I fully agree. In the same way, I wouldn't recommend that (for example) MIT use the same approaches as (for example) DeVry. I like your restaurant analogy. But your example was a "gourmet" company acting like a "fast food" company. Now you are suggesting the reverse: that a "fast food" company could act like a "gourmet" company. Here's my point: McDonald's obviously can't compete with Ruth's Chris, unless it completely changes its approach to the business. McDonald's would have to vastly upgrade its food, its staff, and its restaurants -- just about everything. You agree, right ? Now, does McDonald's really have any motivation to do this ? McDonald's makes a great deal of money, and has been doing so for decades. So is McDonald's using its profits to move their restaurants upscale, so that they can compete with Ruth's Chris ? If not, why not ?