The idea that the University exists to provide its students with financial independence and literacy is an interesting one in terms of how curriculum are constructed today. Students do not have to engage in a financial responsibility or literacy class in order to graduate (http://gened.as.virginia.edu/new-college-curriculum-requirements). In the New Curriculum which we are a part of, it focusses upon interdisciplinary approaches to largely social problems in a broader sense. In my EGMT 1540 course, we have discussed the purposes of universities as to whether it should be to provide a career with a satisfying material lifestyle or should it be to provide a large enlightenment of the world around us. This line certainly suggests that a more pragmatic approach to education was the foundation of the UVa curriculum.

This part of the document introduces the first plans for the Lawn as a living, as well as learning, community. As the University has expanded and grown overtime (https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/timeline-founding-university-virginia), such a community has grown significantly more exclusive and prestigious. What does that signify for the University as a whole? Would it be better to remain a smaller more elite university where a more tight-knit community can form, or is it better to keep UVa at its current size/rate of growth with enclaves the resemble the old institution, such as competitive lawn rooms.

The notion that a higher education is designed to improve one's morality is something that has stuck with the University throughout its history. This can be seen through the commitment to honor that the University and its student body exhibits everyday (http://honor.virginia.edu/overview). This also builds off of the idea that the American system of public education was designed to cultivate proper, intelligent citizens that could function in beneficial ways to liberal democracy. A vital aspect of a successful democracy is an informed polity. Morals have significantly changed across time, but the infusion of morals within education is a common theme for the University no matter the time period.

The irony of this particular qualifier of the educational experience the University was to provide to its students and staff is almost laughable if it wasn't so unfortunate. Many people today consider one of the strongest Constitutional arguments for diversity in higher education as fulfilling the need for differing perspectives and background (https://oied.ncsu.edu/equity/affirmative-action-in-education/). UVa was founded upon the notion of exclusivity to white males. This would never provide the same diversity of thought that the more, albeit still flawed, inclusive university. So the idea that the commissioners and founders of this institution noted how the "objects" of education would shape both its moral "character" as well as "limits" for growth exposes the dehumanization of anyone outside of the category of white man.