It's possible that I was feeling cynical after going through the Bauhaus, but I couldn't help but thinking about the charade that I understand the institution to be. 

Gunta Stolzl, the only master artist at the Bauhuas' inception, was 'relegated' to the weaving studio (as were most all of the female students) I put relegated in air quotes because weaving is clearly not a lesser art but artists at the time considered it as such and subsequently decided that if there was to be a woman master artist that she should be in that 'lesser' studio. Stolzl was also one of the first ousted from the school during the ramp up of the Nazi party over her male counterparts. 

Marianne Brandt, creator of iconic Bauhaus globe lamps, was one of the few women in the metalworking studio, and yet Wilhelm Wagenfeld is often credited as creator of the  'bauhaus lamp'. 

Beyond gender discrimination, the Bauhaus failed in its intented goal of creating mass-producible, inexpensive goods. Items produced at the Bauhaus in the early 20th century, and certainly items sold today from that period, sell for astronomical prices. It seems to me that the important flash and style of modernism was more important than fulfilling the goals of economic equity and access to modern conveniences for all. 

Furthermore- it seems that the school was geared towards wealthy elites and was not accessible to the vast majority of people. A self-indulgent playground for the entitled, I believe. 

From my perspective, design schools live in the shadow of the Bauhaus in many ways. Yes, we have a foundation of iteration/creation/material testing etc., but we haven't, even 100 years later, shaken the precedents of gender discrimination or elitism that were present in Dessau. An unfinished project, I suppose.