnt to write like they were the fucking US president or Duke of My Ass by varying letter thickness depending on pressure and direction.
Modern cursive is already a compromise for ease and fastness (and lower cost even)
You got : learning, education, "social power" (imagine contracts, banking crap, invitations, applying for welfare programs, whatever). It's like a 3D printer expect for 2D printing. You stick it to the man for 1/100th of the cost. And pen is mightier than the sword. Main danger though is losing your paper stashes (from burning, homelessness or whatever) though ironically a thin and dirt cheap scanner plus outdated hard drive would back it up nowadays for less than the price of a hostel stay (or is it hotel).
I say fuck you to iphone and android, because this is what you're condemning people to (people is children like ten years later), you require people to have like $100 tech (plus yearly $200 for cell data and SIM card cost) to empower yet depower them. And they aren't computer litterate even (ROM, RAM, file, file manager, they don't know shit about it).
And shit, Finland and neighbors, can't they get rid of their Angstrom and striked O lettters if they wish, before getting rid of cursive write. It will be a thorn in their ass.
I was pissed when they stopped teaching how to use the pen and quill.
I've seen some people, that might be considered conspiracy theorists, that believe this is the intent. If it is possible to remove children from foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Federalist Papers then it would be much easier to convince children to be quiet and obey Dear Leader.
I'm not saying it is a very convincing argument but I've seen it made many times now.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If you can't do Arbitrary Thing X, then you're pretty much a dumb ass. Because all skills are actually the same. You can't be a genius mathematician and yet not be able to write cursive. They're the same exact skills!
How are you going to sign your name, like Jacob J. Lew (just a series of loops)?
By writing my name down, perhaps. To not be able to think of something so simple... are you perhaps a rote memorization drone?
Did you skip adding and subtracting, too?
You're comparing a certain way of writing (out of multiple) to basic math? Being an elitist cursive writer might just be correlated with being a moron who can't think logically.
Or are you trying to say that you're so busy and important that you just can't take the time to learn how to write?
No, they know how to write. There are just more ways than one to write. Cursive is but one option.
Guess what getting raised on both metric and cursive is fine, learning wise. I believe you're australian as I seen in "Heartbreak High" TV series hilarious young prick gets in trouble while messing up rolling a carpet floor.. missed by a few inches or tens centimeters because they use inches in a metric country. This crap shortly predated the Mars probe fuck up.
cursive is just a way of trying to make your writing prettier.
I thought cursive was about reducing pen up-pen down operations on fountain pens, not really an issue with ball points or mechanical pencils. There's also some potential benefit in speed.
Nonetheless I think good manuscript printing, and keyboarding are more worthwhile skills.
Or difficult enough to require a pretty intense course. In the Netherlands, we have at least a dozen wildly different medieval writing styles, not counting the handwriting of different writers. Given the changes in how to write the letters of the alphabet, grammar drift, and various attempts over the centuries to "modernize" the language and make it "easier to understand", reading old handwriting is nigh impossible without a decent course.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
And digging giant holes in the ground with spoons builds character, among other completely subjective and conveniently difficult to scientifically measure benefits. I might even have a few soft science studies to back me up. Truly, the benefits are phenomenal and cannot be overlooked.
You know what would actually likely increase spatial awareness and abstract thinking skills, among other things? A decent education in mathematics, or a decent education in general.
But we do use those cognitive faculties we developed when doing this "stupid" exercise.
Perhaps we should focus on teaching people logic and understanding, rather than just rote memorization.
And while we're talking about it, the headline "Finland dumps handwriting"- which the original story used and Slashdot copied- is misleading anyway. From the article itself, it's joined-up writing that's being dumped, not writing altogether.
And while it's interesting that this is happening in Finland, it's been implemented for several years in The Netherlands already. And I'm sure, in Finland as well. Since the sky hasn't fallen down, I'm assuming impact on most children has been negligible. And the typing course my son received in exchange sure helps him a lot with his coursework on the computer. All of the children in his class leave school at age 12 with the ability to type blind with 10 fingers.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
The obvious counterexamples to such conspiracy theorist are implementations in countries where the legal system does not base itself on a handwritten document for the constitution, and where this would be nonsensical to begin with. It's just as silly in the USA where I suppose there are machine readable versions available of every relevant document.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
, I'd say there are more important things that kids can be doing with their study time. It's not that I don't think it has any value, but to me it's less valuable than things that are already lacking.
Indeed, this is the most common reason cited by the schools for not teaching cursive anymore (or making it an elective later on). Teaching cursive is taking time away from more important things like reading comprehension or even learning the ability to write something coherent in the first place.
"My mother stormed up to my school innumerable times to point out this very fact to them.
"He's handwriting is messy"
"But is the answer right?"
"Well, yes, but it's messy."
"But you could read it, and the answer was right?"
"Well, yes...""
Your mommy was just defending her beloved child. The conversation should have gone instead.
"He's handwriting is messy"
"But is the answer right?"
"Who knows? HIS handwriting is messy, just like his mother's ortography, and the goal of the test is knowing the answer AND comunicating the answer. Since he fails at the latter I have no idea about the former and I qualify accordingly."
"It's a waste now. It's going to be a waste in 20 years time, which is where the country noted in this article is in education terms compared to the UK or US."
If with this you mean that UK or US' education was much better 20 years ago, then you may be right. In terms of good results it looks like Finland is certainly ages beyond UK or US.
I'll sign with my 2048 bit secret key, thank you very much, Mr Luddite.
So true - even the very clear and well-styled Sont toll registers are pretty hard to read nowadays. See http://dietrich.soundtoll.nl/s... for a nice example of handwriting from 1557, versus this one from 1712 (http://dietrich.soundtoll.nl/scans/toon.php?fnr=175&sid=10).
I can actually read the last one (it's about a boat from or to Harlingen, so a Dutch boat), but it's in Danish and that's not a language I can read easily even with modern type.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
They're no longer allowed to be read. Haven't you heard, people who read documents like the constitution or declaration of independence are terrorists. People with rights and governments with restrictions on their power are horrible concepts to teach the hoi polloi.
New culture replaces old culture all the time. No big deal.
How do you "sign your name" is the same thing my "luddite" teacher in 9th grade asked when I was the first person in the school to turn in a paper from a word processor. I "printed" my signature and he didn't like it, but he didn't have to.
He, and now you, are the only ones to ever care.
So who is the luddite? Have you ever used a word processor?
Texting here means writing text to paper using a font that is similar to one we use e.g. with computers and newspapers. Texting does not mean sending text messages via cell phone.
Like Sweden did in the 70s, inventing a horrible new handwriting ("SÖ-stilen"); people of that generation can't read the old handwriting, and the new handwriting is really, really ugly. 10 years after forcing that handwriting they let other styles be taught as well, again.
I'm surprised Finland still did cursive handwriting. I'm sure you can add it as extra credit still, and not all schools give it up.
Generalize much? Things are never the same for everybody.
If you actually practiced cursive as much as you did block-letter printing it would be faster. It's simple, in one you lift the pen, move it, and put it back down between each letter; in the other you do not. Guess which is always faster if not handicapped by lack of practice???
I'd agree. That and not every job requires typing skills. Restaurant staff, flight attendant, several others don't require you to type . It would be funny of they get to college and have to write the old way.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Interestingly enough, I started with computers and piano at about the same time, which led to the interesting style of typing that's crossing the "middle line" used in touch typing (you do that when you play the piano). It frustrated my touch typing teacher quite a bit.
That said, in the 80s Swedish schools had touch typing and programming in 7th grade, as well as "advanced" math. I wonder what happened after that. Probably budget cuts.
One thing that works against drivers in an unintended acceleration situation, is when they first panic and press the brake, although it may overpower the engine, it won't be a screeching halt, so they may release the brake and reapply. If the engine is at WOT, there will be no vacuum, and the vacuum reserve for the power brakes will be depleted, and the brakes will require a substantial amount more effort.
Try this exercise: Stop a car at the top of a hill (steeper the better), put it in Neutral, and shut off the engine*. Release the brake, now pump it several times to deplete the reserve. See how much force you need to slow the car down. In my experience I basically need to prop myself up with my shoulders, and put all my weight on the pedal. That's as an able body male in a compact car coasting down a hill, not as a frail old biddy mashing the brake and gas in her Camry.
*Someone's going to complain that shutting the engine off will lock the steering. In every automatic I've seen, if the shifter isn't in park, you can't turn the key back far enough to lock the steering, only shut the engine off. With manuals you usually require an extra release button, or other noticeable detent to move it back to lock. You only need to move it one detent. Hell after you kill the engine you can move it back to ON, as long as the engine isn't running. There will be a loss of power steering, but it should still be controllable especially once rolling. Automatics usually only allow a restart in Park or Netural, by using Neutral if you can't overcome the brakes, or steering, restart the engine (will not work in DRIVE, REVERSE, or LOW). In a standard you may want to try leaving it in 2nd, with the engine off but ignition "ON". That way if you need power you can pop the clutch, or restart with key.
The first reaction in the case of a runaway car should be to shift to neutral or de-clutch. All modern cars should have a rev limiter to keep from exceeding the redline, and many modern automatics (at least, don't know about manual) have a very low revlimiter if in neutal or park (they will only go up to 3-4000RPM when the engine redline is 6500RPM), so engine damage shouldn't be a concern. Second reaction if that doesn't work is to shut off the ignition (I hate push button ignitions for this, you usually have to push and hold for a couple seconds for a forced power off... Just when I thought an ATX powersupply was a PITA with a crashed computer) . Third should be to try any available parking brake (don't know how the stupid new electric parking brakes would work), and finally as a last ditch effort, I'd try Park as I look for a nice guard rail I could graze against.
I'm ambivalent about keeping or dropping cursive writing, but what will we use to replace cursive signatures on hard-copy legal documents?
Sure, but that's not an argument for teaching kids cursive at school, since they still wouldn't be able to read those dozen wildly different writing styles.
"Historical records in many countries are written in cursive, and not just English wring ones. Only a complete idiot would want to sever children from their past."
Are you implying that you can fluently read Chaucer on its original form?
What do the schools that the elite attend do? Do the current 1% still teach cursive? If the future business and world leaders are still being taught cursive, shouldn't the other 99%? Or, is it that in the future, only some will be taught how to read and write and the rest will have menial jobs?
Literacy is the ability to read and write.
For a short note, the difference in time should be negligible. For a long text, you'd grab a computer anyway.
But when improperly done, it takes forever to decipher cursive, assuming it can be done at all. And in order to write properly and quickly, kids would have to spend a long time practising. All this time can now be used for some more useful skills.
Historical records in many countries are written in cursive, and not just English wring ones. Only a complete idiot would want to sever children from their past.
Or a government wanting more control over information.
There's a pretty big history of the printing press and literacy fueling social change.
For a short note, the difference in time should be negligible. For a long text, you'd grab a computer anyway.
But nobody is mentioning the major use case for cursive--taking notes in meetings where you're an active participant and need to actually be obviously paying attention to others without the distraction of typing on the computer. (Really, that's about it--in all other circumstances where I'm not jotting a short note or just making a throw-away list, I use a computer.)
If you're into dumping skills without much practical economic value, why stop with handwriting? Why not dump Finnish, clearly little more than a cultural affectation and anachronism, and convert the entire country to English (or perhaps German or Russian)? Surely little Finnish workers would be a lot more productive if they didn't have to waste their time learning two languages.
My diary is written on paper and in longhand. It's the ultimate in keeping my innermost thoughts away from those who should not know them. It's immune from PRISM and the other NSA civil rights atrocities.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
The problem with foregoing handwriting for typing, is that typing itself should already be a dying skill. It is known to cause a particularly difficult-to-treat injury (RSI) and there is already voice recognition software available for PCs and even mobile phones.
The more-modern solution would be to skip intensive typing instruction in favor of using systems that mostly work on voice recognition or touch screens. It is acceptable to have a keyboard present, but for desktop computing it shouldn't be the primary means of character/text input anymore.
Yes. Tapestries of that era depict serfs slowly pulling long parchment scrolls bearing the brightly colored playing field diagonally across a refectory table as knights took turns shooting.
Excellent! Up until 3rd grade, I couldn't read my mother's notes. Now I'll be the old dude who knows how to make this ancient writing that only the other old people can read. They'll take it to somebody down at the bingo hall for a decode. It'll be my buddy and he'll say, "Why do you want me to read this? What are you up to?". Then he'll kick the kid's ass. I can't wait.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Texting here means writing text to paper
Ah, yes. We call that "printing", which is clearly much less confusing.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Yes, new culture like "c u ltr kthxbye" SMS messages? That's not culture, more like rubbish.
I guess we should stop learning to walk because we have cars now.
Oh wait - what happens when things change, like there is a war, or an economic depression - and the electric grid goes down - and we can't charge our laptops - or even buy one?
I don't know any more. I learned to drive with manual transmission, and drove manuals for years. The few occasions when I had to drive autos were incredibly frustrating: can't control speed precisely in a low gear with just accelerator, engine braking not very effective, etc. Then I drove an Lexus IS-F. Granted, it isn't an epicyclic gearbox like a traditional auto, it's effectively an electronically actuated manual with a torque converter stuck on the front. But it was like a glimpse of the future - almost instantaneous shifts, near-perfect throttle blipping, and the torque converter stays locked up all the time when you have anything other than first gear selected.
This technology is slowly filtering down to cars that normal people can afford. The seven-speed auto in the current Toyota Auris feels like a similar setup. I think it's finally getting to the point where a manual gearbox really could become obsolete soon. Or I could just be getting old.
(As an aside, I've been pretty unimpressed with the VW DSG. It adds a lot more weight than a torque converter, and in city driving it grinds the clutches all the time - I can see why those things overheat and fail so often. Also, the stop/start thing can be borderline dangerous. For example if you come to a standstill in a position where you're having to hold the steering (e.g. waiting to turn facing down a hill), the wheel will kick very hard when the engine cuts out and you lose power steering. I'm sure it saves fuel, but it's got to have got someone into trouble at least once.
Just because people can't write in fancy cursive script doesn't mean they can't write normally. If you don't teach kids that useless skill, then it won't suddenly mean that they can't jot things down in normal writing when they need to.
That's not a fair comparison.
Fair point but there is one type of writing where typing is really terrible: mathematical notation. It is far, far faster for me to do calculations on paper with a pen than it is to use a computer. If I want it to look neat then writing LaTeX is a clear winner but typing expressions into LaTeX is a lot slower than just jotting them down. So for working things out paper and pen is so far the best there is even in the 21st century.
Guess which is always faster if not handicapped by lack of practice???
Speed of writing is not the only relevant factor. Speed and ease of reading is another.
I'm well-versed in the art of cursive, including basic calligraphy. I've spent time with a number of different 19th-century writing manuals trying to master the old more ornate forms of writing.
So, I'm not stranger to cursive. I've practiced it a LOT.
And yet at some point during my undergraduate years, I switched to printing for my note-taking. I've never gone back. Why? Because while I can undoubtedly write faster with cursive because I don't pick up the pen, the distinctness in the letterforms of printing caused BY picking up the pen allow my writing to be more legible later (and more legible for other people).
I'm a very fast writer when I want to be, and I have no patience for legibility issues while trying to jot something down fast. But if I print it, I can guarantee it will be easier and faster to read later, simply because the letterforms are more distinct.
Thus, while I love the beauty of cursive and can do it with all the flourishes very slow or write very fast and sloppily, I take most of my quick notes with printing and have for quite a few years. It's the best balance of speed and legibility for me; others may have different opinions, but I don't think your statements have universal applicability about which is the best way to write fast.
You actually want to write REALLY fast? Learn shorthand. Standard cursive wasn't designed for super-fast writing -- it was designed for mildly ornate but rather quick writing that is LEGIBLE (e.g., why are all those little loops present on many of the capitals? to make it easier to spot capitals while reading, not because it's faster).
"This discussion is about cursive writing, not Middle English literature."
Cite: "Historical records in many countries are written in cursive, and not just English wring ones."
You are either stupid or a troll.
After being forced to write papers in cursive as a child, you get to college... banned. Just straight out banned. You can hand print, or computer print.
Really? Wow. You do all your exams on computer? None of them are handwritten, not even the maths and physics exams?
I'm saying people can take shorthand faster than we can form cogent thoughts and pop them out of our vocal apparatus, yes. No crack involved. No thinking, either, in the sense of forming words and sentences the way you do when you need to speak a new thought.
Ever watch a decent lead guitarist? Think you could say the notes as fast as they can play them? No, of course not. Neither can they. Ever watch a decent martial artist? Think you could name all the techniques they use as fast as they can use them? No need to worry about it, the answer is a resounding no. And again, neither can they.
Dedicated, trained classification-to-reaction operations are faster than high level cognition. Our minds go slower when reasoning, as compared to executing previously learned tasks. Human reaction time for a trained, non-thinking but specific response to a stimulus is about 30 ms. Verbalization... slower. Verbalization plus reasoning... even slower yet.
The numbers: courtroom shorthand: About 225 wpm to qualify for the job (NJ, USA standard.) Normal speech: About 150 wpm.
Remember learning to ride a bike? It was tough, eh? That's because you were trying to think, to reason your way through it. This happens, then that reaction implemented. Which is too slow to deal with the physics that are involved and must be dealt with.
But once you'd trained a non-verbal, non-thinking part of your brain to solve the problem directly -- inner ear input, body motion output, etc. -- you became amazingly stable, and you don't need to apply reason to the task at all. Dedicated networks form in response to learning particular repeated tasks, and once they do, that's where your speed and accuracy comes from.
Speaking, by the way, as a guitarist, martial artist, and AI researcher.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Sorry, but I'd bet most Americans would say "script".
How will people function in society if they are completely unable to write?
Filling out a form? Writing a note on a piece of paper? Or the hundreds of thousands of times in a lifetime where you needed to write something with a pen/pencil?
What happens if you forget your phone, or the power goes out, or.....for fuck sake, how can you function with such a disability?
Speed and ease of reading is another.
True. And my fast cursive is horribly illegible; however I only write for myself, and I can read it quite easily.
I've hated cursive with a passion, ever since I was forced to learn it in public school. I could never manage legibility at anything remotely resembling a decent writing speed, so half the time I couldn't even decipher my own notes. I had absolutely no trouble picking up typing and at 12 years old, I could easily type faster than any of my classmates could write. The only problem was, this was still the dark ages and the school staff felt that allowing me to use a portable word processor would be an unfair advantage over other students and that I deserved bad grades due to my inferior handwriting ability.
We don't teach kids to chisel on stone tablets or write on slates, so I see absolutely no reason why cursive can't also be relegated to the past. Good riddance.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
we live in a world without cursive as a default, why teach cursive when most of what we see is printed, unlinked characters?
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I find that unlikely. "Writing cursive" is what I'm used to hearing, and "printing" for traditional, non-connected letters.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
In the xUSSR countries not being able to write cursive is considered a sign of illiteracy. Is English cursive really so horrible? I never learned it formally and I use a bastardized version of cursive and block letters when I need to jot something down quickly. As a result, I can write significantly faster than most native English speakers when they use block letters.
Perhaps the cursive script itself should be revised? Also, cursive writing really helps to develop fine motor skills which are linked with higher cognitive functions. I don't know if there's a causal relationship between two of them, but I won't be surprised.
Which way did they teach you to hold your paper? I was taught to align it like a backslash, top to the left, bottom to the right, like all of the right-handed students, and as a consequence I smear my lines and my hand starts to hurt after awhile.
I was already out of high school before I realized how badly that elementary school teacher sucked. If she'd taught me to align the paper like a slash, top to the right, my hand would have remained under the writing on the blank page and not smeared the text. Unfortunately since she wanted all of the pages to align the same I got stuck with the wrong practice. I've even made a concerted effort to change it a couple of times, but I just can't seem to change it. My penmanship is too ingrained to be adjusted and I don't have to write enough by-hand to make any sort of dent in unlearning what I learned wrong the first time around.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
"Writing and shorthand notation is the only things that should be standard education."
It looks as though you've dropped grammar from a standard education.
I don't think it is a good idea, really, but I also don't think it will make much difference. There are certain skills and technologies that combine simplicity with major advantage: the wheel, fire, the knife. And writing, of course.
I can't see handwriting going away - it is too useful, being able to not only write, but also read handwriting, even if you mostly type. However, I think it is a very good idea to teach typing and texting (why not?) as a supplement to handwriting; my only worry is the progressive loss of skills that technology brings with it.
My favourite example of this: shaving. Something like 100 years ago, a man would use a straight razor - a simple knife of good, high carbon steel, kept extremely sharp, and he would probably only ever buy one in his life. The came the disposable razor blade, and now you had to buy a packet of those maybe every week or two. And now we are required to buy these ridiculous shaing heads with five blades in packet that cost £25 for 5 heads. Every weeks. So, do people get a better shave for the money? I got fed up with the whole thing, went and bought an old, straight razor for £1 in a car boot sale, learned to sharpen it (which was difficult in the beginning) and use it (very easy), and it is fully as good as the most expensive contraptions. All in all, we have, over the years, learned to throw away large amounts of money on things that give no added benefit. To me, the morale is: hold on to those simple, basic skills - they are worth it.
It's funny that all the nerds here who can only write in horrible print want to ditch cursive writing so fast. Cursive is important not only because it looks prettier and is easier to read (have you ever read a EULA? I thought so. One of the reasons most EULAs are in capitals only is that that makes them very hard to read), but writing is a way to learn very fine motoric skills that you can only get by practicing and are hard to learn when your brain is fully formed. And those very fine motoric skills come in handy in all kinds of situations, like drawing, needlework, fumbling with modern electronics, repairing old watches or other small mechanical things, etc etc. so learning to write cursive is a means to many ends, only one of which is good writing.
-- Cheers!
Also that remark at the end of the summary about driving a manual transmission car being something people do for the sake of it- that's a rather US-centric attitude. Most cars in the UK are manual because automatics drink a siginificantly larger amount of petrol.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Parent was being sarcastic -- He/she actually meant the opposite :)
I think the point was that Chaucer used not just a different script but ALSO a different language.
Ezekiel 23:20
Cursive is a complete waste of time. At best, it is barely marginally faster than printing/block writing. Most of the time, cursive writing is significantly slower than printing (especially for those brain-dead connections containing o, a, c, g, h, j, k, u, v, and w) and much less legible.
In practice, the only time I ever write in cursive is when signing my name. In all other cases, it's faster and more legible to write in print. I was brainwashed with the necessity of cursive when I was a kid in the seventies and eighties. But it always seemed so bizarre to focus so heavily on something so less efficient than printing.
Perhaps to the average /. poster it does, but not to most reasonable people.
The problem is not handwriting. The problem is that cursive is a completely unusable design that fails at all requirements except maybe style. I dropped it as soon as I was allowed to (starting university), as it proved completely worthless for taking notes in lectures, causing cramps and being illegible. Instead, I developed a modified discrete-letter based handwriting within two weeks and have used that without problems for more than 20 years now. Now, question, if I can fix this mess in two weeks, how long is the school system going to take? Probably a century or more is my guess...
Just another instance of school being completely out f touch with reality.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
As if the US isn't knee-deep in accurate printed versions of all of those documents.
Which is a given, since he was talking about "Historical records".
It is also sad that kids these days no longer know how to use a quill to write. Sure this skill is no longer needed, but shouldn't we teach it to them anyways? What are they going to do if they don't have access to any pens (due to a pen famine?) and they only have feathers?
"The origin of the cursive method is associated with practical advantages of writing speed and infrequent pen lifting to accommodate the limitations of the quill. Quills are fragile, easily broken, and will spatter unless used properly." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... Modern pens, obviously, suffer none of these drawbacks. The idea that writing in cursive is somehow quicker with modern pens is dubious at best. The real reason cursive stuck around so long more likely lies in our tendency for traditionalism. I would guess the generation of teachers who are eschewing the instruction of cursive in favor of typing skills had themselves been forced to learn cursive in their youth and likely thought "I will never need to use this outside of school." They would have been correct with that assertion.
I feel sorry for anyone that can't drive a stick shift.
It fails miserably, then, for most people's cursive is utterly indecipherable.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Precisely because they're teaching against appearance rather than function. So thanks for proving my point.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I don't recall (it was something like 45 years ago, after all), but I don't think we were taught to hold it anyway other than straight.
But I sometimes have the same problem as you. I can solve that problem by mirror-writing but then everyone else needs a mirror to read it. :)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Only a complete idiot would want the children to learn cursive. It's useless. I'm glad they stopped teaching art as well.
They can learn cursive in art class, or maybe archaeology. For practical purposes, printing is superior - easier to read and nearly as fast to write, with some practice. It was sad to see quill pens go, no? But we got over it.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
As your sources explain, the practice of writing is important for learning. Through writing we develop thoughts, compose them, as fyngyrz says below, reformulate them. Writing is a way of thinking.
The issue, however, is not writing: it is handwriting. Typing, printing and cursive (I hesitate to include texting, as I find even swype/swiftkey excruciatingly slow, and I'm pretty sure using my thumb would bring on early arthritis) are all methods of writing. The links you include speak only of writing, not handwriting. They are not about the importance of cursive.
I strongly suspect that the different technical affordances of handwriting compared to typing do indeed lead to different learning experiences. One enables editing, the other demands sentences be formulated before they are written, and that subsequent words be adapted to what has already put down. Are such differences educationally significant?
One study found handwriting enhanced student composition more than did typing, though the authors put this down more to fluency (speed) and point to the importance of teaching touch-typing. This might actually support the Finnish position. Another article theorizes that there might be benefits to manual writing. A study of university student essay examinations found no difference in performance. This study found grade 6 students could type faster than they could write by hand.
This is just the result of a quick search, but I don't see strong evidence one way or the other.
Personally, my handwriting is awful. My teachers didn't even teach me how to hold a pen correctly (I have been unable to correct by habit of using all 5 fingers). Through university I took notes in my own simplified printing (each letter one stroke with at most one reversal), a system I still use when speed matters. Recently I learned that movement should come from the arm, not the wrist; for the first time, my handwriting became legible. Learning to type, however, felt like it opened up the world to me. I wish I could write fluent cursive. Is Finland doing the right thing? Darned if I know.
Gets better mileage too.
Something has got lost in translation here.
Writing in longhand or cursive is not "calligraphy". The styles and tools used are very different. How so many people (you're far from the only one) have come to equate cursive with calligraphy, I just don't know. You claim "NO ONE writes in calligraphy", but I can assure you that many, many people write in cursive.
"...and I never learned how to use the fountain properly."
Give one a try! It only takes a few minutes to learn: orient the nib to the page, use a light touch, try holding it at a lower angle. You'll be doing just fine in no time, and soon you'll also discover it's less tiring to your hand than a ballpoint.
They aren't giving up teaching "handwriting". They are giving up teaching CURSIVE.
Half of the comments are from people who don't realize that.
That being clarified, teaching cursive in a school is no longer a good use of time, any more than teaching shorthand is a necessity. Schools can't (or at least shouldn't) choose their curriculum based on people's fear or tradition, they have a very limited amount of time to teach a huge number of skills, and many competing interests.
I think this decision is a good one - MANY U.S. schools have already removed cursive from their curriculum. It's simply not used anymore.
The fact that incredibly old history books are written in cursive has no bearing. Have you ever tried to read that crap? It's illegible - not because of bad handwriting, but because the way people spoke and wrote then was completely different.
"What do you do when your computer is dead and you need to leave a note?" quoth the summary.
Um, really obviously, not write in cursive? Just like I've done for the past 20 years. I've had to hand-write plenty of things, and in all the time since second grade, the only thing I have needed to write in cursive is my signature (which is only loosely related to "proper" cursive writing, as it's supposed to be, since it's, you know, a signature, it's supposed to be distinct).
I'm baffled as to why *anyone* would think that cursive would be a necessary skill. Cursive is harder to write and harder to read, so why do it?
Putting aside the "we'll all miss cursive" idea, let's at least hope they get past the 19th century and teach Dvorak.
Having used it for nearly 30 years, and playing guitar, I can't imagine what shape my fingers would be without it...
Was conjoined handwriting even used before the Early Modern period? If not, your argument is not applicable since the language will be (mostly) understandable, as opposed to you trying to read The Owl and the Nightingale. Plus Americans won't have such pre-early-modern historical records anyway, so it's kind of moot. :-p
Ezekiel 23:20
You are being silly, census forms in 20th century filled out in cursive, church records, licenses, etc.
Actually I can but that's not what I'm talking about. Go look at census records from first part of 20th century, or church birth/baptism records, or death certficates or marriage licenses.
Aside from letters from many of my older relatives being in cursive, have been doing genealogy searches through all the US citizen's census and other records from 1940 and before. Guess what form of handwriting almost all of them use?