This line stood out to me in the way that it very subtly points out the way that many points made in this doctrine are outdated and unnecessary for the University to succeed in modern times. At the time of the writing of this report, Chemistry really only was for agricultural use. Now, however, chemistry is the basis of so much more, from the study of space to cooking. Throughout this document there are obvious things that we could point out as antiquated and as having been updated by the University, but I think that it is interesting to note how many changes have been made to UVA since its founding, right down to the reason fro studying a specific subject.

It is interesting to note how detailed Jefferson and the rest of the committee members were when planning the University's physical design. I assume this attention to minutiae like the "proper breadth" of the lawn and the specification of a covered walkway came from Jefferson himself, because that style of very structured planning and of extreme clarification is also evident in his Notes on the State of Virginia. It's clear in the University architecture, as well as in Jefferson's Monticello, that the physical design of spaces was just as important to him as the academic or institutional design. This is easily relatable to the University as it stands today, where much of the architecture remains as Jefferson envisioned it, and nearly every building and structure is designed to foster some kind of learning or understanding among the students here.

After reading the charter for the College of William and Mary, I appreciate this phrase more than I did when I initially read it. This phrase leaves the University open to growth, and it allows room for expansion or shifts, whereas William and Mary's charter created very strict guidelines for the institution, many of which are still adhered to today. I appreciate the founders' foresight and their trust in the future members of the University community to decide what is best for them at a given time.

Earlier in the report, the idea of following in forefathers' footsteps is written about in a way that makes it seem undesirable. Now, however, that relationship is used as an example. I think it's interesting that the father-son relationship was so influential on the founders so as to direct their thoughts for the university. It seems as though they admire the way a father can impart knowledge upon his son, but they reject the way that a father may limit his son's perspective or potential growth.