Proposal Outline

TITLE: A Proposal to End General Education Requirements in Universities

Purpose Statement: Persuade my audience that Gen-Ed requirements should be removed from university curricula.
Thesis: Required General Education classes are repetitive and unnecessary, and go against the fundamental purpose of a college education.

INTRODUCTION

I. Gen-Ed requirements are a waste of time and money.
   A. A study published in Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal found that a majority of university students surveyed were vocationally-driven, and therefore did not see the purpose of being educated on unrelated topics. 
   B. I had originally planned to graduate in four years with two majors and a year of study-abroad. I recently changed my major and will now have to stay in undergraduate school for five years, due to a number of Gen-Ed classes that occupied space in my schedule which could have been dedicated to classes required in my major. 
   C. Thesis: Required General Education classes are repetitive and unnecessary, and go against the fundamental purpose of a college education.
   Transition: We will now look at three reasons why GE requirements should be removed from university curricula.

BODY

I. Main Point 1: Gen-Ed requirements are a capitalist ploy. 

    A. Universities are for-profit institutions. Therefore, time is money.

         i. Students pay grand sums of money because they have to. Students know that they will not be able to secure a well-paying job in their field without a higher education. GEs simply milk more money out of already financially-strained students.

    B. GE requirements are rigged against students from poor or lower-class backgrounds.

         i. Large high schools which receive a lot of funding, are located in higher-income neighborhoods, and/or are located near community colleges are able to offer far more AP and college-credit courses, meaning that students from these schools will enter university with a number of GEs already satisfied. 

        ii. Students who were enrolled in such high schools will either be able to graduate early from college, which will save them thousands of dollars, or will be able to add additional majors or minors which will make them more marketable to employers once they graduate. On the opposite end, university students from low-income backgrounds or who attended small, underfunded high schools will have to attend college longer, pay more money, and receive less benefit than their more well-off peers.
   Transition: As upsetting as modern tuition price is, what's more shocking is that students must pay for classes which teach them information that they've already learned. 

II. Main Point 2: General education is the purpose of American students' first thirteen years of schooling, and is therefore simply repetitive once the student enters university.
     A. Elementary, junior, and high schools are required by law for all children because they are general education. All core concepts are covered at these levels of schooling.
          i. Requiring students to learn the same information over again is ridiculous and unnecessary.
     B. GEs bring down students' GPAs.
          i. Students consider GEs to be unimportant and unnecessary, and therefore are less likely to dedicate as much time to the class as they do to classes which support their major.
         ii. No student will ever be beyond proficient in every subject. In high school, students are expected to gain basic knowledge while discovering which subjects they are most passionate about. Of course a student who plans to study mathematics will not receive as high a grade in her Fine Arts class as her peer who studies animation, just as that peer is unlikely to perform as well in his required higher math course. Their GPAs should not suffer for this.
     Transition: Despite these downfalls, some supporters insist that GEs will teach necessary skills that will benefit students later on. That argument is largely untrue.
       
III. Main Point 3: GEs will not aid students later on, and, in fact, may prove to disadvantage them while in school.
      A. GE courses and the dedicated study hours they require eliminate time that a student may need for other beneficial activities, such as volunteerism, part-time jobs, clubs or student organizations.
      B. Supporters of GE requirements tout the benefits of transferable skills. While no one can argue the usefulness of transferable skills, it is hard to believe that the ability to draw a charcoal portrait or perform a lab study will be useful to a student who is studying to be a journalist, for example. Genuine life skills are best learned from supplemental activities, such as volunteer or leadership positions.

PROPOSAL

Schools should abolish GE requirements and replace them with required volunteer hours or field experience. This would benefit students by reducing the costs of higher education and giving them real-world experience and life/interpersonal skills. It would also benefit the local economy and bolster local humanitarian efforts, creating a more prosperous community.