Hmmm very, very interesting. The Eames Report gives the reader a lot to think about.

“The size should be small starting with perhaps a dozen students – but with a faculty that would more than complement them in number. Even as it grew to optimum size, this one to one ratio of faculty to students might well be maintained.”
^^^ This in itself is so demanding. A one to one student/teacher ratio is practically unheard of these days.

“We would hope that those leaving the institute would leave with a start towards a real education. They should be trained not only to solve problems – but what is more important, they should be trained to help others solve their own problems.”
^^^ What a wonderful way to put that! If only more institutes put this into practice. I feel that art/design education especially is so focused on the progression/sustainability of the “self” without regard for preparing graduates to “help others solve their own problems.”

“The Director of the Institute should perhaps not be a professional designer. He should be a mature man capable of approaching administration as a non-specialist – a man who by nature could become part of the Board of Governors and a part of the Institute.”
^^^ I suppose you have to consider the point in the 20th century when this was written, because there blatant disregard for the possibility of a female director. “Mature man”…? Hmm I couldn’t find the exact year that the Eames Report was written though— the NID was set up in 1961, so does the report’s publishing year line up with that?

Hmmm a lot to think about.