This mentality is still true to some degree today however is evovling . Some people still regard education to be the only way to get successful. However with the invention of the internet, anyone can gain knowledge about anything. Universities are not the only way to get educated.

All of these components are not only part of the Arts and Sciences now, but are deeply integrated into the New College Curriculum. One must take an engaging ethical, empirical, aesthetic, and differences class. All of these aid in cultivating a well rounded student as the founders of this university hoped.

I found this passage particularly striking and relevant even today. The fact that the university recognized the lack of privilege but untapped abundance of potential in people as young as 15 and wanted to cultivate that within them gives me so much hope that this institution is truly a benevolent force working even to better the lives of those who may have been neglected due to status. While the premise is vastly different, as these individuals would be classically trained for Latin or Greek and then offered admittance (not to mention it was a boy's club), now we have the community college program that has changed so many of my friends' lives. It is truly heartening to see that this is a common theme that has spanned the entire duration of the University.

This particular phrasing, "degree of centrality to the white population which constituted the important point of comparison between these places" was startling to me and once I began to read more into it, both puzzling and disturbing. I was puzzled at how one might measure the "degree" of the white population, be it census or by general surveying of the area by a designated determiner. Also, I would like to know how the prospect of utilizing slavery and access to viable workers played into this particular phrasing or if there was literally no regard for anything in terms of demographics except for the white audience that it could reach. What disturbed me deeply about this particular phrasing for the determination of location is the fact that these nuances on which our esteemed university was erected upon are not discussed, and furthermore contradicted what I had thought was the University's aim at this point in history, which was to reach many walks of life in the name of higher learning.

I love how they decided to add in this as an important part of higher learning. One of the greatest things we can do in college is to build relationships with others and learn about all the personality and diversity the world has to offer. And not just learn but to "observe with intelligence & faithfulness" is something we as a society need to remember as we observe the world and the people in it. There is so much knowledge about others to be sought, and even though the white men of this time had closed minds about people different from them, they knew the importance of seeking knowledge through relationships with people different from us.

I think UVA's establishment of a self-governing student body is the University's most influential act of instructing students in their rights and duties as citizens and knowledge of our government. By implementing not only education in government but also the practice of self-governance, students are encouraged to be proud of the democracy in which Thomas Jefferson and others founded.

This statement implies that education is the path to happiness for the individual and success for the country. It reveals how the commissioners considered education to be one of, if not the most, important parts of life. This is perpetuated by the Rotunda, a library, being the center of Grounds rather than a church, as was customary at the time. This university was truly founded on the pursuit of knowledge for the improvement of the individual and the world.

I think that, in many ways, one of the main purposes of a college education is to teach students about the world and about how to interact with people who are different from you. While the university was founded as a white-only organization, this statement highlights the importance of being able to function in different settings. Knowing how to do this and how to get along with all kinds of people is an important skill that will serve you well throughout life. We have seen this become an ever more important lesson of college as our campus has diversified.

This goal of the university reflects the importance the founders of America placed on the education level of those participating in politics. This was, after all, the original cause for the creation of the electoral college; the founding fathers were afraid the general public would not be educated enough to make proper decisions, so installed a sort of buffer made up of educated individuals. The importance of education level in politics is highlighted by this statement from the commissioners, in which they stated their intention for the university to educate its students and make them able to perform their civic duty to their country.

While there are some more obvious references to the value of religious diversity at UVa, I think that this statement is a more subtle hint that shows the true intentions of the founders. UVa was the first University in America that was not constructed for religious purposes. This was revolutionary for the time, because UVa was the first University to focus more on sciences and liberal arts rather than theology. This is apparent in this statement that simply notes that other buildings would be made in which people could practice religion under "impartial regulations". While this stance is somewhat contested, as UVa probably supported different sects of Christianity as opposed to true religious diversity, it did give a starting point for the University to grow in acceptance. I think that today, most people value religious diversity and hope to see it continue to expand here at UVa.

It's fascinating that the founders held this view about punishment and education, labeling fear as "degrading". Obviously, the idea of corporal punishment is something that lasted in schools far longer than this document, and still is an issue today. I think their specific focus on fear is ironic, however. The founders stressed that University was a positive environment for students to develop. On the other hand, slavery was extremely prominent at the University at this time and it is safe to assume that fear tactics were used often with slaves.

Here, the founders are trying to refute the fallacious argument that is presented by those who will be reluctant to support the University because they do not believe in the power of education to change people. I believe that if there is one thing that education can accomplish, it is change. Through learning, we are able to acquire not only more information about our surroundings but also different methods of thinking, problem solving, and decision-making. Those who did not welcome change would have protested the establishment of this public university because it would offer a way of life that was not as ordinary for young men to pursue then. Their belief that “man is fixed” is one of fear and disregard for the advancement of society.

UVA ID: dc3jr

The founders of this University identified being virtuous to others and finding happiness within ourselves as an objective of the primary education that is offered to us here. I think of all the major purposes of receiving an education, this is one that is extremely overlooked both by students themselves and their families. Regardless of the endless possible areas of majors, student-run organizations, Greek life, research and volunteering opportunities, we find ourselves doing things that make us unhappy and failing to prioritize our well-being. I think it is important to be brave and willing to spend our time here to find what we are passionate about. One reason that they might have included this objective in the report is because the overall attitude of the students and the atmosphere defines the energy of the University. They would hope that students are encouraged to be virtuous and happy while they live here.

UVA ID: dc3jr

Perhaps the most eloquent moment of the report thus far, the founders of UVA acknowledge the capacity for everyone to learn, and reasons to think those less "cultivated" will indeed continue to produce "sour & bitter fruit" unless a quality education changes their fortunes. The founders emphasize that man is NOT fixed, which ties into the psychological concept of a fixed vs growth mindset (of which growth correctly states that intelligence is not fixed and is hugely subject to change. The fact that the founders, as expressed above, consider the unfair advantage of those who can capitalize on their "private & individual effort" and push the argument of a public institution accessible to even those less cultivated, is a testament to the forward thinking and encouragement of freedom that TJ and UVA are known for.

The founders here point out the extraordinary advances in academia in the past 50 years, an era referred to now as The Enlightenment. The authors have attributed these successes to people harnessing more of "the purposes of man" largely through education, and by doing so, improving comforts of life as well as making the bare necessities easier to acquire. The founders have found a good amount of truth in the Enlightenment, and (later on) will systematically place these positive ideas into the conception of the university. This is all under the premise that things are getting better, and will continue to do so by creating new, better systems by which to live.

I wouldn't imagine there to be much of a difference of opinion at the time that couldn't be resolved. All the opinions came from people who were in similar social standings or were white men, as none other mattered. Not to say that they could not disagree to each other as they most likely had different views of education, but there probably wasn't much variance in the opposing thoughts themselves. Also, this does show how hard it must have been to actually decide what courses would be taught when there was not much of a precedent set before them. Creating a courseload that suited the men of Virginia at the time must have required thought on what would better them and set them up for a brighter future.

This is certainly a statement that has been proven wrong in many ways and it is good that they were aware of man's capability of changing. I also see a fair bit of irony in this sentence fragment, and the rest that follows, in the way that much of the change that we have seen over the University's history has been away from the norms of the founder's time. I believe that as a society we value the human ability to change our nature more so than most of our other qualities, and to think that people at that time were persuaded otherwise is very interesting. I wonder if the rate of change in the society they knew, was similar to the way it is today (I'm inclined to say no.)

It's clear through this statement and several previous statements that the University places priority on 'Western' languages, like Italian, German, Greek, and Latin. Although this emphasis may partially be attributed to the historical context at the time when the University was created, I also feel that race and ethnicity played a large role in this process. Using languages spoken by the elite society, especially those spoken by Caucasians, would have prevented the marginalized, lower-class minorities from attending, or even applying, to this university. Therefore, this language policy indirectly 'white-washed' the University, significantly contributing to a sense of institutional racism. It seems the University has currently made an active effort to change this by offering more 'Eastern' languages like Hindi, Urdu, Tibetan, Arabic, and many more. However, with the new low-enrollment class policy that threatens several minority classes, especial low-enrollment language classes, I wonder if the University is returning to its initial elitist past.

I find it very interesting that the only purpose of studying chemistry was to understand agriculture. This truly shows how important agriculture and farming was to Jefferson. It also implies the liberal arts focus of the University. Even at the times of foundation, humanities, such as languages and art, were the foundation of the University's curriculum, while sciences, such as the chemistry mentioned here, were deemed less important. It's interesting to see how this prioritization has changed since the University's initial foundation. For example, there no longer a simple College of Arts; rather, it is currently the College of Arts and Sciences. Also, the University's current most popular awarded degrees include Biology, Biomedical Engineering, and Chemistry (State Council of Higher Education for Virginia). Such an emphasis on science makes me wonder if/how the University is continuing its commitment to a liberal arts education. I also wonder why the University has made such a shift from a strictly liberal arts focus, to the added appeal of science. Is it because there's an increasing demand or has the University found science to become more important in recent times. If so, why?

At the time the university was established, America was not really a diverse nation and included mostly white people who hailed from England and other European nations. The majority of the population, especially citizens, was white and black slaves were not even considered citizens. Even if there was immigration, the immigrants mainly came here to work and were not thought of as the population that is receiving education. While it is unfortunate that equality didn't exist back then, it is also necessary to understand that the circumstances were different; the founders tried to appeal mainly to the population that would actually attend college there, the white Americans.

While it is unfortunate that equality among races didn't exist back then, it would be wrong to expect such of America in 1818. The people then thought of blacks as lesser than them and the progressive concept of treating all races and genders equally didn't exist back then. Faulting them for such mentality would be an example of "ex post facto" where we would be blaming them of wrongdoings that weren't considered wrongdoings back then. For instance, before the 1860s-1870s, cousin marriage was thought to be normal and accepted by the society. Now everyone knows about the dangers of reproducing among closely related family members, making it a rare instance in modern America. What is right and what is wrong changes with time and we should have an open mind when analyzing such situations in order to get an accurate picture of history.

UVA was founded on the value of liberal arts and Jefferson wanted its scholard to be free-thinkers. He was a firm believer of the liberal arts and the role it plays in expanding the knowledge of a people. A liberal arts education generally prepares students to have a broad mind to different aspect of society and change. This line clearly demonstrates that the founders of the college believed that every student should have the right to gain knowledge at this institution and use that knowledge to then apply to their respective ideologies. Expecting everyone to follow the same ideology and not having a diversity of ideas would only be reflective of resistant and baseless thought. Nowadays, political outrage from both extremes have led to most being "sheeples" to the ideology they subscribe to.

This line is quite interesting for its emphasis on the social relationships of the student as an important concept to consider when pursuing higher education. Even though America is based on mostly individualistic ideals, this document outlined multiple goals that seem to balance both individual values and societal duties. It's quite impressive, especially considering how this value attribution is still a hot sociological and philosophical debate right now.

This proposal caught my attention because it's extremely different from the religious environment during that period. From a bit of research on American religion, there seems to be great religious energy from 1700s onwards over Christianity. Early higher institutions often also have religious backgrounds. It surprises me that not only did UVA not adopt a religious background, but also didn't appoint a professor dedicated to this study. It seems to be a progressive act to combine divinity and religion into the subject of ethics. Even though the language itself implied strong indication of Christian faith, the actual decision is a step away from the common religious beliefs during that time period.

I think this emphasis on morals (as seen throughout the document, not just here) is a direct result of Jefferson's goals of education (and likely that of the committee). He fundamentally sees education as what upholds the effectiveness of a democracy, and that is why he emphasizes ethical education. He hopes that his university aids in the proper carrying out of the governmental process, and he emphasizes this here for that reason. Still, it's interesting to see the lack of college's purpose as means for vocational education, at least in comparison to this purpose.

It's interesting to see here the extreme detail into physical sciences and their clarification. There was an obvious and explicit intent for what was to be taught at the university, and they were sure to make that known. This is seen less for other disciplines, is it because they are more easily defined? Possibly, but I'm not sure. I believe there is some other motive here for defining this field so specifically and I hope to understand what that may be. Emphasis on science over the arts, or is it just a more specific field to define what should be taught?

A liberal arts education generally prepares students to have a broad mind to different aspect of society and change. Thomas Jefferson was a firm believer of the liberal arts and the role it plays in expanding the knowledge of a people. This line clearly demonstrates that the founders of the college believed that every student should have the right to gain knowledge at this institution and use that knowledge to then apply to their respective ideologies. Expecting everyone to follow the same ideology and not having a diversity of ideas would only be reflective of resistant and baseless thought.

It is interesting as a first year student to see the cost of a meal plan. First years are required to buy the most expensive meal plans available. $3.500 in today's money would equate to about $64.79. Students in the present have to spend about $2000 yearly for meals. This shows how while $3.500 is still not cheap by 1818's standards, meals didn't really cost students a fortune. Also, slave labor was probably used to prepare the meals; therefore, no salary had to be paid, making the food cheaper. It would be interesting to see a data set of the cost of meal plans every year at UVA since 1818. There would be possible, statistically significant correlation present with the end of slave labor and the rise of meal plans.