Not good university

A group of former graduates from a not-good university (NGU) runs NGU, which by the name, we can guess is not too good.

In order to maintain their pride (and delusion) of being a good university, they hire the own NGU graduates as teachers and administrators. But because they are not-good, NGU produces not-good graduates and these same graduates are now administrating and teaching. In a sense, NGU recognises this, and therefore gets the government to tell parents to send their children to NGU, and give incentives to companies to hire NGU grads.

Whenever anyone (including NGU grads) states the obvious and tell them that NGU must improve, NGU attacks with emotional statements accusing others of trying endangering their unity, loyalty and pride in NGU and tells all NGU graduates that their must protect themselves against all others. And because the good grads from NGU (and there are some) see the problem as it is, they avoid working in NGU, leaving only the not-good graduates to work there. So as the school gets worse, it will just... errm.. get worse.

1. Why do people in NGU think that they are best suited to run NGU (the process of converting students to graduates) when obviously they need help at both the source (getting the students) and the end-result(getting the graduates hired)?

2. Wouldn't it be more effective if NGU just hire people that are best suited for the job of running NGU?

3. What is unity, loyalty and pride when it gets in the way of unity? When people unite, they should unite for a common purpose.

Why do people behave like this? What were their assumptions? And what is wrong with these assumptions?

What happens when people group together not towards a good purpose, but against everybody that is different, is that unity or bigotry?

Of course, NGU does not exist in real life as a university. But think of this:

1. The automotive players in the US are having problems.

2. They are requesting that the US government give them money to continue.

3. Failing which they will have to close and many many thousands (possibly millions) of jobs will be lost.

4. The japanese car makers have factories in the US employing americans.

5. These japanese car makers are profitable.

And if you are the government, what will you do?

a) give them the money - assume that they can change and become profitable,

b) close them down - assume that the economy wont be adversely affected significantly,

c) sell the companies to someone with money - assume that the buyer can change them and become profitable.

d) get the japanese companies (for a fee, of course) to run the american factories - assume that pride is not a relevant issue

e) hire the american managers from the japanese companies to run the troubled american companies - assume that the new management can rectify the current problems fast enough.

These are merely reactive options. It shouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place. The financial crisis is not the reason for the collapse, it is a spark that ignited the gunpowder that was collected over the years. More on this another time.

And of course, NGU can represent many things, not just the automotive industry in the US. Take the example and think of other things, including education, politics, economics, etc.