Some people believe that the museums and historic sites should be open for free for children under 18 years old.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is argued that the entry fee for students who are under 18 should be levied for the visit to historical sites and museums. I agree with this statement because high fees will exclude many children to visit these places and students will get a chance to explore places they study in books.
To begin with, museums often have high fees to visit. Most parents cannot afford to pay for these visits on top of their household and school expenses. Thus, children, whose parents do not have enough money, are excluded from the visitors’ lists resulting many not able to see the sculptures made by their country’s legends. For example, in Singapore, the state sponsor all school children to visit such places so that they can get a chance to see artefacts build by the prominent sculptors of the nation. However, others might say that this would put an extra burden on the government’s financial resources.
Besides, students in the school are taught about the heritage sites which were important in the past. Therefore, for a better understanding of the historical significance of a particular place, visiting that place would put up a strong impression on the mind and can be remembered for a long time. For instance, a study by Cambridge University found that the people who went on excursion trips during the school time are 70% more likely to remember the history of a place than the people who did not.
In conclusion, this essay agrees that trips to museums and historical sites should be free for children who are below 18 because museums entry fees are quite high which cannot be paid by many and children can learn better when they visit historical places as a person.