It’s interesting to me that it was very obvious that the founders did not anticipate the University to grow to the size that it has today. In the 19th century very few instructors held advanced degrees and many schools were established to train men to join the ministry. At this time, very few professions required an advanced degree and there were only a handful such as the fields of law and medicine. Considering how few required degrees it’s not shocking that the pool of students was small compared to today’s, where we live in a time where almost every job requires some form of a degree. In addition to these factors, college students were typically young men of wealthy families and there are only so many of those. With such a small target audience it’s not surprising that they would only expect small expansions.

http://chautauqua.stanford.edu/Chapter%202.pdf

Education was not always a public service and was rather a private commodity that the elite could enjoy a higher quality of because they could pay for it. There's a very low bar placed for the standard of what students have to know coming in because the standards of learning we live with today are a very modern concept. In addition, focus is on practicality and applicability. They wanted to create a well rounded, culturally knowledgeable group of people but for the purposes of furthering society like the example given of statesmen, legislators and judges.

This point highlights that the purposes of the university were not simply academic, the goals included teaching their youth how to think and be the ideal citizen. It kind of brings up ideas of the "Renaissance man," the founders weren't just trying to create an educated student but a well-rounded and ethically virtuous citizen. There are also religious undertones in the language, while they're trying to avoid religion in their founding, it still shines through culturally in the language. (Group Annotation)