Re: OT More pens (was Re: Phoneme winnowing continues)

Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> writes:
>> At equal background, it's likely
>> that the one written in cursive will result in an interview, while the
>> one
>> written in block letters will result in the standard "no" letter back
>> ;))) .
>
>
>Why? How many jobs require the ability to do cursive writing? None to
>very few in Australia, I'd say! It seems a very arbitrary thing to
>discriminate against. (With everything that says 'please print' or
>'block letters only!' or some variation on that theme, I'd be suprised
>if anyone *wanted* cursive.)
I agree here, and actually the Human Resources people I know say that they
will often throw out any handwritten applications over those that are
typed. Even more-so if the writing is illegible. Some people's cursive is
so ornate that I have a very difficult time reading it at all. I actually
have done some hiring and i put the cursive written applications at the
bottom of my stack. I didn't have the time to decipher ornate cursive or
scrawl. Typed applications went to the top and so did legible printed
applications.

I think discriminating based upon someone writing in cursive versus block
print or typed is quite silly, yes they may have taken the extra time, but
to me someone who types out a resume and application is taking the time to
make sure what they write is legible.

Reply