This phrasing makes it sound as though the principles already listed were considered perfunctory and not classified as part of the “higher branches of education.” The phrase “to the point” makes everything described before “the point” an arbitrary base of knowledge from which higher knowledge can then grow. This is categorizing the personal growth described—the furthering of morals, perceptions of social relationships, and understanding of rights—above as elementary knowledge. While much of this personal education is implied in a university setting instead of explicitly taught, it is still a hallmark of higher education, most likely because college, a place of personal growth, is now synonymous with higher education. The distinction between what the university teaches as either “primary education” or “the higher grade of education” contradicts the idea that everything taught at the university level is an education of a higher order. Despite this popular fallacy, is it possible that the university then doesn’t provide us exclusively with a higher education? That is what this document is proposing. Whether or not this is still the case is a point of interest. Are general education requirements, usually lower-level classes, the modernized version of this primary education? It seems as though specifically the new curriculum expounds this idea, as its main aim is to engage us in this personal growth that was once important to universities, but now seems as though it occurs implicitly by circumstance of being in a university setting. The new curriculum is once again making these principles necessary to education in an explicit way in the form of classes—specifically the engagements. Is this necessary or this a backwards step from higher education to primary education? If it is primary education, is it important to teach, is it something we would learn on our own without a class, or is it arbitrary knowledge we already possess?

By making an education in “mathematical and physical sciences” only important because it will “advance the arts” or help “administer the health,” this report puts more value on the humanities than the sciences. It implies that math or science on their own would not be worth teaching, but are only important in that they can further the “comforts of human life.” The emphasis of this university now on research and contributing to scientific advancements, with most professors in the sciences performing research of some sect, directly contradicts this mindset. Knowledge is now sought for its own sake, which is also contradictory with reasoning being provided for every educational goal in this document. Do we need a reason to learn? Does U. Va. still believe that knowledge must have a purpose to be worth learning?

The Rotunda was originally dreamt into existence as simply a “building of somewhat more size.” This is surprising considering that the Rotunda seems like such an irreplaceable part of Grounds. How could it ever have been pictured as anything else? It seems absurd. What is the aesthetic importance of having something so unique architecturally right in the middle of Grounds? Everyone talks about the importance of it being a library, but why is it important that its physically a Rotunda? What made Jefferson design it like this?

It is interesting to note that while centrality to the white population was a contributing factor in choosing the location of U. Va., Blacks or African Americans are now the highest minority present by the latest census count. While whites still outnumber other minorities by a large degree, the area and the University itself are becoming more diversified. How would this change have affected the rest of the report? And if it did affect it by a lot, should it be revised to encompass a more inclusive University?<br> https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/charlottesvillecityvirginiacounty/PST045216