Shorthand
Some students ask my advice on shorthand.
I'm not a good judge of this question.
I squibbed-out of learning shorthand when I was a cadet journalist in the 1960s.
I wish I HAD learned it.
But after five decades in journalism (1961-2011) I can honestly say that not having had shorthand skills never held me back from getting or doing a job.
You be the judge in your own case.
Shorthand is mighty handy.
But incidentally . . .
When you see a media conference on TV, notice how every journalist is holding up a tiny recorder?
Let me give you the honest case for and against, so you can be the judge I am asking you to be.
In favour: shorthand lets you take down what a person says, word for word, at the speed they say it, with nothing between you and the page but a pencil. No batteries to go flat, no machine to fail, no awkward moment asking a nervous talker if you may record them. In a courtroom, where recorders are often banned, a reporter with good shorthand can do what no one else in the room can do. That is a real and lasting advantage.
Against: it takes months of dull practice to get fast, and the modern recorder, the very one I mentioned, does the capturing for you and gives you the exact words to check later. Many fine reporters today get by with a recorder, a notebook and their own quick scrawl of key points.
My honest advice, looking back? Learn at least some. You do not need a champion's speed. Even a rough, personal shorthand, your own pet squiggles for "government", "said" and "dollars", will save you time every working day. And if you have the chance to learn it properly when you are young, take it. I did not, and while it never sank me, I have never once wished I knew less.