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.)

This phrase makes me confused, because only a few paragraphs later, as I replied to a fellow student's comment, the writers bash the indigenous peoples for following in the footsteps of their predecessors. Yet, right here, they claim that we must tread with "awful reverence." Though it is no surprise to me that they would not recognize the irony in their writing, it is quite clear that regardless of how honored or worthy these men were (in their time of course, and some still today) they lacked the basic understanding of the lack of situational equality.

The ending phrase "can neither be long nor expensive" struck a note with me. Medical School nowadays (and college) can take 8 years and put a person in immense debt. It appears that at the time, one's ability to become a doctor did not necessarily require the time and effort that it would take today. The following sentence clears that up slightly, but I still think that there are some important ideas to be taken away from the fact that it was easier to become a doctor at the time. Of course, Medicine has changed and the profession looks entirely different than it did at the beginning of the 19th century, but the basis of the profession, that one's life should be kept in great hands, seems to be missing. The University's founders offer the medical education but no further schooling on the topic. How one can learn the "operations of surgery in a hospital" without a Hospital on grounds is a mystery. These aspiring students would have to be shipped off to another University or school at the time to learn the craft.