In fact, whether universities should be open to the public is a controversial issue. The benefits of opening up are self-evident: on the one hand, it not only relieves the tension of tourist attractions, but also satisfies people's admiration for scientific culture and humanistic spirit. This is a good thing without investment but with good social benefits, benefiting the country and the people; On the other hand, it makes sense for the school to refuse visitors to enter the school. The school is really not a park, and the safety and management considerations are reasonable.

In fact, the methods adopted by foreign universities are different, and there is no "international practice" on this issue. The college of Oxford University is not allowed to enter, and the control is very strict, while every door of Harvard University is unguarded, and Moscow University also allows outsiders to visit. Cornell University in the United States not only has a picturesque campus for people to visit, but also the library is open to the public, so anyone can make full use of it, and it is extremely convenient to consult and copy materials.

However, we think it is best for universities to be open to the public. Relatively speaking, the state's investment in universities is quite high, especially in recent years. Of course, "it takes ten years to plant trees, but it takes a hundred years to cultivate people." What we expect is the long-term benefits of cultivating talents in universities. However, where state funds are tilted, some short-term benefits can be produced by the way, which will make ordinary taxpayers more balanced psychologically. Why not? The general public worships universities very much, but they are often refused entry. In this way, it is a good thing to let people have the opportunity to go to college and shorten the psychological gap between some outstanding talents and ordinary people.