I believe that the concept of this project is effective and successful, but I believe it could be better structure. I think that analyzing the Rockfish Gap Report is worthwhile, because it shows a different perspective to some very relevant ideas regarding this school. However, I think that there should be more introduction during Discussion sections about what exactly this report is and its purpose, and then the start of the project. Furthermore, I think a better way to go about this project is to not only create annotations like these, but to have an extra portion where we get into small groups and actually discuss the implications of this work. Many of Danielle Allen's Declaration courses were surrounded largely around small group discussion, where people learned from other's thoughts. She relied on individualism to create new perspective and broaden the scope of her class. Even though we can gain some of that in a large class discussion, smaller groups can help people to provide more input and give their insight in more detail. It can provide a more thorough analysis, and help students connect on a deeper level by learning more about the foundation of this university and why we are all here.

I find this section extremely interesting, because although we can clearly see differences over time in many other aspects of our lives, the required curriculum at UVA and its goals to relate to liberal arts have not changed. Over 200 years, time has not significantly affected what is offered here at the university, and I think that with regard to how much change has impacted other parts of our lives, this fact is amazing. Even though we can see that extra classes are offered, the core and original studies still prove important and relevant in our world. Being a part of the New Curriculum, it is interesting to see how we can manipulate the pathway to getting a similar degree as Thomas Jefferson had in mind.

I am curious as to the writers' perception on physical activity. Jefferson clearly holds physical fitness to a high standard, because he says that it is important for any institution of youth. However, you can clearly see the context of the time overriding his beliefs, as they state that the only recommended type of activity is for the military. Furthermore, that the age of the youth is even more of a reason for military activity to exist at the university.

It is interesting that the writers recognize the possible disapproval of certain subjects, and thus limit those classes to "the meaning intended" for the university. What are the exact intentions of each class? If subjects like ethics, natural philosophy, and astronomy had taboo themes at the time, what was the true nature of the class? What would professors be trying to hide from students taking these classes?