Aristotle wrote in Niccomachean Ethics that living virtuously is the key to happiness. Therefore, its especially intriguing to see virtue and happiness mentioned together but not defining each other in the university's objective. The separation is important in distinguishing that Aristotle's understanding of happiness is not the only one there is. Classically, there are many views from many schools: stoics, hedonists, Buddhists, ect. In fact, there is a general lack of clarity as to what happiness is in our collective understanding as a society. The lack of clarification as to what happiness is and the distinction between the two shows that although the university (and perhaps Thomas Jefferson) intends each student to find their own meaning of happiness while retaining the essential quality of being virtuous.

By observe, it is unclear whether a student is expected to passively notice or comply with the social relations he is exposed to during his time. Both of which are completely valid definitions and applications of the word "observe" in the dictionary. Of course the student could observe social issues at the time such as slavery and women's inequality; However, if he does not act on observed social issues that do not affect him, then did the institution fail to instill a complete education in him (as "education generates a habit of application") or has he failed as a student? Whether a student in an institution is being taught to observe to develop theories which lead him to a better understanding of social relations or observe to act on his set of beliefs is still relevant today. Of course institutions of higher learning today are more explicit about teaching students to employ action, be proactive, but the discussion of practicality and usefulness of information taught or developed at universities still revolve around this one objective.