This sentence touches on the topics of institutionalized education and whether it should a private sector instead. Still today, especially fueled by the loss of trust in institutions, Americans have declared that higher learning has been a source of class sanctioning by institutions: that only those with money could afford to go to college.The then proposed free college education is then opposed by those who not believe in the power of higher learning as controlled by private institutions that need tuition. Our education today is an amalgamation of institutional and private, but the authority and trust of it varies which is why I believe UVA is having its students engage with its history and objective as an institution; UVA wants us to establish our own judgement of it as institution by giving us an encompassing picture. However, in the end, I believe UVA would like to represent a positive image and a high sense of trust.

This notion that the arts should be a private sector hobby and should not supported by institution of education and advancement of the individual and society was clearly present back when this was written and reverberates even today. The arts grounds is not a part of central grounds, the arts building does not look like others of UVA, nor is it of the same size. The result is the feeling that art is not important or useful as other sectors of learning because the UVA institution exists not only to pass along knowledge but to give authority and importance to what is being taught. The separation of art and education, in my opinion, serves as s huge detriment not only to art but in all other ways higher education affects the person: expanded world view, idea generation, understanding/engagment with the world, affecting others through self-expression. Art and higher education serves many a similar purpose end even thought eh university may try to instill an appreciation or understanding of art in its students today with engagement classes, the reality is that the separation of the two undermines art's importance and impact in an institution, which may undermine the point of such classes in the first place.

Aristotle wrote in Niccomachean Ethics that living virtuously is the key to happiness. Therefore, its especially intriguing to see virtue and happiness mentioned together but not defining each other in the university's objective. The separation is important in distinguishing that Aristotle's understanding of happiness is not the only one there is. Classically, there are many views from many schools: stoics, hedonists, Buddhists, ect. In fact, there is a general lack of clarity as to what happiness is in our collective understanding as a society. The lack of clarification as to what happiness is and the distinction between the two shows that although the university (and perhaps Thomas Jefferson) intends each student to find their own meaning of happiness while retaining the essential quality of being virtuous.

By observe, it is unclear whether a student is expected to passively notice or comply with the social relations he is exposed to during his time. Both of which are completely valid definitions and applications of the word "observe" in the dictionary. Of course the student could observe social issues at the time such as slavery and women's inequality; However, if he does not act on observed social issues that do not affect him, then did the institution fail to instill a complete education in him (as "education generates a habit of application") or has he failed as a student? Whether a student in an institution is being taught to observe to develop theories which lead him to a better understanding of social relations or observe to act on his set of beliefs is still relevant today. Of course institutions of higher learning today are more explicit about teaching students to employ action, be proactive, but the discussion of practicality and usefulness of information taught or developed at universities still revolve around this one objective.