Letters to the Editor: Kids don’t need cursive? How will they read the Constitution?
To the editor: Though Tamara Plakins Thornton claims that cursive handwriting is no longer necessary, she misses some key benefits about it.
First, cursive is faster. In situations that require speed, like Advanced Placement and college essay tests or note taking, cursive writers lift their pens less often than ones who print their letters.
Second, cursive is considered more mature. A printed signature gives the impression that the signator is less sophisticated.
Third, those who can’t write cursive also can’t read it. Think about the letters and documents deceased family members wrote, the original copies of the Constitution and historical letters. They will lose their meaning and value if people in the future cannot read them.
Lauren Siadek, Hawthorne
To the editor: I feel the need to add the plight of all the left-handed students who suffered through the need for everyone’s handwriting to look the same.
Elementary teachers in the early 1960s tried to make our writing look like theirs. In fifth grade, my teacher decided to make me right-handed. Luckily I had smart parents who were down at the school the same day telling them no.
These teachers did not know to help us slant the paper in a different direction, so some lefties ended up with that awkward left hook to write. And heaven forbid you wrote what they called “back hand.”
The only “C” grade I ever received in elementary school was in handwriting. Not that UCLA cared.
Jackie Gelfand, Los Angeles
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.