It sort of appear to me that the curriculum offered in this time period wasn't intended to diversify knowledge of the unknown, but rather enhance the knowledge of the known. The courses offered are specific to economical, political, and social aspects of society that were very present at the time. In today's curriculum, there is a wide array of knowledge offered in terms of specification and diversification. The curriculum is intended to broaden or knowledge rather than strictly enhance it.

Chemistry in our modern curriculum is used in a number of different ways. During this time period, it shows that Chemistry was utilized to understand agriculture, highlighting the importance of agriculture. Today, Chemistry is used for a whole number of different things, thus showing the evolution of what Chemistry is used for and the broader sense from which it is applied.

The curriculum has an emphasis on latin and greek in this time period. Today, languages like French and Spanish seem to dominate the language field. Although classical texts and scientific findings were written in greek and latin, it seems odd how the desire to learn and the prowess of these languages has sharply declined.

I think it very interesting to see a focus on the diversity of curriculum that was stressed in this time period. There course involving mathematics and language, however, there is only one course dedicated to the fine arts. Today, we have a wide variety of arts courses offered in order to broaden our education into a more fruitful balance.

As I touched on in an earlier response, these are the types of lessons that the founders looked to instill into its inhabitants of the University. Yes, one can make the point that the founders held certain racial views that prevented the general premise of the University from being totally geared toward equality. However, I believe that the lessons the founders were preaching in the roots of the University enabled growth of character that ultimately led to individuals who started to understand the importance of equality. Inadvertently, the people involved in the University were becoming better members of society, better members of the community, and better learners to understand the wrongs and rights of our world. I think that this is shown by the prowess of the University's attitude toward free speech today.

I see a great paradox within this statement. When talking about the University of Virginia, the Board of Commissioners was creating an environment that considers "the healthiness of the site" of the University of Virginia. When I hear "the healthiness of the site", I think of a community and the people that make up a community, all functioning as a collective whole in accordance with correct moral conduct and academic prowess (for an academic institution). However, the sentence goes on to talk about the "centrality of the white population". How could a "healthy" environment function properly when the very principle of its upbringing is challenged by racism and seclusion?