National Railway Museum

If you throw in a pot of tea and some biscuits in the entry fee, that means paying for a fully-staffed canteen out of your entry fee that has to be able to cope with everyone going in, even if they don't. Tea is cheap, but staff, heat and light are not.

The NRM is in a cleft stick. The desires of the majority of the visiting public are not the same as the enthusiast community.

Last time I went, the small person wanted to spend all their time in the ingenuity thing (ie the replacement for the workshop), and judging by the footfall, he wasn't the only one.

I can't imagine working in the workshop in front of an audience was that much fun either.

I'd like to see some stuff to bridge from ingenuity to the rest of the musuem, eg rail-themed elements, maybe some signals and interlocking? Or a mechanically working set of valve gear.

Rather than try to work on locos, a demonstration space would have been (IMO) better, ie "at 10am we are going to lift a loco off it's wheels" or such like. Prep it all beforehand and have a mic-ed up presenter explaining what's going on. (There was a bloke the IoW glass museum that could blow glass and talk at the same time, how he managed that without swearing I have no idea). That avoids the non-spectacle of three fitters scratching their heads as to how to shift a seized bolt or similar.

 

Kids need to learn what museums are about, not be dumbed down with turning it into a play area.
That way their powers of Attention, interaction and comprehension would be allowed to develop more normally. Just a point of view

 

They've been losing Government funding anyway. I think the ability to attract more money from Ring-Fenced income from relevant events could be helpful IF this was not at the expense of the core government funding. Whether we could trust any governments is arguable, but I recall at the A4 gathering some years back how the staff explained the help that such events could bring.
(Redrafted)

 

That is a question of educational philosophy, but I seriously doubt that the average under 8 has ever developed their skills in the way you suggest.

 

I currently work in a major museum. Our galleries team (apparently) operates on the policy that all writings associated with exhibits should be accessible to someone with the reading comprehension and general knowledge of a 12 year old. There are allegedly statistics out there that suggest this now encompasses the average adult in the UK.

Our newer exhibits tend to combine an interactive element with writing and objects on display. Although traditional exhibits with text integrated into the fabric of an attractive building are very popular (especially if you can make them look well-looked after so folk want to photo them, - i.e. the 'Instagram effect').

 

Just before Christmas I went to the F1 exhibition in London. Best part of £70 for 2 of us, but that's beside the point. There were 2 types of visitors - those that went round in about 30 mins just looking and snapping pics, and those that read all the wall panels and watched the videos - which took is nearly 4 hours. It seemed to be well set up for both. Despite not understanding why someone would pay that much for a 30 mins whistle stop tour, I was impressed with the organisation and the understanding of the different customer segments. Somehow it achieved happiness for both, without getting in each others way.

 

If it's an opinion, it should generally start with "I think" or "it is my opinion" to avoid any suggestion of trying to pass off opinion as fact.

Which do you think are easier to engage; children who are interested, or children who are not?

 

That to me is quite depressing, as it ignores the possibility that someone might want to do better. That there should be something on each exhibit for the standard of a 12 year old is a good thing, that things should only be for a 12 year old is poor.

 

Why do you think that the most popular papers are tabloids?

 

I think you are agreeing with me:
Yes, the tabloid is the most common, but a library that only kept the red-tops would be failing in it's avowed purpose if it didn't have a copy of say the Times Literary Supplement. Yes, most readers won't want it, and to say that should be the only paper would be wrong, but to not have the option there for the person who does want to expand their horizons would be equally deficient

 

It’s not only for 12 year olds… everyone benefits from clear and easily comprehensible information.

Writing plainly and clearly is a skill not enough people have, and when it’s done well it enhances everyone’s understanding of a subject.

@35B is right that the tabloids exploit this skill, but sadly seldom in a way than enhances anyone’s understanding of anything much…

Simon

 

Which is why I said everything should have that, but with more nuanced and detailed information available at least some of the time

 

I don't think that is quite what reading age scores measure. Generally they use some algorithm that gives a score based on things like average length of sentence in words, number of syllables etc. But that doesn't mean that a piece of writing with a reading age of, say, 12 is directed at a 12 year old.

Many commercial organisations have style guides that include setting target reading scores. Almost certainly, you could visit your bank and buy a complex investment product or insurance, but find that the policy documents had been written with a reading age score suitable for a secondary school student.

Edit to add: I wasn't trying very hard, but the first paragraph above has a Flesch-Kincaid score equivalent to a US 7th grade (say suitable for an 12 - 13 year old). The second paragraph is worse.

Tom

 

And they are generally full of imprecisions and lacunae, as anyone who has tried to claim on one will know.

OK, such precision is not necessary on a musuem exhibit, but tends to the removal of technical terms, complex maths, and detail. The assumption of a low knowledge base also means the allotted space/word limits are taken up explaining basic concepts, or related socio-political matters.

Note (again) I am not saying any of this is bad as a base level of information, but the idea this is to be a blanket upper limit is the issue

 

As a museum exhibit, I think it’s fine. As research material, absolutely not.

As a child, my father used to take me to the Science Museum, most of which had “old school” displays. The signage was rarely larger than an index card, and conveyed little or nothing about the exhibit.

There’s much to be concerned about with dumbing down, but writing displays for specific reading ages is not one of them.

 

I guess where you draw the line between "looking at" and "researching". If I'm looking at an artefact, I'm trying to fit it into my knowldege of the area. If it's railways or 16-17c English history, I'll have a significantly higher-than-average knowledge, at what point does that cross into "research"? Clearly if you are doing a phd in xyz and you rock up with a letter of introduction, then you get the white gloves and the chance to get into the detail. Likewise, if you are popping in for a look, the high-level info is right, but there is a middle ground.

Last time I went to the science museum, the ground-floor was part science museum and part props exhibit (they had the H2G2 movie props), and IMO was pitched far too low. The original rocket had a bit of info about who built it and what it did, but nothing about why it was better than it's contemporaries (or even that it really had contemporaries) or what had been rebuilt on it).

Upstairs was an (almost empty) gallery of immaculate models of marine steam engines that had captions that assumed a full knowledge of compounding types (including names of systems), and was a tough read for me, never mind the hypothetical man-on-the-street.

Clearly you need to engage those who don't know about the subject (or even the concept of looking at exhibits), but if that's all you do, IMO, it's only half the job.

Back to the NRM, they did an immersive thing about Flying Scotsman. I could have done without the jobbing actors, clunky dialogue, cuts to toy trains, limitations of the imagery being shown up by trying to match photos, but the trip through the firebox and steam circuit was unexpectedly brilliant - you can't do that for real (well not more than once anyway...)

 

My memory of taking children to the Science Museum* was that they hit that balance quite well in the exhibition, but not at individual exhibit level. That required taking the time to follow the flow of the exhibition and, especially, to watch the videos.

* - it was a long time ago, and I had to balance a 9 year old who has really interested with a 6 year old who wasn't, in a museum that was hellishly full because we'd made the rookie error of going at the weekend in half term.

 

I always find it "difficult" looking around places, even auctions, and your chum/partner, whatever, streaks ahead. I don't particularly like guided tours, you have no time to absorb a subject and reflect...

 

I can remember having such an experience in Paris at the Musée des Arts et Métiers nine years ago with a couple of colleagues; one of them and myself wanted to take our time to absorb it, whilst the other guy wanted to power round as quickly as possible - something he was notorious for. You always felt he was like one of those creatures that died if they stopped moving.

 

Others may disagree but for me the NRM is suffering the same problem as a lot of other museums and some heritage railways. People are brought in with a degree in Art or Museum Management etc who know damn all about railways and we end up with things like the Wonderlab and the dumbed down nonentity that was once the world’s leading railway museum. A good example is a friend’s daughter who is in her final year of a Museum Culture and Collections Management degree whatever that is.
There are of course notable exceptions such as Anthony Coulls but we need more like him.