I find it interesting that this is included. Compared to all of the other objectives, this one is less specific and more subjuctive and left up for interpretation. While all of the other objectives are focused on acedemic and societal fluency, this one is focused on internal happness, something that is quite odd for the founders to include.

I found this interesting, because in my recent engagement and in my social psychology class we have been talking about happiness and what makes people happy. Happiness is something that is not easily predicted, because so many different criteria have to be considered when predicting happiness. I think it's interesting how in the time of this document they thought they knew what would make the citizens happy, when in reality there was no real way for them to know much like today.

This feels kind of contradictory to me, considering the idea of separation of church and state was so important at this time. I wonder why education would be the exception?

It is interesting that this terminology is still prevalent on grounds. The architectural layout of the lawn came to fruition as planned by this preliminary document.

This idea of a holistic learning experience that explores many facets of scholarship has been taken from the commissioners and manifested in the UVA practices. The commissioners recognize the importance of creating well rounded students who will thrive in several fields of study.

It is very interesting that Thomas Jefferson's university had so many military oriented studies because Thomas Jefferson actually spoke many times about the dangers of a very large standing army and didn't strongly support a large centralized military (this was his Jeffersonian ideology but he totally ended up doing the opposite of this during his presidency).

Rather than this being seen as a racist thing or a something along those lines this should be seen as the commissioners simply wanting the university to be built in the middle of the college-eligible people living in the state. They wanted UVA to be equally far from all people who are eligible to go to college, which were white males. They weren't saying central to the white population in order to be forwardly racist they just wanted it to be equally accessible to all people that were able to go to college at the time.

Some of the same concerns faced now were likely more prevalent in the past. In a period where parents could not reach their children except for letters and travel that each could possibly take multiple days. Now we cannot be detached from parents who seek us out without relent. Could this effectively be better or worse for the education of people in the past? I ask this because times have surely changed and students now likely have the same attachments that students in the past had to their parents.

The interpretation of education in the past was held highly under a consensus that it had only beneficial outcomes. This interpretation still holds true, however, at the cost of some things such as the environment. But, through the acquisition of new knowledge because of new generations interpretations of the future that should come forth, these problems are solvable.

At the time when this document was written, the meaning of the word citizen was very different from what it means now. At this point in America's history, slavery was still legal, and women could not vote. The only true "citizens" of the United States were white males, hence the wording of "he" and "his." It's interesting to me that they decided to include the words "every citizen" when not everyone was given the same rights or opportunities as white males.

This offer was initially shocking to read- Washington College was willing to donate the land on which the college was built? Why would they donate the land that their college was built on to a different college? Did they expect to become UVA, or did they expect that their college would be torn down when UVA would be built?

As a previous commenter mentioned, inflation is an essential factor to consider these numbers. I also think that considering what was previously mentioned and known about the university, it is important to note the way in which this could have been used to keep minorities out. Given the recent news of the rise of tuition, not only in Virginia but across the country, the effects on minority students. This is just one of the many ways that they are systematically cut off from higher education.

I feel like this statement is more opinion than fact. The judgment that the area was chosen for the university and essentially Thomas Jefferson’s vision is suitable is an observation made strictly through the single perspective. This said perspective is shaped by the ideals of Jefferson and other elite figures at the time. Given the lack of diversity in this region, the University of Virginia may have been one of the most ideal places to settle at the time. As a matter of fact, in the following sentence, the “centrality to the white population” is a truth that is explicitly mentioned. Lastly, the use of the word “fertility” begs the question fruitful for whom?

Although most of the names on this list have little to no information on them, James Breckenridge is the only Federalist on this list. The rest of the identifiable signers are all Democratic-Republicans. I wonder if this was a calculated effort to try and offer more views (probably unlikely) or just that Breckenridge has enough prestige, reputation, or stock to merit his opinion on the formation of a new school, despite him holding differing political views.

The writers of this document seem to view education not only as a means of expanding one's knowledge but as a means of improving one's inherent nature from one of evil and corruption to one of goodness and virtue. I find this notion classist and fallacious, as it seems to suggest that those who are not educated (including those who cannot afford education) are inherently worse as people than those who are educated and also that education can fundamentally change who a person is.

Phrases like this, which can be found throughout the Rockfish Gap Report here and there, reveal, especially with diction like "finest taste in style and composition," "most learned" and "erudition," that the University has valued class and prestige heavily, even since its founding.

During this time period, French was the language of "general intercourse among nations." Today, English is the language that nations most commonly use when interacting. It is interesting to see the change and progression of America's influence around the world, especially with language. I also find the word choice of "Spanish is highly interesting to us" as sort of arrogant. They recognize that it is spoken by a large majority of people in some Continents, but the tone sort of implies that Spanish itself isn't as relevant as French.

It is interesting the number of purposes of education that the authors state. They believe, like most educated people, that education can help in making people well rounded and productive members of the society. The phrase "social worth," however, gives the impression that the educated authors feel superior to the uneducated.

I think it is interesting that they point out education for poor children, considering that the university was originally built to be closest to the white population, which was predominantly wealthy at this time. Even thinking about education for poor people at this time is interesting to me, because they were not of a priority at the time.

I feel this was an odd term to use, as if there money would be a monthly installment for the university, however I feel like using the term subscription makes it seem more as a luxury rather than a beneficial investment. However I guess that goes to show how much changes over time, even something as little as terminology. The concept of change can be seen throughout the report as a whole too.

When reading all the objects what comes to mind is he different majors we have today and the many options we have as well as how some of the objects described are found while some are not quite displayed during that time as it should have been like the idea "to give to every citizen" we know this did not apply to every citizen, and we can prove this because of the time period and his consistent use of "his." Throughout the report he was mainly referring to the white male.

This is interesting to note. At the conception of the University, there were to only be ten professors for each of the sciences. It was likely that they did not anticipate the university growing as much as it did. The size now is enormous in comparison to when it first opened 200 years ago. We certainly have more than ten professors for each of the sciences now to match the number of students attending the university. Here is the UVA website about the number of employees now: http://www.virginia.edu/facts

All of these physics concepts are now included in two semesters. It seems odd that with the limited scientific information available at the time that each subtopic would be its own subject. In my 1710 physics class we only spent 3 classes on statics

It is interesting that Hebrew was taught as a language here before Jewish students were allowed to attend. I'm guessing that it was more of a biblical study Hebrew which is heavily involved in translating ancient texts that are currently housed in special collections

This objective of the University is particularly interesting to me. The rights that it refers to do not apply to all people. These rights are afforded only to the wealthy, white man and neglect African Americans and women, both of whom were at first barred from studying at the university. This quote speaks to the reality of the time.

I think this imagery comes out of nowhere. Personally, I find this entire piece to be pretty dry, and when I was reading this part it sort of surprised me because it seemed like suddenly the authors were trying to make the writing entertaining and engaging, which I believed they didn't care about given the rest of the piece. In regards to the metaphor, I believe it does its job at translating the meaning, however again, the entire sentence seems to just not fit in with the other writing.

Universities thrive on competition. As much as we'd like to say we don't compete here at UVA, competition does make us better. We worked hard to gain access to this University and we continue to work hard in order to excel in the job search after college. This sentence is the start of that competition. It shows that UVA would not accept just anyone and this is in the roots of the University. This allowed for the beginning of a competitive nature that makes UVA students excel among other Universities.

I'm confused as to why this part of the sentence is even included. Yes, the languages of french and Spanish are both important to learn for different reasons, both serving different academic purposes that would likely be useful later in life, but the fact that Spanish is "interesting" to the writers doesn't really seem important in this professional documents as they analyze what languages to focus on at the university. It just seems like a very superficial introduction to why they chose Spanish.

I think it was very wise of the founders to approach medicine in this way. When dealing with such a complex profession, one can not be too careful in making sure the very best for the job are put into the medical workforce. People in the medicine industry legitimately carry the lives of other people in their hands as a job and that should not be taken lightly. Instead of trying to do too much and offer too much to the students of the University, the authors of this document were wise enough to know that they were not in a place to open a fully developed medical program. They make it clear that they have hopes to create a more extensive program in the future, but accept the fact that they are not equipped at the moment. It shows a sense of maturity and that they really analyzed what they were able to provide at this university.

At first I was confused as to how James Madison was affiliated with the University of Virginia. Upon further research, I found that Madison was the 2nd rector (or head) of UVa until 1836 and that the law school was actually named after him. He was an important part of the University's founding and often worked alongside Thomas Jefferson, which explains why he was included in the individuals who signed this report.

It is interesting that one of the first subjects one could study at the University was Botany. This is not an option for students today, and in today's society many might find it to be an odd class for a college to provide, but it makes sense that it was an important course for students back then in the eyes of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was known to be extremely intrigued by agriculture and various farming techniques. He even once said that "those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God," therefore historically one can see why Botany was a focus of his during the University's founding.

This plan would have been useful when the University was just beginning. It would ensure that the people who put the plan for the University would definitely meet and discuss what they wanted about the University. The meetings would have helped promote growth at the University's start.

A very libertarian argument made in the argument here, arguing that learning the law allows one to create what helps the general population, but on the opposite side of the same coin it is necessary to allow the freedom of the individual to do whatever he/she pleases as long as the rights of others are not violated.

For reference, $5,000 in 1818 adjusted for inflation was equivalent to $$92,560.69. $350 was equivalent to $6,479.25, and $3.50 was equivalent to $64.79. It's interesting to see the comparison between modern tuition and fees and the actual costs of building in the first place

I find it interesting that it is very hard to find information about many of these commissioners. While many names are common within every American household such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and a few others, many are not. Part of the problem may lie in the fact that these signatures are not complete names. However, it's still strange that these men would be chosen to commission UVA and not have information be easily found today.

I wonder whether "Projectiles" referred to the more classical thought of calculating trajectories, designing weapons, or other theoretical projects or if this is a more practical training in how to use the existing weapons of the time. The authors seem to assume that it is obvious what projectiles specifically refers to, but that may have been lost in the elapsed time.

As Jefferson looks to inspire the others why this higher institute would benefit all. He states that education itself is what has improved our lifestyle up to this point and it will continue to improve the quality of life itself. That as a civilization we have a duty to evolve as a species and look to education to learn as much as we can about ourselves and the world. He makes reference to their fathers that we too should follow the path the have set fro us.

Here we see the importance placed on rhetoric and the creation of communication. The authors likely included this field of study to ensure that the students would be capable of recognizing persuasive or dangerous language and to use their own to conduct business professionally as well as effectively.

Apostrophe usage must not have been formally clarified at this point in the Americas.

This illustrates that the writers thought it important for more citizens to understand about different types of fauna. I wonder specifically why they thought the subject of animals was important enough to list in their curriculum. Would they want us to understand the ecological importance of animals or learn how to protect their rights? Were they trying to create a group of citizens who were more environmentally conscious?

I think it is interesting that the writers specifically say that mathematical and physical sciences sometimes are only for the purpose of advancing the arts. This means, in my mind, that the writers are cognoscente of how some people are meant to be artists, but they still have a place in higher education and they will benefit in their work from having a higher education.

Jefferson felt that a father-child relationship amongst pupils and teachers ought to be developed. The males enrolled at the University amid that time were the children of affluent men, therefore they were expected to be mature and sober students equipped for self-administration. The bulk of these understudies went to the college to propel their social position and were not prepared for the challenging work required by the scholarly community. Coherent to Jefferson's ideology, that less government is better, the students adopted a self-government structure based on the ideal that pupils should practice their own circumspection and that less direction would support self-control.

Jefferson upheld for a comprehensive plan for government funded institutions, including elementary schools and state colleges. Amid this time, the United States and colleges offered a classical curriculum, with the motivation of educating future clergymen and social first class. Nevertheless, Jefferson contended for open advanced education because his faith in democracy was surmised in informed people. This quote was one of the six objectives Jefferson had for open advanced education. He upheld against ignorance, and wanted to establish and enhance the education of the everyday citizens. The accentuation was on access and opportunity for everyone, incorporating those in rural areas and the addition of practical learning to the liberal education then offered by private institutions. The school was to be firmly drawn in with the life and works if the general population, to discover, educate, and disperse knowledge to a developing country, in order to further its monetary prosperity and the prosperity of its people.

It is interesting to think that in the time that this document was made there was such a big focus on warfare. Today we simply workout in order to maintain good health; however, the founders of the University saw exercise as necessary in order to keep the men suited to be soldiers if need be.

I imagine that such private education would be expensive. Thus eligibility for education at the University of Virginia is further limited to the wealthy. Class elitism in higher education is an explicit part of this document.

This is an interesting line. Is this simply stating that students should learn and understand basic sociology and apply it to their own lives? Or that they must be socialized, to be trained for obedience to authority and to perpetuate the society that educates them?

I believe this statement speaks to the recognition of the opposition who don't wish for the existence public institutions which would most likely initiate a more broad move to public primary school education. Despite the oppositions efforts, public institutions such as UVA have produced some the brightest minds and have ushered in a broad look on affordable education for all.

This demand of primary education clearly sets the standard that the University needed individuals who were community leaders and showed an dedication to helping others.I believe that this standard stills applies as a prerequisite for many major univeristies like UVA.

At the time that this document was written only men and citizens would be permitted to attend the University of Virginia. Women were not granted acceptance into the University until 1969.

The inclusion of education on military subjects reinforces the idea of how at this time in American history there was an active citizen army. Coming off of the War of 1812, the military was a part of life for white males. At some point in their lives, it was likely they would serve in the military in some capacity. Education was seen partly as a way to have an edge in war, as a well educated and trained army would be more successful on the battlefield.

The "objects" listed correspond with Jefferson's idea of educating the whole person. A well-rounded education was necessary for a white man in Virginia at the time, as he would have had to know how to run an estate, engage in democratic exercises, and perhaps even manage crop production on his land. The target of this education was also not an average male - the best and the brightest were to be sent to this university.

I find it fascinating that two centuries ago the committee's top priorities for its students are extremely similar to the University's top priorities for students today. Regardless of the cultural, societal and technological leaps we have made, the core model behind secondary education has, in a way, remained the same.

I find it interesting that the item of second most importance was the buildings themselves and that the item of most importance was the location. This is extremely representative of a societal change that has dramatically influenced humans. With our current technology and infrastructure, we are able to reach nearly every point of the world. In that sense, location has become less of a defining factor. Today, a building could be thought of before its location is determined.

This is just one example of the author's exclusive use of male pronouns. While this was and still is considered standard practice in the English language, it is socially unacceptable. The appropriate practice in this day and age is to alternate gendered pronouns. This would be appropriate in an updated version. First and foremost, we want the University to be a welcoming place for potential students and as such we should modernize the text to reflect this desire for inclusion. Some people would argue that this would be an example of excessive change, but I would counter that this is a shortsighted argument. If not for the first reason, the University should amend the language because it no longer exclusively educates male students. The language of official documents should be amended if they are in fact being revised, as is the case here, to reflect this reality. Women now constitute a majority of the student body at the University and have done so for over three decades.

At the time, this term referenced white people, namely the landed aristocracy, whom the University sought to serve. Having said that, it is important to consider that the word citizen has evolved to encompass a variety of people from different walks of life. The mission of the University then should remain unchanged: it should seek to inform every citizen. This leads to the question of whether the University is truly making its best effort to do so, especially in the wake of the events from this past August. I, for one, would say that the University is a diverse place relative to other universities; however, its demographics fail to adequately represent the people of the marginalized demographics in the very Commonwealth it serves. I think that it is important that the administration acts prudently to ensure that student body more accurately reflects this reality in the near future.

How did they decide what constituted "proper"? This is such a vague term, and it or terms like it show up in this text a few times. This seems like it could be a point of contention amongst the people in charge because it wouldn't be hard to have differing opinions about what is the proper distance. This would cause an issue again where it says "a building of somewhat more size ... may be called for". How would anyone who came after them know what they really meant by this if charged with the task of designing the new building? It just seems like when building an entirely new university there should be less room for deviation from the original intentions.

I feel like this could have multiple meanings.. It could have a practical application when considering the fertility to mean the fertility of the soil -- in order to grow crops -- or it could be an aesthetic application of the word. It would seem like the practical application would make more sense because they would want to have food and resources readily available but for some reason it doesn't come across this way. To me it comes across as though they're concerned about the "fertility" of the land because they want to be surrounded by beauty at the university. While this is important, it does not seem like it is important enough to be one of the top concerns.

Using the term subscription makes me think as if the school was a luxury, similar to how we subscribe to netflix and things. To be such a serious report it is a surprise that this term was used.

When reading all the objects what comes to mind is he different majors we have today and how some of the objects described are found while some are not quite displayed today as it should be.

It makes sense that the writers would want the students of the University to be well educated on geography and navigation, particularly when considering how people traveled at the time the document was written - the early 1800's - with horse-drawn carriages and a lack of a comprehensive infrastructure. Nowadays, even though it can be argued that these skills are no longer necessary since humans have GPS's and Uber's and other similar means of transportation, I strongly believe that it is still important for people to be able to get from one location to another, either close or far, in the best way possible. The day that GPS's fail, if humans are not able to read maps well, there will be many challenges with the majority of people who wish to travel.

First, I find it interesting that the first justification they give is survival-based and very practical. Also, isn't it just a little ironic that they mention protection against fires...

The Commissioners of this report seemed to have a lot of faith in the idea that they could "remedy" the deed after its author had passed away. If the University has actually been placed in Lexington, I wonder if the deed would have held up and if they would have gotten what they thought they were going to.

This makes sense because white men were the only ones who were expected to attend college. This phrase "it's centrality to the white population of the whole state" is synonymous with the phrase "it's centrality to the college-eligible population of the state". Of course they would want a state university to be accessible, distance-wise, to all college-eligible people.

It is very interesting that there are these military-oriented classes offered and that there is so much emphasis put on them. It is interesting because military knowledge was not one of the purposes of the University stated earlier in this report. Also, does the projectiles class mean what it sounds like? Is it the study of calculating the path of a cannon or something? Seems very interesting. Maybe these types of classes had such an emphasis on them because the US had recent memory of war such as the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Barbary Wars.

It’s interesting to me that in 1818 the biggest concerns were fires and infection. This makes sense because there were no fire trucks at the time that could have put out a fire fast. Also, the medicine of the time was not as effective as it is nowadays. Comfort and tranquillity are still main concerns but if there were to be a new college made today they would probably not have fires and disease at the top of their agenda.

I think it's interesting seeing what was originally planned to be taught at the University and how far it has come today. As we all know there are a wide range of subjects and topics being taught today, some I never imagined would be a real course at any school.

This seems oddly informal to bring up emotions in an official document. This informality shifts the tone of the document. This tone makes it seem like the writers are writing for people similar to them and possibly even people they even know which could be very likely. These educated white men were writing for other educated white men and the entire document can be read in this fashion of these elite men having a private conversation with themselves.

The first part of this clause outlines that UVA is not going to be a place of meritocracy; it is for those that wish to become distinguished in their future as a scholar. It follows with a suggestion, that these people may also come from backgrounds not traditionally fit for academia. In this age, there was no public school and only the wealthy children were put into schools. But here, Jefferson and the other founders are suggesting that these kids may also be the future scholars and they should make specific accommodations in their curriculum for these children. I think this is realized to this day with programs such as "Access UVA" which give financial aid to all those that need it to come to UVA.

In my engagement "The individual and Society" we learn about individuals and the type of society they live in. Here, we see students and faculty as individuals creating a community and learning environment in which they coexist with one another. Both are living together to study, influence, inspire, and learn from each other. What better way to practice what is taught then to live it. It also allows fro there to be social class distinction if all the students are living in the same conditions.

Such topics are interesting to be included in a general curriculum. I believe it supports the idea that when the school was being founded, the goal was to create scholars instead of specialists. We coin this today as a "liberal arts" education. However, today we do not study things such as optics because they are no longer needed for the average person - no longer are telescopes, looking glasses, and glasses something that people use, develop, repair, etc. Instead, people specialize in such fields. This is required because the knowledge barrier to get into such fields is so much higher today due to the massive buildup of knowledge.

It is interesting that Hebrew was listed as an offered language so early when the first Jewish student did not attend the University until 1862 and the first Jewish professor wasn't hired until the 1920's. The University also has a history of quotas on Jewish students and restrictions on what clubs would allow them to join.

This University was founded off of the basis of making sure it was central to the white population, which is crazy to think in terms of how far it has come and the diversity we see on Grounds every day. One of the main reasons they probably also wanted the site to be healthy and near a fertile neighborhood was to benefit what would soon be the white students populating the whole University.

Adjusted for inflation:

$5,000 is worth $92,560.69 today; $350 is worth $6,479.25 today; $3.50 is worth $64.79

http://www.in2013dollars.com/1818-dollars-in-2017?amount=3.50

The fact that the authors of the Rockfish Gap Report call for the organization of "districts" for the allocation of primary education is a bit surprising to me. The idea of having education allocated and provided by the municipalities or counties, as it currently is done, does not seem like a revolutionary idea. In fact, it seems like a matter of common sense that simply alluded the authors. It is not like the counties did not already exist; you only need to look as far as the proposition of locations for the University to see this.

It appears as though the purpose of the university is to focus on self improvement and focusing on individual excellence over the idea of contributing to society as a whole. This definitely comes from Thomas Jeffersons belief in the rights of the individual and the idea of personal liberty and responsibility

In my engagement, we have been analyzing the New Testament and whether it should be used in making ethical decisions. I think it's very important that UVA is not a religiously affiliated school. It allows for a more diverse group of people and therefore a better learning experience. If my engagement was filled with students who all supported and fully followed the New Testament, there wouldn't be much to discuss. Because we all come from different religious backgrounds and can contribute to conversations in different ways, we learn more about the world around us then if we were stuck in an institution with one religion.

I think this passage is extremely significant. The University was hoping to train and educated young people so that they could then go on to lead and run our country. They wanted the most educated people to help shape society because they hoped this University would give them good morals and teach them valuable lessons. I think this is ironic due to the fact that the majority of politicians working in the government have very corrupt morals. A lot of the people working in these offices lied their way to the top in an attempt to gain power. It's no surprise that our government has corruption in it. I think that if all Universities strove to really educate their students on good moral and values, we may try to prevent this corruption and obviously the authors of this document agree and tried to help create a government that would be beneficial to the country as a whole. Maybe we will be the generation to follow out their desires.

This is a plaque located at Rockfish Gap. I find it interesting that the meeting was held at a Hotel tavern instead of a formal setting because this was a meeting required by law.

I believe that the "indigenous neighbors" that the authors are referring to are not the impoverished or the uneducated, but the Native Americans. At this time, they were still considered barbaric savages simply because they had developed different languages, traditions, and cultures. The authors continue to utilize words with extremely negative connotations, such as "wretchedness", "besotted", and "degeneracies" to better express the idea that education and knowledge are the most important things one could possibly gain - a society that has not employed the Western model of education is a primitive one.<br> These scholars were so focused upon educating people in the sciences and humanities, but were close-minded when it came to learning about others' cultures. There is no 'right' way to be educated. Nowadays, I am pleased to see the existence of many different Anthropology classes that teach us about many different ways of life. UVA has most definitely improved in terms of awareness and open-mindedness.

It is clear that the founders of the University took language very seriously, and incorporated it to a great extent into the curriculum. Although UVA, being a predominantly arts/sciences school, does indeed still consider language to be important, English is the one that is most focused upon.<br> Learning or continuing to learn a language at UVA is definitely encouraged, but oftentimes is not required - and I know that many people choose not to take one simply because they don't want to.<br> One of the things that I agree on in the Rockfish Gap is that learning a language should be something that every student must do; additionally, we must stop considering English to be the superior language and understand that each language is every bit as complicated and useful as ours. I admire how the founders took the time to explain how each language - French, Spanish, German, etc. - has contributed to the development of society.

The idea of improving morals for the incoming students is a good step toward broadening the ideals of the new generation. However at the point that they come to the university they have already been trained in the thought of slave holder entitlement. These people will have the point of view of superiority and will block out opposing ideals and cover it with there own reasoning. There is also the issue of framing when it comes to information. The university obviously won't have access to a plethora of books right of the bat. But the information that is accessible will always be limited in that authors with perspectives that are too challenging won't be accepted into the university.

The emphasis of education is laid out in the form of the preparatory phases of higher learning. The foundation of the University would mean nothing without students who had a strong enough background to survive within it. Therefore the writers of the Rockfish Gap Report found it ideal that prerequisites be met before coming to the University. There is a deep resemblance between these ideals and the modern education system. If the values of education were taught at a younger age then we would eventually arrive at the point that we are at today. Where parents encourage the acquisition of a quality education which will advance society, rather than to stay home and work on a farm or join the army.

Thomas Jefferson seem to be the first individual to advocate for education reform. It seems like Jefferson understood that freedom depends on self-government. Education furnishes both the knowledge and virtues that create a citizen who is self-governing. During the 18th century, public education did not exist. School was exclusively for wealthy families and their children. This had to undoubtedly pose a threat to the democracy of the United States. Are American schools supposed to teach what is right and wrong or is this a decision that each person needs to reach on their own? Public education, and any other type of education system needs to teach citizens how to make good judgments in order to have fruitful lives. These forms of teaching will inevitably produce active voters within a society. 199 years later we are still confronted with the same dilemma. The constant ordering of students seems to widen the gap between the rich and the poor and those with opportunities and those without. This can be very problematic and thus reflect inequality.

Thomas Jefferson did not have a specific framework on the governance of the university. Jefferson undoubtedly considered autonomy as the core bureaucracy, particularly from students of the University. This form of governance is indubitably evident at UVA today, as it was 199 years ago. Undeniably, reexamination and revitalization are requisite and key factors in any system of government, which allow it to operate efficiently and to its fullest potential. Society and culture are inevitably modifying everyday, therefore obligations and beliefs of the University and its students are also endlessly changing. We, students and parents, tend to pick-and-choose when and when not we want the University to act as a parental figure, which would contradict what the University embodies, self-governance. Jefferson however offers the idea of “deportment between father and son”, implying that professors should interact with their students in a respectful, yet friendly manner, as they would with their own child, however, not to the extend of serving as a parent and withholding responsibility over the student’s behavior or decisions. In this day and age, students call professors by their first name and participate in activities that are normally reserved to friends or family, like going to their home, fishing together or even grabbing lunch together. Therefore, as self-governance is reexamined and revitalized, so are the are the attitudes of students towards the norms of professor and student relationships and self-behavior.

I find it interesting how in the original document the idea of expressing and preserving one's ideas is mentioned. Not only does this resemble Jefferson's ideals that are expressed in the First Amendment, it is also a topic that is extremely relevant at UVa today. UVa has had to had white supremacists voice their ideas due to this ideal and has received a lot of backlash because of it. UVa's current problems represent the difficult balance between freedom of speech and safety.

Putting aside the fact that it is absurd that the main necessity in a location for the university was to be in the middle of the white population, it surprised me that they'd even want the University to be so close to the white population. In my mind, college is a time to get away from what you know and to experience life on your own. Many students want to go as far from home as possible when attending college or at least far enough to have a fresh start and figure out their own path in life. So why then did the authors of this document wish to be in the center of the population they desired to attend their school? I'm not trying to draw away from the fact that they were only focused on white students and how racist that recruitment is, but if I were establishing the University, I would put the location away from the population I was trying to get to attend; this would draw them in and offer new experiences that they otherwise did not have in their hometowns. The probable reason they made this mistake is because they were too focused on race. It's sad that they were so focused on recruiting white people that they may have actually hurt their chances of recruiting that population or hindered the possibility of the students experiencing new environments. It just shows that their obsession with providing higher education to white students and not people of color is extremely problematic and ethically immoral even if the times were different than they are now. There were people back then who weren't racist so I think it is unfair to give people an excuse because of the time period.

In this sense, we get a superiority complex developing pretense to the actual construction of the university. This statement relates an outlook of separation on different classes of society and who they wish to attend their college. They see the university as only accessible to the rich, upperclass society, not for the poor. They make it very clear that they are open only to educating those who have achieved primary education and who wish to proceed further into secondary studies.

Does this mean what does not violate the equal rights of another student? Another member of the university? Surely at this time they were not concerned with respecting everyone's equal rights.

Transcendental is the math of all curves other than circles, but has a focus in military art. Earlier in the document, the authors state that every student should study military strategies. Why was war such a focal point for studies at the time of this document?

A map of the railways of western and central Virginia. I found it helpful to actually see each location mentioned in the text in relation to one another. Charlottesville is just west of the relative center of the map, Staunton is just north of due west of Charlottesville, and Lexington is just off the map, southwest of Staunton. This helps visualize the board's decision in choosing Albermarle county as the demographic center of the state: Charlottesville is far closer to the much denser eastern part of the state. It should also be noted that the wealthier, upper class-to whom the university was designed to serve-is also going to be located in the population-dense east, also making Charlottesville the ideal choice in the board's eyes.

What does this mean? Does the healthiness of the site refer to the general prevalence (or lack there of) of infectious diseases or parasites (i.e. malaria)? Does the fertility of the county refer to the fertility of the local farmland, to supply the university's professors and students with sufficient food? Or does it refer to health and fertility in a more metaphorical sense, as in the well-being of the local community and populace?

Everyone always says that it's important to learn from our past. Would that not then make these languages important to learn as well? If no one continued to learn these languages then what would happen when something from the past needed to be reevaluated or reinterpreted? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what they mean by it being difficult to foresee the extent of that school, but to me that sounds like they are saying it does not have much potential or there is not much need for it.

Ancient language is one of the only fields of study in this report that is listed without much rationale for why it is useful to understand. This point reflects American society (and possibly the societies of other democratic Western nations) at this point in history; students were expected to know ancient languages because society considered them fundamentally useful. This is something that has changed over time, as today our society places much less emphasis on attaining proficiency in ancient languages as a prerequisite to becoming an educated, virtuous citizen.

I find it interesting that two is the explicitly stated maximum for students living together in order to be neat, get along well, and have an ideal situation for studying. I believe this still holds true in today's time, though many find themselves going to the library to study instead. This statement causes me to wonder whether it was rare for students to go elsewhere, such as a library, to study at this time. It seems likely that since a University such as this had not existed previously, the founders wanted to give the prospective students the best possible chance to succeed and did not want to force the students to go to a library or some other building to do their studying. Also, the founders were likely trying to get the students accustomed to studying in their living quarters with another person present, to prepare them for their future jobs when they would have wives and maybe children in the same house or room as them while working.

The idea of the college not adhering to a specific religion and instead educating its students broadly mirrors the ideas of religious freedom presented in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Further, it runs parallel to the ideas presented by Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Virginia at the time held religious freedom highly, as many different groups called the state home. Because Thomas Jefferson was a writer of all of these documents, it fits that the University of Virginia would hold this idea central to the education of its students.

I think it is very interesting that they took students' well-being and mental health in account when thinking about the arrangement of dormitory living. In that time, for fifteen year old boys to travel miles and days away from their parents would be strenuous which is similar to our culture today. They knew that it would be beneficial for their students to have some type of moral grounding when not in close proximity to their loved ones.

This passage makes it clear that the University is on a different academic level than that of Grammar schools or preliminary schools. Once a student arrives at the University, it is crucial that their intellectual backgrounds (here, in ancient languages) be up to par. In doing so, the University is passively petitioning the state for the creation of a preparatory school to ensure that the students who attend the University are qualified, maximizing the advancement of the arts.

The location of this mentioning of slave labor in the middle of a long list of tracts of land that would have been designated to the University had it been located in Lexington is quite nonchalant in nature. There is really nothing about the structure of this section that differentiates the slaves from just the plain old land; this reflects the racism of both the time period in which our university was founded and of the people who founded it.

This is quite interesting. Whey did they have to meet, by law, in a tavern in the Rockfish gap on the Blue Ridge Mountains? Speculating, this could have been to ensure that there were no discussions in a government setting of making a public university. It must have been interesting to have written the draft for the creation of the university in such a place. The impact that the location had on the writers' ideas may have been minuscule, but it would still be interesting to know what impact it did have.

This idea still applies now. We learn a second language today, because there are so many languages here and learning a second language allows us to better understand one another. That is also why I was really surprised they had modern language a part of the courses section.

If the University had been founded in Lexington instead of Charlottesville, is there a chance that the founding of the University would have been partially dependent on slave labor? Is there any chance that this is true for our current Charlottesville location?