I find the use of the word "habit" to be interesting in this context. It makes sense that education is described as generating "habits of application" because education is essentially teaching people how to do things or how to apply knowledge. Education also creates a love of virtue because being educated was viewed in that time period and is viewed today as one of the highest virtues a person can obtain. What interests me most, however, is the description of education as an institution that creates order and controls the masses. The argument here is that just as education "generates habits of application", it also generates habits of moral decision making. One would argue then that a person obtains their morals and their respect of the human race only after being educated. Is this a valid argument? Are uneducated people generally less moral? In my COLA on Religion and Politics in 2017 this semester, we explored the question of if a person can have morals if they are not religious with the assumption that religion teaches people morals. I personally do believe that a person can have morals if they are not religious, but I am still not sure as to whether or not a person is simply born with morals or must be taught them throughout the course of their life. I think that the authors of this document lean more towards the side that humans must be taught morals, and education rooted in public institution helps to universalize those morals and create a community of people who share the same values.

Here the authors attempt to alleviate the loss that the university might experience from not being able to fund a hospital on grounds. They argue that medical students will learn everything that they could possibly need to know about medicine and human anatomy in the classroom, so much so, that they will not need to study in an actual hospital for very long. I think this really speaks to the authors' beliefs that the classroom (public institution) provides a strong foundation for education which can then be easily built upon later through field experience.

It makes sense that the founders would want to promote the participation of students in military activities since the country was so little and new at the time. They glorify it as "an emulation of the practices of manhood" in order to attract young men and support the expansion of the military. They had just gone through their first war, and probably felt weak and vulnerable, so it makes sense that they would prioritize such activities in "hours of recreation" aka times when they're not learning or studying.

It is important to keep in mind that this university was built when the nation was still very young. This was the time when it was just starting to form political ties with other nations, so it makes sense that there is an emphasis on the teaching of modern languages. The founders of the university wanted to build global leaders since the generation of these first students would have such an important role in the initial bonds formed between the US and other countries. They would need to be able to communicate well within the country as well as within the international community.