SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Wednesday November 02 2016, @08:33AM
from the heading-for-a-new-dark-age dept.
from the heading-for-a-new-dark-age dept.
The New Yorker wonders:
My children know how to print their letters. And they type frighteningly well. Still, I can't escape the conviction that cursive—writing it and knowing how to read it—represents some universal value. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Every year, there are worried articles about the decline of cursive and its omission from school curricula. And there's a backlash, one that I secretly cheer for. When I read that Washington state is now considering Senate Bill 6469, "an act related to requiring that cursive writing be taught in common schools," I gave a little fist pump in the air.
Cursive and handwriting are dead. Communication of the future will be done with pure emoticons.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm mentally OVERDRAWN! What's that SIGNPOST up ahead? Where's ROD
STERLING when you really need him?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday November 02 2016, @10:22AM
Cursive writing may as well be typewriter class. It serves little purpose, but should be counted as an art.
This has some merit, but there are also valid arguments against it.
A good extra class would be on taking notes shorthand
Agree.
Why must literature always be Chaucer and Twain? Why not have a business class with case studies?
Because "literature" is about communication and not how to run a business into the ground just after you take to your golden parachute?
Why must math be so into theory instead of practical finance and basic investing?
Because that's how you actually LEARN maths? So that you don't just stumble from avoidable GFC to avoidable GFC.
There's never any non-lecture learning anymore.
Not been in school recently?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.