The fact that only one professor was responsible for teaching medicine at the University of Virginia is extremely eye-opening considering the prestige of the medical school now. In this time period, having only one professor would have probably implied that graduating class sizes were smaller which thus gives students a more personalized view of medicine. This claim of smaller graduating class sizes is also corroborated by the overarching university policy regarding the targeted demographic as being white, males: a proportion of the entire population targeted today.

However, this practice also makes the university extremely reliant on this one professor, depending on him alone to train the next generation of doctors at the University of Virginia. Moreover, when this sole faculty member is compared to the current multitude of staff that UVA’s peers had devoted to medicine, it really puts prestige and quality of education in perspective. It begs the questions: could one TRULY achieve a proper medical education at the University of Virginia? Would it be better to attend an equally (or more) prestigious school with more resources?

This statement in the Rockfish Gap Report serves as an indicator of progress in the medical field at the University of Virginia: an entire faculty of PhDs teaching what a sole professor could.

I find it interesting that the founders of the University of Virginia decided to include this portion about the poor population when analyzed in the context of their targeted population being white males: a predominantly wealthy demographic. Potentially, this could be some insight from Thomas Jefferson who passionately believed in this idea of the universal student: a student who has received tutelage in a wealth of different subjects no matter their socioeconomic status. In relationship to this idea, this stipulation in the Rockfish Gap Report makes sense; the University of Virginia would not be purposeful if it was just for the rich white males (a common stigmatization even today). Seeking to teach both the rich white males and poor white males alike, this model serves as the basis of the goal of the University of Virginia: to teach students in a manner that aligns with Jefferson’s ideology of the universal student.

This section serves as a bullet point list for the goals of the University of Virginia for its students, thereby being representative of an inherent mission statement.

Reading over it, I could not help but feel as though the sentiments of the Unalienable rights are echoed in these objectives, the curricula serving as the basis for which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could be obtained by citizens. The authors demonstrate that attending the University of Virginia would provide an individual the necessary education to adhere to the constituent elements of quality livelihood such as business knowledge, morality, jurisprudence, and self-sustainability. By understanding subjects ranging from mathematics to agriculture, a better individual is cultivated by society who can then carry out their Unalienable rights through business dealings, religious piety, and volition.

Furthermore, the majority of these ideals embody the ethos of Thomas Jefferson. For example, his belief in the farmer being the backbone of a republic is seen in the core curriculum of the University of Virginia with the promotion of agriculture being a main point in this document. Ultimately, these lines establish the precursive ethos of the school that is to come, seemingly training students for life as a proper citizen and the adherence to the Unalienable Rights.

After taking Debating Islams with Professor al-Rahim and recognizing the importance of identifying ideological statements and their underlying rhetoric, I find it interesting that Ideology is a branch of learning that is emphasized in this precursive schematic of the University of Virginia. There is an inherent importance in being able to deduce both the spirit and letter of a sentimental statement which serves as the basis for Ideological Studies.

According to Professor al-Rahim's class, one cannot be ingenuous to the possible ulterior motives of rhetoricians that attempt to dupe the public. In the case of our class, these people were ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, an individual must be actively thinking when presented with an assemblage of beliefs in order to make an informed decision.

Thus, this metaphorical pillar of Ideological Studies to the young University of Virginia serves as a profound indicator of its overarching goal that has been perpetuated throughout the years: the training of the informed citizen in a liberation from the darkness of ignorance and deception. One cannot remain naive in our global world and the University of Virginia seeks to alleviate our naïveté as to make us better individuals overall that will contribute to the global climate rather than solely take from it. Classes in "the doctrine of thought" corroborate this claim.