# What processes are unbelievably antiquated? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 26, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920 "2011-06-26T17:34:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/121 "2011-07-01T21:45:27Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > Some individual offices have implemented electronic medical records, but there is rarely a good way for those systems to communicate with one another. If I request records from such an office the only way they can get them to me is to print them out and fax or mail them. Yes. When I worked for the Commonwealth we had implemented electronic medical record systems in the state psychiatric hospitals. Unfortunately persons in those hospitals were also frequently served by: -State long term care psychiatric nursing homes -Private psychiatric hospitals -Quasi-Public residential group homes -Essentially every hospital in the State, because when someone has an “incident” the police will take them to the nearest ER. They will then wait from 1 to 100 days to get back into one of the overbooked psychiatric hospitals. -Thousands of private practice psychiatrists, counselors and etc Since exactly zero of those other entities used EMR, there was great difficulty in reconciling records. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/122 "2011-07-01T21:56:18Z")
As someone in the real estate business I will say that I do not feel that laws are written intentionally to be vague and difficult to understand for the layman. Firstly, what ralph1234c (or whatever) originally said were two risible things: 1. Courts are controlled by clerks who paid money to get their position This is essentially false. In some places county clerks or whatever might be an elected position, so yes that person probably spent a sum of money to win election. However their election was based on the results of a vote, not them buying an office, at least anymore than any other politician “buys” an office. The “regular” clerks who don’t have the fancy title and office are just civil servants and certainly did not buy their job. The elected county clerks and what not also are probably not making vast money off of their position, and certainly would not be making money specifically out of prolonging a trial or etc. 1. Laws are written by lawyers so that only lawyers can understand them, and they use antiquated language. Legal agreements aren’t the same thing as laws. Laws are statutes written by legislatures. Yes, the people drafting them are typically staffers many if not most of whom will have legal degrees. Many of the legislators themselves will have legal degrees. However a lot of them working in the legislature may not be materially involved in the practice of the law on a regular basis, so it’s questionable as to whether most people would consider them “lawyers.” (Obviously they are, technically.) But the people making money off of the legal system aren’t typically the same people who wrote the laws. If you can’t read your state’s or locality’s statutes I think you have an English problem. Here is an excerpt from Virginia’s criminal code: > [@](#): > > § 18.2-77. Burning or destroying dwelling house, etc. > A. If any person maliciously (i) burns, or by use of any explosive device or substance destroys, in whole or in part, or causes to be burned or destroyed, or (ii) aids, counsels or procures the burning or destruction of any dwelling house or manufactured home whether belonging to himself or another, or any occupied hotel, hospital, mental health facility, or other house in which persons usually dwell or lodge, any occupied railroad car, boat, vessel, or river craft in which persons usually dwell or lodge, or any occupied jail or prison, or any occupied church or occupied building owned or leased by a church that is immediately adjacent to a church, he shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for life or for any period not less than five years and, subject to subdivision g of § [18.2-10](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-10), a fine of not more than $100,000. Any person who maliciously sets fire to anything, or aids, counsels or procures the setting fire to anything, by the burning whereof such occupied dwelling house, manufactured home, hotel, hospital, mental health facility or other house, or railroad car, boat, vessel, or river craft, jail or prison, church or building owned or leased by a church that is immediately adjacent to a church, is burned shall be guilty of a violation of this subsection. Do you really need the paraphrasing, “don’t burn shit or you get in trouble” to understand what that passage mean? Is it wordy, yes. Is it hard to understand? It shouldn’t be if you read at the level required to graduate High School. Some contracts or legal agreements can be exceptionally convoluted and difficult to understand. Those aren’t laws, though. Those are legal agreements. Further, even most contracts, while sometimes very wordy, are not difficult to \*understand. \*The reason my business has a close association with a law firm is because it doesn’t mean jack shit to me to just understand the wording, I need to understand deeper issues like “what is the wisdom of agreeing to this part of this agreement?” and things of that nature. There isn’t any way that wording the contract in a more “lay” friendly manner would help with that–it’s the legal wisdom and experience that is the real value add there, not the ability to parse legalese. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/123 "2011-07-01T22:48:12Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > As someone in the real estate business I will say that I do not feel that laws are written intentionally to be vague and difficult to understand for the layman. > > Firstly, what ralph1234c (or whatever) originally said were two risible things: > > 1. Courts are controlled by clerks who paid money to get their position > > This is essentially false. In some places county clerks or whatever might be an elected position, so yes that person probably spent a sum of money to win election. However their election was based on the results of a vote, not them buying an office, at least anymore than any other politician “buys” an office. > > The “regular” clerks who don’t have the fancy title and office are just civil servants and certainly did not buy their job. > > The elected county clerks and what not also are probably not making vast money off of their position, and certainly would not be making money specifically out of prolonging a trial or etc. > > 1. Laws are written by lawyers so that only lawyers can understand them, and they use antiquated language. > > Legal agreements aren’t the same thing as laws. Laws are statutes written by legislatures. Yes, the people drafting them are typically staffers many if not most of whom will have legal degrees. Many of the legislators themselves will have legal degrees. However a lot of them working in the legislature may not be materially involved in the practice of the law on a regular basis, so it’s questionable as to whether most people would consider them “lawyers.” (Obviously they are, technically.) But the people making money off of the legal system aren’t typically the same people who wrote the laws. > > If you can’t read your state’s or locality’s statutes I think you have an English problem. Here is an excerpt from Virginia’s criminal code: > > Do you really need the paraphrasing, “don’t burn shit or you get in trouble” to understand what that passage mean? Is it wordy, yes. Is it hard to understand? It shouldn’t be if you read at the level required to graduate High School. > > Some contracts or legal agreements can be exceptionally convoluted and difficult to understand. Those aren’t laws, though. Those are legal agreements. > > Further, even most contracts, while sometimes very wordy, are not difficult to \*understand. \*The reason my business has a close association with a law firm is because it doesn’t mean jack shit to me to just understand the wording, I need to understand deeper issues like “what is the wisdom of agreeing to this part of this agreement?” and things of that nature. There isn’t any way that wording the contract in a more “lay” friendly manner would help with that–it’s the legal wisdom and experience that is the real value add there, not the ability to parse legalese. 1. Courts are controlled by clerks who paid money to get their position This is essentially false. In some places county clerks or whatever might be an elected position, so yes that person probably spent a sum of money to win election. However their election was based on the results of a vote, not them buying an office, at least anymore than any other politician “buys” an office. The “regular” clerks who don’t have the fancy title and office are just civil servants and certainly did not buy their job. The elected county clerks and what not also are probably not making vast money off of their position, and certainly would not be making money specifically out of prolonging a trial or etc. I beg to differ ..Mr. Jackie Bulger (brother of “Whitey” and William Bulger) was the chief clerk magistrate of the South Boston municipal court. Previous to this, he had been employed as a fish cutter at the Boston Fish Pier. AS clerk-magistrate, Bulger was in charge of scheduling all trials in the court-and was friends with many prominent lawyers. As a fish cutter, Bulger never made more than $3.50/hour-after becoming clerk-magistrate, ne was able to affors a big house and a Cadillac sedan. Coincidnec? yeah, sure it is! ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/124 "2011-07-01T23:28:42Z")
Come back with logically connected argument? You’re asserting that people: 1. Pay to get elected as court clerks. Then you cite a previously poor person being elected county clerk as evidence of your argument…how did he buy the office in the first place? 2. You’re rebutting my claim that court clerks do not get wealthy by creating a “complex legal process” and slowing down the operations of the court by noting that Bulger met many powerful lawyers and businessmen as court clerk. What that suggests is that through networking he became more successful, it doesn’t at all suggest he was being enriched by “deliberately slowing down the legal process.” ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/125 "2011-07-01T23:46:10Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > The whole domestic building industry seems incredibly mediaeval to me. Somehow we can build cars by machine and still include some individuality, but each house is custom-built by hand\*. Utterly bizarre. Actually as a builder I think we have too much in the way of standard prefab components, and too many design decisions based on those, rather than on unique site conditions or the needs of the occupants or just common sense. For example, I’ve worked on two large projects in which partition walls terminated on exterior walls in the middle of windows, for no reason except that the factory-cased windows had to be standard sizes, and the interior layout, based on blocks of standardized furnishings, was done without regard to where the windows would fall. In one of these cases, as a corollary effect, “luxury box” stadium seats ended up with the _partitions_ between windows smack in front of them in some cases. None of the relevant decisions in these cases were mine, but I felt like a moron just to be associated with a project that yielded such patent stupidities. ETA: I’m wondering what kind of “individuality” you see in cars. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/126 "2011-07-01T23:56:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Look, if you’re going to keep complaining about other people’s writing, fix your own. Spell their names correctly, at least. Get over it. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There is one other reason why affidavits specifically include the flowery language: to impress the plebes. One of the reasons affidavits require language with gravity is to convey to the people signing them that they had better be telling the truth. Bullshit. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A written contract could be as simple as “Jim agrees to sell his pen to Bob for $1.” As long as it’s signed by the other party, it’s enforceable. Enforcement is not the issue we have been discussing, clarity is. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > However, contracts are drafted because centuries of experience have shown that people who sign them occasionally change their minds- or because the parties disagree on what they meant. Off-topic. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What if Jim loses the pen? Are there implied warranties? When is Bob required to pay for the pen? When is Jim required to deliver it? What if Jim verbally agreed to accept 75 cents instead? Off-topic, and you are displaying signs of not understanding what I wrote. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Considering the point she is trying to make, there is every reason to think she is exaggerating. I’m glad you accept her testimony, but you’re not the one you’re trying to convince. Why is exaggeration more likely to enter into a discussion of legalese than a discussion of any other topic? And even if you reject her testimony on the basis suspicion alone you still have a problem with the affidavit, a problem whose reality has been attested and expanded by a lawyer. You also have a problem with this link I posted earlier: [http://www.legalreform-now.org/archive/anmviewer.asp?a=92&z=21](http://www.legalreform-now.org/archive/anmviewer.asp?a=92&z=21) Which as mentioned provides citation for the fact that the problem has existed for over 100 years. I have been playing the Internet debating game long enough to recognize the category of poster neurotically unable to tolerate not having the last word, and that means you. Now, you know what? I am tired of you and your substandard posts, just tired. So go ahead and say what you have to say while I look for other opponents. ---
**Author:** ![initech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/439d5e/32.png) [@initech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/initech)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/127 "2011-07-02T00:04:12Z")
Subversion repositories, instead of Git? Seems ridiculously antiquated to me. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/128 "2011-07-02T17:49:01Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Since red highlighting causes illiteracy in some people, Amen. But it does give them something to obsess about when they have no meaningful response so there’s that. 😉 > [@Spoons](#): > > "On the 30th day of June in the year 2011 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared John Smith… " This notary thing is driving me crazy, because it’s hard to imagine how much worse the wording of that could possibly be… it’s like a test question for someone in an English class, and the test is to rearrange it into something intelligible, which is easily done without adding or subtracting a single word: > [@](#): > > John Smith, the undersigned, personally appeared before me on the 30th day of June in the year 2011. Making its actual construction even more confounding. > [@colonial](#): > > Medical records are truly scientific and private. Scientific, private > documents are the opposite of non-scientific public documents, > aren’t they? They are, and subsequently there may be different > criteria for how they should be written. However, even scientific > documents should avoid exclusive use of technical language wherever > possible if laymen may need to read and understand them. Therefore > I would certainly prefer that a Doctor use “roundworm” rather > than “ascariasis” or in addition to it. I think the comparison to the medical writing reveals the truth about all of this. Our culture lumps together “doctors and lawyers” all the time, as though they are similarly skilled and specialized in two professions which are similarly complex. But of course, they aren’t. And who knows better how true that is than lawyers themselves, who, having actually received that education, recognize that the law is something that, for the most part, most intelligent, reasonably educated people could and should be able to comprehend if the need arose. So while I don’t think it is a conspiracy, since that requires some kind of agreement among two or more people, I do think it is a kind of _unconcious_ agreement among a large segment of the legal profession to persist in this simply to protect the story they work so hard to sell, which is that they are necessary for the success of anything more complex than an agreement to go to lunch. And of course, because they have spread their legalese cooties all over everything, at this point they ARE required in many cases. [ > [@](#): > > ]([http://www.legalreform-now.org/archive/anmviewer.asp?a=92&z=21](http://www.legalreform-now.org/archive/anmviewer.asp?a=92&z=21))[http://www.legalreform-now.org/archive/anmviewer.asp?a=92&z=21](http://www.legalreform-now.org/archive/anmviewer.asp?a=92&z=21) Reading this is what prompted me to go back and look at the whole discussion. And just so you know, colonial, legal style books harp on clarity constantly. In addition to what I just said, I think it’s bad lawyers that also cling to the legalese, because it’s all they’ve got. And I use bad in the sense of both not very skilled and/or not very ethical. Since they don’t have any particularly impressive talent, their ability to slog through legalese and create a bunch of their own is the only thing keeping them going as lawyers. Truly talented lawyers don’t need that, and in fact it gets in the way of their impressive skills, which is why the really good lawyers tend to be the ones stumping for clarity. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A written contract could be as simple as “Jim agrees to sell his pen to Bob for $1.” As long as it’s signed by the other party, it’s enforceable. > > However, contracts are drafted because centuries of experience have shown that people who sign them occasionally change their minds- or because the parties disagree on what they meant. > > What if Jim loses the pen? Are there implied warranties? When is Bob required to pay for the pen? When is Jim required to deliver it? What if Jim verbally agreed to accept 75 cents instead? This is definitely a fundamental good brought to us by lawyers, but it has nothing to do with complexity, legalese, lack of clarity. This is about being thorough, which can be done simply and clearly. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/129 "2011-07-02T18:57:03Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Bullshit. Excellent rebuttal. Have fun fighting the system, man. I’m done wasting time on you. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/130 "2011-07-02T19:29:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Excellent rebuttal. Have fun fighting the system, man. I’m done wasting time on you. When your opponent has been the first to say “I’m done with you”, and done so by citing their belief that you _ **need to have the last word no matter what** _, it pretty much does nothing but prove they were right when you respond at all, much less respond like this. Just sayin’, for future consideration… ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/131 "2011-07-02T19:44:51Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > I will take your word for it that you are not a conspirator. That does > not rule out conspiracy as a motivating impulse in the behavior of a > substantial fraction of our already grotesquely bloated legal profession. > > What I guess you refer to as the “plain language theory” has been in > the works publicity-wise since at least the mid 1970s: more than 35 years, > and about 30 years before the SEC Chair tried to make a public issue > out of it in 2006. If the legal profession was really serious the change > over could have been complete by the turn of the century. Lack of progress > certainly suggests powerful resistance within the profession, although > few if any lawyers are going to come right out and say that they are > holding up reform on purpose. I do not think it is out of line to consider > such behavior to be conspiratorial. Well, thank you for not lumping me in among the alleged conspirators. I trust I will be able to to drop your name when my turn against the wall comes after the revolution starts. 😉 Seriously, though, there’s just no such money making conspiracy. Look at your earlier quoted example - is she claiming that excess verbiage and confusing wording is designed to increase litigation and make lawyers money? Quite the contrary. She’s claiming that the confusing wording is a misguided attempt at _decreasing_ litigation, or at the very least protecting the drafting party in the event of litigation. > [@](#): > > Very simply put, it is my perception that disclosing parties and their lawyers - be they mutual funds, broker-dealers, investment advisers, or operating companies - view their disclosure obligations with an eye toward limiting their potential liability. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/132 "2011-07-02T19:48:39Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Amen. But it does give them something to obsess about when they have no meaningful response so there’s that. 😉 Since this appears to be directed at me, I have to say that I’m afraid I don’t follow the point you’re making. Could you make it again with more underlining, capital letters, bolding, and larger fonts? ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/133 "2011-07-02T21:06:46Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Horizontally, everything gets centered by the column descriptor. NOT vertically, which was my problem. No it doesn’t. Like I said, you declare this at the top of the tabular environment. For vertical alignment you declare a new column type and use that. But that misses the point, because you shouldn’t be micromanaging tables in this fashion anyway. That’s a job for the journal typesetters. > [@Calculon](#): > > I think that without an interface to tables (and there were none around when I was working with it) it is simply unusable for anything remotely complex. You spend ridiculous amounts of time laying out tables that in any other word-processing situation is done in a few clicks. There’s multiple GUI overlays for LaTeX now, including LyX which has been around donkey years. Further, again, I’m not seeing the problem with Excel export. By “formatting tricks” do you mean exporting to CSV with the delimiter set to ‘&’? > [@Calculon](#): > > Secondly, at least when I was using it, pdflatex was not a good option. DVI output (which requires EPS) was far better. First, with DVI you could do inverse searches, which made fixing problems easier. Secondly for large documents pdflatex took ages to compile, which was annoying for just making small changes. It is a huge drain on productivity to have to wait a minute or two to see what the your document actually looks like, especially when you are laying things out. pdflatex is as fast as latex. Further, inverse search works with pdflatex and has for ages. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/134 "2011-07-02T21:28:19Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Since this appears to be directed at me, I have to say that I’m afraid I don’t follow the point you’re making. Could you make it again with more underlining, capital letters, bolding, and larger fonts? It’s actually not directed at you, pravnik - I was commenting about other threads in which other people’s comprehension skills seem to collapse in the presence of emphasis-by-fontstyle, many of whom then make the fontstyle the issue, vs. the content so emphasized. Apologies for being unclear. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2011, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/135 "2011-07-03T00:08:27Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > It’s actually not directed at you, pravnik - I was commenting about other threads in which other people’s comprehension skills seem to collapse in the presence of emphasis-by-fontstyle, many of whom then make the fontstyle the issue, vs. the content so emphasized. > > Apologies for being unclear. Well, my apologies back to you for being unnecessarily snarky. Had a tough week at work that made me a little more on edge and a little snappier than I would usually be. Sorry, Stoid. ---
**Author:** ![perfectparanoia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a5b964/32.png) [@perfectparanoia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perfectparanoia)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/136 "2011-07-06T19:00:14Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > Wow, this thread turned into a legal system debate. Honestly, I did not see that coming. > > I’ll add a process that is antiquated: > > School calendars. Here is the system of most of the United States: > > 1. You start school in a new grade around Sept 1.(give or take). > > 2. You are in that grade until approx. June 15(again, give or take). > > 3. You go on summer vacation for 2 1/2 months. When you return, you go to a new grade with new teachers. > > This is wrong and many teachers know it. It should go more like this: > > 1. You start a new grade in January, after Christmas break. > > 2. You attend that grade until June 15 or so. > > 3. You take your vacation for summer like normal. > > 4. On approximately Sept. 1, you go back, but you go back to the same grade and teachers as before. They are familiar with, what you were learning, and what you need to know to get ready for the change-over coming in January. > > It would make way more sense to only have the short two week break between grades and it would allow teachers to more adequately prepare kids for the new grade in the month of December. > > They’d have to start it with a new 1st grade group of kids. I wish they would. I will agree that the system is antiquated but I don’t think the solution is what you think it is (though, it is certainly a step in the right direction). What the kids need are shorter, more frequent breaks. So, no 2 month summer vacation but two and three week breaks more frequently. Most of the time, kids are in camps (read: daycare) for the summer so those would just have to be at different times during the year. It would help with retention and cause less burn out. (Sorry to derail the thread that appears to be about legalese.) ---
**Author:** ![Taomist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@Taomist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taomist)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/137 "2011-07-06T19:07:58Z")
I work in a state prison, as a records clerk. Every bit of information on an inmate is stored in their file. These files are as big as they need to be, and are sorted on shelves like a library. The medical techs have their own files, and some of what they do gets put into the central files as well. It’s not just that every person interacting with the inmates needs these files. It’s not just that every little thing has to be documented on paper and placed into these files. It’s that so many people need these files at any given time that it’s quite often a guessing game figuring out who has what file and what piece of paper is missing/not filed yet. It’s a horrible, horrible fricking mess. I’ve worked in a couple of libraries, and there are ways to do things that make sense there, but don’t work here, as when the files are needed, they’re NEEDED, so the ‘check out process’ is sometimes just flat ignored. And heaven forbid if results from this or that aren’t in the file when someone wants it, because if that info isn’t in the file, then it doesn’t exist, and decisions are made based on that. And shit happens, creating more paper that needs to be put in just the right spot, EVERY SINGLE DAY. It’s so frigging frustrating and insane. We are supposed to be going digital with all of this, but the process has been in the works for years with no ETA on when it might actually get implemented. The process has been in beta, more or less, with another set of prisons for over a year now, and they still haven’t figured out how to make it work right. It’s seriously crazy and frustrating. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/138 "2011-07-07T04:21:35Z")
Last Monday I went to a local “IRS” office to ask about some payments they were supposed to send me but haven’t (they’re supposed to be “in e-space soon”); I took with me a “tax payment letter” (which they had sent me by mistake, is exclusively in Spanish and contains neither instructions for e-payment nor bank accounts, just “pay to: Navarrese IRS”) and, after explaining to the agent that for the last 10 years I’ve had about a 50:50 chance of being in the country on a given day, asked “do you think someone could go to, say, a bank in the UK with _this_ and actually make payment?” He examined it, bit his lip trying to hide a smile and said “not likely…” “I’ve been told repeatedly that I’m weird, but just take a look at the ‘Navarrese abroad’ section of the local newspaper. Many of those people draw their salaries here, pay their taxes here, but only come home once or twice a year. Is there a form I can use to bring this up to the attention of whomever can update these?” He said he’d do it. Amen. It would never have occurred to me that one of the obstacles to inter-EU mobility could be _tax forms_! ---
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920/139 "2011-07-07T18:54:27Z")
I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to go back behind the lanes of a bowling alley (friend works there) while folks were bowling. I don’t know what I was expecting exactly, but I sure as hell wasn’t expecting the Rube Goldberg-like contraption of giant rubber belts, metal ramps, gears, and spinning swirling pins flying around everywhere. I’ll never get irritated at pushing the reset button or asking for someone to clear my lane again - it’s a friggin’ miracle that those things work at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-processes-are-unbelievably-antiquated/586920.md?page=6)