It is interesting that the enjoyment of arts is coupled in the same paragraph as military education. Military exercises are even mentioned to be "practices of manhood" and are seen as a necessity in case of the need to defend oneself, while the arts were seen as activity for amusement of idling. In addition, they mention that the arts are meant to be used "inoffensively" or in other words modestly and appropriately. Today, what is offensive and what is accepted have evolved from what it was 200 years ago in which art that is considered brazen and provocative is not only allowed but exalted in art spaces.

It was not enough to construct the University of Virginia as a prestigious educational institution and a fountain of knowledge overflowing for all of its students, but primary and secondary schools were also needed in Virginia in order that the particular skills needed for succeeding at the university could be nurtured early on. It was rather thoughtful of the University to invest in building primary schools in order that the students would not have to travel far from their families in between schooling, thus they would be closer to home and save money as well. Centuries ago in America, family was a huge part of the nation's culture, and thus Thomas Jefferson strove to cherish this by making Virginia an all around state of learning where parents can raise their families. It is astounding that these stride still resonate today as Charlottesville is not only seen as the heart of the nation's education and history but also as a "nice place to raise your kids."

This is another interesting statement to consider. It is obviously true that it is important to instill self respect and order in a country, but it's intriguing to think about how it came to be a reality. Looking back and seeing the struggle that women and people of minority races went through to get to where we are now, it is hard to admit that the University was not at the forefront of social progression for a long while. Once we started admitting women and people of non-caucasian races, we finally began to move forward in society.

It is so interesting to see the evolution of the sciences from this time to now. "Vegetable pharmacy" can be compared to (maybe) botany or something of the like, and it is so interesting to think about the fact that there were still plants to be discovered at that time. With global warming and the recent environmental catastrophes, it is saddening to think that there used to be species that existed that are no longer here to be studied.

I believe that UVA still holds on to these values. It prides itself in providing its students with a diverse and thorough Liberal Arts education that isn't strictly centered around one particular vocation. I think its important to learn how to think and problem solve in multiple disciplines, because even though it may not apply to your vocation specifically, it may be something you encounter in every day life.

I find this sentence interesting because it just shows how University used to be a thing that not everyone was expected to go to. Now there is a lot of pressure for children growing up in this generation to go to college and surpass their parents. So many high schools teach like they are preparing their children for college because that is the modern day expectation. I like this sentence because it shows us what kind of education they deemed critically important in becoming a well rounded citizens, regardless of whether or not you went to college.

This says that men are not completely bound by the laws of nature and that through education, man can change their future. If humans become educated they can improve and become better like how a chimæra can shape shift into other animals. It also compares man to a tree and how cultivating a tree can make a new tree that is better than it was before.

It is interesting to see how little the pavilions and the dormitories costed back when the school was built. According to an inflation calculator, what cost $5000 in 1815 would cost $66418.63 in 2016, so the Pavilions were relativity cheap using today's prices. The dorms that were $350 would be $4690 which is basically how much first years pay to live in dorms.

The emphasis throughout this document on a fundamental understanding of classic languages is interesting. Students were expected to learn to read ancient texts through their elementary school or home studies. While obviously still taught and studied, few would consider greek or latin prerequisites for a successful education in today's society. For better or for worse, we have taken a few steps away from the classical curriculum of the past.

It's interesting to think about the foundations of a system we have come to take for granted. Much of our life up to this point has been built around a system that allows gradual preparation for higher education with a series of more local schools. This network is a fundamental part of our society, but that was not always the case. When the university's founders met and drafted this document, they had little to base their system on. Outside of a few liberal arts colleges, education in this country was primarily done at home in a narrow range of subjects. The Rockfish Gap Report outlines an approach that would become the driving force of education in this country for centuries to come.

I feel like this kind of applies to all subjects and areas not just medicine. Each subject needs a practical venue where skills can be applied and honed with the benefit of being carefully guided when needed to. There is also the experimental benefit of being able to apply ones own creativity to their chosen field. By having a practical venue, one can be prepared, kinda like how the article states.

Additionally, i must note how big of a benefit it is to have a hospital on grounds as we don't need to leave to receive care in emergency. Plus this helps bring the student body together in a sense, because we feel like the hospital was meant for us.

I feel like this statement basically is saying that high school is the in fact the literal precursor to college. High school/ primary school is what lays down the foundation in study skills and habits,etc. My parents often told me to make good habits in high school because it is more difficult to formulate new and improved habits while at college. I wholeheartedly agree.

I like this one sentence. It is a really positive way to look at education and the things that it can offer deeper than simply an increase in scholarly knowledge. I also like that it says that education serves to help control any innate weaknesses in our morals. I think that it is safe to say that becoming more educated, through advances in science and social contributions made by minority peoples, helped to alter some of the societal moral weaknesses in regards to these minority people.

This section serves to exemplify that the structure of government and laws are used to promote individual freedom and refrain from violating equal rights of another. This sounds ideal, especially in regards to the ethical/social goals of our university. However, this section does bother me knowing that these "equal rights of another" that they talked about was not truly referring to equal rights of all people. I suppose I will never truly be able to understand how white people and people in power during this time could so easily dehumanize minority groups (African Americans and Women); However, even knowing that that is true does not prevent statements such as these from this time period from evoking frustration within me.

I'm actually unsure if I understand this sentence completely, but from what I am gleaning is quite surprising. "French is the language of general intercourse among nations." I didn't quite realize how many people spoke French for such a statement to be made, how popular it was (but that it was also "unsurpassed by any other language living or dead"). I would presume Latin to be of high importance, although dead, has many words derived from it. Latin was a foundation for meaning and language, but how does French compare? I do know that TJ was quite a popular diplomat when it came to the French, which is the only explanation I can come up with for such high admirations displayed here.

I find myself agreeing with this concept, and actually encouraging it. It reminds me of that phrase "Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime." This idea of "enabl[ing]" one to "calculate for himself" and to "preserve" and progress the information given to them, is important for a sustained education. Similar to the quote with the fish, the university aims it's education to give and keep giving for a life time. If they equip their students correctly, this will enable them to this with the right resources. (The repeated use of "him" is a bit off putting, but surely we have progressed since then with our inclusion of more communities).

The foresight here is impressive. I can certainly understand the founder's reasoning behind requiring French to be taught; however, the prediction that we will have significant future interactions with a large Spanish-speaking population is truly impressive, especially when you consider that the university and its curriculum was chartered not long after the American Revolution.

Personally, I think there should be more language requirements at UVA, considering how useful a second language is. What do you think?

A few days ago, my physics professor (Professor Neu) was telling me that physics 101 is one of the oldest classes continuously taught here at UVA. In fact, it was even taught by TJ himself, with complete records on student's performances all the way back to the first class. I looked up the definition of natural philosophy, which is basically the philosophical study of the natural world and universe, and is generally considered a precursor to modern science. Its kind of amazing to think about how many times the curriculum must have changed in the last 200 years.

This statement to me shows how times have changed. Back then, Latin and Greek were seen as the “easier languages” while today they are seen as two of the hardest languages to learn. To me this shows how expectations of students has changed. Back then, you were expected to know Latin and Greek whereas today, you are expected to learn a language such as Spanish or French.

“Belle Lettres” is a style of writing seen as light and elegant. I find it interesting that back that writing and fine arts were regarded so highly. Today, society has moved past the fine arts/writing and sees them as “unfulfilling” or “hard to do anything with.” I think this view is something we need to move away from. I feel as if we should go back to regarding fine arts and writing as something to engage in. There is real treasure within fine arts and writing.

This line states what services and amenities are provided for the benefit of the students. I understand how 2-5 are supplied to students to ensure that they get a proper education.I know that tuition is for the benefit of the professors, to give them income for their service. However, I am confused about who pays tuition in this situation, is it the students or the government and donors?

Mensuration is "the measuring of geometric magnitudes, lengths, areas, and volumes". The little aside in the parenthesis not only adds a lighthearted tone to the text but may also provide insight into Jefferson's possible bias toward architecture. As well known, Jefferson was an architect and mensuration surely has been especially crucial to his work. To make structures stable and functional, measures of lengths, areas, and volumes must be made. With this, Jefferson highly valued the importance of quantitative data.

It's interesting to see that currently the University still values this principle. UVA continues the study of mathematical and physical sciences as well as medicine. It has its own medical school and hospital.I personally believe that these skills highlighted in the report are important for making well rounded individuals.

Thomas Jefferson heavily emphasized secular academics and here, does not include a professor of Divinity at the University of Virginia. He reasons there should be a freedom of religion and an equality spread across all religions. By excluding a professor of Divinity, no one no religion faces subordination to the another. Jefferson's course of action here for the University of Virginia, concerning religious equality, directly extends the fundamentals of the US Constitution.

This statement points out the view towards certain studies which is considered not as useful or beneficial to the public. Even till nowadays, some studies are still regarded with this kind of perspective. Many people consider subjects such as, arts, music, and philosophy, as un-applicable for future career and doubt the necessity of their existence. The founders of UVA also put these into consideration and tried to figure out what's the best curriculum for the university.

Through this quote, we can see that even before UVA was established physically, its emphasis has always been on equality. Though somehow contradictory to the previous statement( mainly focusing on white population), this proves the school's prospective is in line with liberty and equality. On the other hand, it also points out that the founders of the schools aimed to model the school to educate people to understand the aspect of freedom and respect each other in order to develop the state Virginia as one that is well-constructed.

This line skims the controversy of whether fear, or other methods are best to keep students in line. The founders seem to lean towards other ways of keeping honor, instead of fear. The idea that pride in one's own character can motivate one to employ correct behavior is emphasized. Fear is described as a "degrading motive" that uses punishment to prevent bad behavior. I, like the founders, believe that fear can prevent bad behavior, but it cannot produce good character. Fear of doing something bad does not make one believe that it is wrong to do.

This line is especially m meaningful to me, because its core concept is something my parents have told me from the beginning of my education. I have always been told that teachers are like our parents. They bestow their knowledge upon us, so that we can put it to good use and learn something from it. This line emphasizes the fact that our elders, both older people and nations, have more experience than the youth, so it is both their responsibility to teach us, and ours to learn.

I find this quote very interesting. I think it is very relatable even today. The more we discover in both the arts and sciences, the more the world changes and grows. Also, both go hand in hand. I think it's very hard to have one without the other. Science in itself is a form of hard and vice versa.

I find it interesting that back then, some thought that learned sciences were useless. How times have changed. Today there is more of a stress of the sciences. To me this shows how society can change their focus. Today in schools, math and science are the main focus and are highly stressed. Other subjects such as English are not thought of and are often discouraged.

The thought that education should be left to “private and individual effort” is an utmost privileged form of thought. Education is supposed to be mankind’s great equalizer in that it is supposed to give individuals of all backgrounds both the opportunity to reach their fullest potentials and the chance to even move up in the hierarchy that is classism. In other words, education is supposed to give everyone an equal chance at the “journey” or “means” to the type of life they want to live. This equality cannot be possible if we leave education up to “private and individual effort," and if we do not have at least some form of overarching intervention. This is because on the individual level, each class of people vary in the materials, connections, and means they have to give themselves a wholesome education. The richer individuals have more materials and connections, while the poorer individuals have less, and so leaving education up to them to figure out would mean more division between the classes. The richer individuals will become more educated and thus more powerful, while the poorer individuals become more and more inferior. I’m glad the University creators did not listen to those individuals who held this quote’s opinions, because if we based education on our external differences, our world would not be as inclusive or advanced as it is today. Even today, we have other means to ensure poorer individuals have at least some chance at attaining a higher education, including actions such as scholarships and mentorships. We do not let anyone go unnoticed.

computing ID hmr2xq

In my opinion, this is one of the most important parts of the report. Here, the doctrine states that beneficial motives (morality and ambition) are far better regulators of the youth than fear. This lends itself to two things: first, it provides a foundation for the honor code, in which students use honor as a regulating factor. Second, by implying that students have innate good intentions, it provides for student self governance. A faculty-run governance won't necessarily engage with the student's morals and ambitions, and will lend itself to relying on punishment and fear as a corrective factor. By promoting a student governance, the founders help foster the ideal moral character of a uva student established previously in the report.

The purpose of this quote is to justify just how important education truly is not just to the individual who is getting educated, but to those around him or her as well-- education helps individuals help their communities. Though this is a seemingly positive statement, what is interesting to me is how the positivity ends when you consider this quote’s implications. Jefferson built this university solely with the intent to give white males the opportunity to learn and succeed, meaning that these “statesmen, legislators, and judges” who are supposed to be helping their communities further thrive are only that-- white and male. In solely allowing white males the freedom to become educated and to hence take on these higher positions of authority, this University further insinuated the division between white individuals and other races, implying that the white race is superior to others and that these other races do not have the capabilities to lead their own communities. The point of education is to be the great equalizer and to allow all types of people the chance to help lead their communities, but with Jefferson’s mindset, one of the most accessible types of equalities becomes further impossible. Thankfully, in today’s day and age, we have instances such as affirmative action to help us ensure education actually is the great equalizer, allowing all types of people-- no matter their background-- the opportunity to reach their fullest potentials and to use their educations to aid others.

It is fascinating how the language of the Constitution was written into this document: it shows how people in those days were quick to evoke Republican rhetoric in their discourse, even when it may not have been necessary. It seems a stretch to ban divinity professors because of the Constitution's limits on religious inequality. The Report's writers may have devised this section of the document in good faith, but to my eyes they cherry-pick constitutional principles to make a statement. There are ways in which the University could have provided for a religion professor without offending the freedom of religion. It could have, for example, proposed several professors from multiple faiths, which would have promoted religious egalitarianism. But I suppose that's wishful thinking given the time this document was written; America was still a fragile democracy at that point, without much leeway for positions that could be made out to be anti-republican. It is amidst that early aura of democratic over-sensitivity that statements like this one were made.

It's interesting how the Classics were so critical to formal education in those days. Boys learned Greek and Latin early on in their academic careers, which carried on throughout college if they attended. Knowledge of the Classics was seen as the mark of a well-educated person. What's changed since then? We don't study Greek and Latin as intently as we used to--I barely even knew UVA offered Greek or Latin, not to mention Hebrew. Students nowadays tend to focus on subjects they think lend themselves best to their career goals. They don't seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and I think the founders of the University would be ashamed if they knew we had forgotten the Classics.

I remember coming to UVA for the first time and hearing my tour guide, Joe, talk about Jefferson's idea of an academic village where students and professors lived amongst one another. That was one of the first things that drew me to UVA: the strong sense of community. And I think that it still holds true today. I'm proud to be part of the Wahoo community because I know that someone will always have my back. UVA may be a great school academic wise, but I think its strong sense of community (which has been there since the very beginning) is what sets this university apart from the rest. Learning what it means to be something bigger than yourself is an invaluable skill, especially in this individualistic society. Even though we are first years, we must take advantage of this inclusive community and work together to raise this university higher and further promote the idea of equality in the society around us.

Previously in the document, the writers discussed the goals of the university in regards to what the students gain from their time at the University of Virginia. Many of these objectives have to do with improving the morals, principles, and knowledge of the students. The writers discussed the bigger picture and the effect that the university would have on the country in the future. They are hoping that the type of education at the university will shape the students into well-rounded, future leaders. I am interested in why the writers' main focus is on the creating future leaders of the country rather than other important occupations. Now the main goal of college students is to get a stable occupation, such as a doctor or an accountant. These goals seem more attainable and realistic than running our country.

Even till now, some people still hold the same belief as those mentioned in this statement. Nowadays, many people still consider arts and music as subjects that don't benefit the development of society and disregard the value of those. However, as time passed by, more and more people come to realization that even though these subjects may not help physically improving the society, they have their influence and value to the world and should be respected. It's both a pleasure and surprise to see the founders of the university actually tried to build a school which would provide various subjects for students to explore, regardless of people's views on them.

It's interesting to see that they had a really detailed plan for the building at such an early stage of the project.After selecting the site, they so quickly developed a plan that not only doesn't the plan includes one of the most important site of the university, the lawn, but also mentions how the classrooms should be arranged. The committee's proposal actually took place in the university and set plan for the accommodation of students and faculty members. This proposal laid out the central part for the university and set the traditions.

This lays out an important distinction of a public university which they were trying to achieve: a secular education. This also shows another way in which this document mirrors the nation's founding documents with the separation of church and state. However, those who held power did not represent "all sects of religion on an equal footing;" Christianity was (is?) a dominant religion. I think this transferred over to those who received this education, as well. This phrase has the right intention, but it is not seen through in practice.

Given the time period, this phrase is more or less redundant. At the time, white, property-owning men were the only people truly deemed to be citizens. By separating "men" and "citizens" gives the illusion of a broader acceptance of other individuals (i.e. women and slaves); it's nothing more than that, though. Their intentions for education were only intended for white males, no matter how they try to rephrase that fact.

This section is frustrating as it explicitly says that one of the purposes of education is to teach students to expound the principles of government and to banish restraint on individual action to leave them free to do "whatever does not violate the equal rights of another", yet it only truly refers to the rights of other white men as women's civil rights and civil rights of African Americans were not recognized at this time. It is frustrating to me as it so blatantly shows the ignorance or blindness of these men to the rights of others. Having the beliefs and desires of equal rights that I do, I could not imagine reading or writing those statements ad only referring to white men of a certain socioeconomic status.

This sentence highlights the pertinent racism within the group of Commissioners. During this time all of the wealthy, important, educated people who did things like build Universities were in fact white men. Although this is generally common knowledge, this sentence draws attention to just how common and accepted this societal racism was. They noted that "centrality to the white population" was indeed the most important factor in choosing location. What is so unfortunate is that this practice isn't completely gone today. It reminds me much of the practice of gerrymandering and redlining that still often occurs in our political system today. Then the intentions were to make services available to white people by location and excluded interest of other ethnicities, and now it is used to benefit political groups (dominated by white men) or to exclude certain ethnic groups.

I think this is a really crucial statement in the Rockfish Gap report because it emphasizes the founders' values of society. Over the past 200 years, we have become an increasingly capitalistic and therefore individualistic nation that pushes away from collectivism. But, as we see here, meeting the needs of the society is one of the primary objectives of the establishment of this University. It is interesting to see how societal values have changed over time. I believe that, although we do want to improve the welfare of our society today, our desire towards achieving individualistic goals heavily outweighs our desire towards fulfilling our "duties to [our] neighbours & country."

I wonder what they mean by 'healthiness of the site", do they literally mean the physical characteristics of the site or the lack of things they determine as below them. When I say 'below them', I'm referring to black people and white people who don't fit into their ideology. What characteristics are apart of a growing and successful community in their eyes? I do understand why they would want to put the university central to a white population, because white men were the only ones allowed to attend this university.

I found it interesting that the education initially provided was so limited. All of the courses could be taught by one professor, meaning there is no diversity. You could learn either math or science, with a language. This shows the viewpoint of most scholars back then, the only meaningful careers were in math or science. The humanities were seen as below math and science.

This further points out how UVA got started. Although slaves built and worked here, UVA was still only for the white population. One can only imagine what it was like back then. Even now, UVA only has a small percentage of blacks attending even though we are many years past this, things have not changed much.

UVA wants students to build a learning environment everywehere. When not in the classroom you can learn from others that are in your dorms. This builds more appreciation for the school and their concepts.

One interesting point this subject of study makes is that History, Politics, and Law go hand in hand. Our ancestors knew that our history is what guides our future, so past laws will influence future laws. The subjects are not separated like today, but the idea that history intertwines with politics emphasizes the point that the study of man and his past can unlock the ways of the future. For example, if the people reacted negatively to a law passed, people in the future will know not pass such a law again.

Although the main point of this sentence is to emphasize the purpose of the Unversity, this sentence also manages to introduce the point of only allowing males to attend the University. It is the assumption that angers me. The dismissive tone of the sentence cleverly hides the significant stance that only males will attend. At the time when the report was written, it was natural to assume that women will not attend places offering higher education. Therefore, the report did not even think it necessary to explicitly clarify, at this point in the paper, that only white males may attend.

It is very interesting that they mentioned a school of medicine should eventually be incorporated into the University because we now have a leading medical program at UVA with a hospital super close to campus. It is very interesting that those planning the University 200 years ago had such foresight to think of this.

This portion of the document is very important to see what our University originally thought education should provide. The founding of this university was to educate those to such an extent that we led better lives then even those who founded our own country. These are very high standard for the university education system as a whole.

The initial layout of the foundation having such an emphasis on the durability and flexibility of central grounds promotes the fact that Jefferson visioned his university prospering through many generations into the far future. His confidence in the success of the University of Virginia is clearly felt through this excerpt.

This sentence alone encompasses the controversy on racism that has plagued the University of Virginia 'til this day. The fact that the location for which these grounds were built upon was chosen solely based on the "...degree of centrality to the white population..." (meaning the most profitable and nurturing location for white people to flourish, with no regards toward people of color) emphasizes the 19th century's view of racial superiority and the founders' initial intent for inequality. This single sentence painfully and unmistakably claims that this university was founded entirely for the advancement of the white population, and no one else. Today, as Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia, proudly thrives on its growing diversity, this sentence also alludes to some irony.

I find the points in this document contradicting. Many of the goals for students is geared towards demonstrating strong morals and respect. Yet the writers add the slaves in a section of the report that lists off plots of land, like the slaves are expendable objects. I am disappointed to see how the people who created such an honorable university could be so inhumane.