Writing Sample - V

Many museums charge for admission while others are free. Do you think the advantages of charging people for admission to museums outweigh the disadvantages? Some museums have an admission charge while some do not. In my opinion, the drawbacks of an entrance fee are eclipsed by its benefits in the sense that the income will be ploughed back into operation and development of the museums. A major disadvantage of an admission fee is the possibility of reducing the number of visitors. Museums house exhibitions and artefacts of great educational and historical value. If the chief aim of a museum is to introduce the local community, admission should be free to the public and visitors. Take some folk museums in Hong Kong, which preserve historic relics and display folk customs, for example. Admission to these folk museums, which are often monuments, is free of charge. If they had charged an entrance fee, many might have turned to other activities. Granted, an entrance fee might have a negative effect on the admission figures, but an income is favorable to museums in terms of operation. Museums feature educational exhibitions at times, and this could not have been done without a sum of money expended on hiring professionals and buying equipment. The Hong Kong Space Museum, for instance, has monthly exhibitions on different issues and professional docents are employed to take visitors on a guided tour around the museum. This example speaks volumes about how a reasonable admission charge is advantageous to the operation of a museum. In conclusion, the disadvantages of an admission fee are overshadowed by the benefits accruing from a stable source of income. Therefore, having weighed up the pros and cons, I am convinced that museums should charge an entrance fee for the sake of operation and development.

Informal Channels for Conflict Resolution in Ibadan, Nigeria, 2000

Some people believe that media should be allowed to publish information about the private lives of famous people. Others say that everybody has a right to privacy and this practice must be controlled or even stopped. Discuss both views. We are living in a celebrity obsessed world where everything that famous people do or say makes headlines. If media publishes stories about the private lives of the rich and the famous, that is because there is an audience for them. People want to know what celebrities do, say, wear, eat and drink. Media merely satisfies this need because it makes sound business sense for them. Public personalities also have a private life that they want to shield from others. Just because they are famous, the media doesn " t have the right to publish all sorts of personal information about them. It has now become fashionable to publish photos and stories that are demeaning to famous people. This trend must be condemned. Everybody has flaws; however, when a celebrity exhibits them it becomes news. People get some weird pleasure from knowing that these famous men and women that they admire are not perfect. On the flip side, there is a symbiotic relationship between celebrities and the media. One depends on the other for their existence. Celebrities need media exposure to remain celebrities. They are desperate to stay in the news. They need media attention to build their career. They become conscious of their right to privacy only after they have established themselves in the industry. At that stage, however, they can " t expect the media, which fuelled their growth, to stop writing about them. To conclude, as long as people want to know about the private lives of famous personalities, media will oblige them with photos and stories. However, I believe that public personalities also have a right to privacy. Although I wouldn " t say that media should stop writing about famous people, I do believe that they should draw a line. Media must resist the temptation to publish stories that can destroy lives and careers. (303 words)

TIJ's Research Journal of Social Science & Management - RJSSM, 2015

Surveillance Society, 2014