You don't need anything more than that for the first couple of sentences of your introduction.It's entirely possible that at school or even at university you've been taught that your argument should "develop" as you go through the essay.Regardless of whether you think it's dull, it works on a technical level and it'll help your marks no end.
Following on from this, I will consider the objection that many degrees (particularly in the humanities) do not directly result in increases in economic productivity and therefore ought to be paid for by students; I reject this by arguing that the consequences of only funding those degrees that are directly economically beneficial both sacrifices the additional more intangible benefits of a more educated populace and also entrenches inequality and privilege in society by ensuring that the political and journalist classes continue to be occupied primarily by the wealthy.
I conclude that even on a pure utilitarian metric, degrees ought to be fully funded by taxes, regardless of whether this acts as a form of regressive taxation."What I've done in this introduction is simply outlined each and every step of my argument.
That doesn't mean that you should cut it shorter than it needs to be; if you're pushed for words you should always cut the extraneous fluff instead of the road map.
Even if they include a road map, a lot of students will fall down at the last hurdle and keep the conclusion back as some kind of surprise for the end of the essay.
When an examiner reads an essay that begins with "for hundreds of years, the best minds humanity has to offer have wondered most of all ", it's a little-known secret that they're contractually obligated to kill a kitten. You've likely already got a question that you've been asked to write on: what is the relevance of that question? Let's say that you're writing on the question, "‘It is right that students should contribute to the cost of their degrees.’ Do you agree?
Likewise, for every essay that begins with a quote from a famous person, schools and universities around the world actually have to pay a tithe directly to Satan, who uses it to fund the chemtrails which fall from the sky and, to quote the philosopher Alex Jones, turn the freakin' frogs gay. " You might not agree, and the specific reason that you don't agree is that you believe that degrees create a public good which ought to be fully subsidised.This is absolutely true, but the common interpretation of this teaching is that you shouldn't tell the reader what's going on at the beginning, and instead they should be forced to read through the whole essay before they get the full picture.You'll have to forgive me (well, you won't, but I would like you to) but that's total nonsense. I have to read an enormous number of essays, papers, books, articles, and so on.From there, I can continue by describing what's going to be in each of my body paragraphs, like this:"First, I contest the conception of education which understands it as primarily a means to the end of employment and monetary gain.This leads into a discussion of the further benefits of education, which I argue come in the form of an overall benefit to society of a more educated electorate and citizenry, as well as an increase in tax receipts as a result of higher productivity.I've written hundreds of essays, and read and marked hundreds more.Without a doubt the single most common comment I would make both about my own (older) essays and the essays I mark is that the introduction is bad.Sometimes the finished product looks nothing like the thing that I wrote out at the beginning, in which case I tweak the introduction so that the map is in the correct order and describes the argument correctly.Sometimes, though, you'll notice that you left something out of the body paragraphs that's actually really important, in which case you should make sure to fill in that hole.When I teach students how to write essays, one of the most common mistakes they make I've given them guidance is to give a road map, but give an incomplete one.They might say something like this:"First I argue that education does more than help people themselves. From there I'll consider whether only science degrees should be funded.