“Jack of all trades, master of none” is a classic saying (and often insult) that describes something or someone that can do many things but cannot do any of them well. However, the abomination known as the spork is not even worthy of this moniker, as it is completely and utterly ineffective at everything. 

While created as a combination of both the spoon and the fork (hence the portmanteau), the spork fails to properly fork or spoon.  Attempting to simply eat with a spork in a dignified manner is a struggle. Attempting to use it as a fork requires repeatedly stabbing at a piece of food; when it finally gets attached, you begin to bring it to your mouth, only for it to fall from the weak prongs of the spork back onto the plate. Attempting to use a spork as a spoon provides even worse results: when trying to drink soup, it simply drains through the spork’s useless prongs. 

Luckily, the majority of us people recognize the disgrace that the spork is and don’t use the deplorable utensil. However, penny-pinching corporations, wanting to save the cent or two it costs to make one more utensil, manufacture them regardless. They also promote it as a “greener” alternative that reduces waste, despite the fact that many of these same corporations have been under fire for environmental regulation violations far more severe than any spork could save them from.

The spork is simply terrible, especially when you consider the far more effective and sensible alternative of the double-ended spoon-fork. While also reducing the material cost of two utensils, it allows you to actually eat properly. 

The spork was an experiment: an experiment that failed. Time and time again it leaves its users frustrated with its results and wishing that they could have a normal spoon and fork. It is clearly common sense that the few sporks that are used be replaced by actually usable utensils.