<p>title says it all..?</p>
<p>US News. The Business Week rankings are questionable at best. US News, while not perfect, has been doing this for too long to be too far off the mark. Business Week has really iffy metrics--asking current students, who've never studied at other schools, asking recruiters without giving some confirmation that they've vetted recruiters, factoring in how many hours students study a week which has nothing to do with program quality, factoring in students admitted to top 35 MBA programs (this is for ugrad obviously, but a school is rarely if ever in a position to take credit for where their students end-up--an MBA is years out of ugrad for most people), and the percentage of students who get internships (which does not factor in the quality of internships).</p>
<p>forget the rankings, look at job placement. rankings are only a guide to narrow your search, not decide them.</p>
<p>Job placement is difficult too, because most job placement numbers don't go all that far back and there are discrepancies. A good example is CMU. IS students take a lot of Tepper courses, and IS is effectively Tepper+CS anyway. The economics program in A&S is essentially run by Tepper. If you factor the IS and A&S econ programs into Tepper, then CMU is one of the top 5 programs for job placement by virtue of how well their IS graduates place. But realistically we know Tepper isn't top 5 today, even though it may very well be in the future. It's things like this that make just looking at job placement tricky.</p>
<p>general consensus here is to look at job placement. next best is us-news rankings, and then business week. both the rankings have flaws, but businessweek is generally worse for the reasons tetrishead mentioned. in addition, it's hard to believe in businessweek because quite a few schools move many spots in just a year.</p>
<p>thanks for this.</p>
<p>USNews and Business Week should drastically downgrade the ranks of those schools who produced the graduates managing our nation's troubled banks, such as Bear Stearns and Lehman. It would be interesting to know what "business programs" these idiots learned from.</p>
<p>How about neither. Pick schools based on how YOU feel about them not USNWR or Business Week.</p>
<p>Most of them were econ and history majors at Ivy schools. All they know about busienss they learned on the job which means massage the numbers until they work and sell it to the next sucker fast. They just ran out of suckers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of them were econ and history majors at Ivy schools. All they know about busienss they learned on the job which means massage the numbers until they work and sell it to the next sucker fast. They just ran out of suckers.
[/quote]
All you know about business you should learn on the job, because there is no school on Earth that can adequately, 100% prepare someone any job... with the exception of like, nursing majors. A job is always different than what you learn in school. I'd much, much rather have history and economics majors in those positions than kids who know nothing of the basics of an economic system, and have no regard for history.</p>
<p>Big banks underwrote lenders. Analysts refuse to acknowledge that properties were changing hands too often. 10% involved in 50%, if you know what I mean. They were making quick money, and it's nearly impossible to stop people from going back to something like that until they run it into the ground. Risk management groups failed, the FHA failed, lenders failed--people in the middle and at the bottom of the banking industry did their jobs, which is to be greedy. That is their responsibility. It's what they're supposed to do. Returns for their clients are all that matter. They're absolutely responsible for this, but they're responsible for it in the way a guy taking it to the hole strong in basketball is responsible for breaking another guys back after slamming into him and driving him onto the ground. </p>
<p>It was the job of the referees to call a foul and stop the drive. Whether or not there was mass incompetence as a result of governmental and upper class pressure (profits = good), or there was mass incompetence as a result of... mass incompetence, the bankers largely did what they were supposed to do. Underwrite the loans if the lenders are willing to loan and if they're paying you back. Blowback is not something you are supposed to deal with. There is no army of one, despite the slogan. FHA still insured. Regulatory agencies did nothing about predatory lending, and they stayed as far away from the rapid turnover in housing as they possibly could. Everyone was complicit in this, but bankers were the only ones doing their jobs.</p>
<p>Very little of this was FHA insured as they are very careful about lending. Most was non-conforming junk loans to people with bad credit and or no money to put down. Anyone who had ever studied business and risk would have understood this was bound to fail as the key assumption was the Greater Fool Theory--which you do learn early in business school. It states that any venture which relies mostly on some bigger fool to buy the investment (home) later at a higher price will eventually fail when the fools dry up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Very little of this was FHA insured as they are very careful about lending.
[/quote]
A huge amount of the FHA loans where I live (S. FL) came fairly far along in this artificial inflation process. Yes, they were to first-time home-buyers most of the time. But they were still loaning at artificially high valuations.
[quote]
Most was non-conforming junk loans to people with bad credit and or no money to put down. Anyone who had ever studied business and risk would have understood this was bound to fail as the key assumption was the Greater Fool Theory--which you do learn early in business school. It states that any venture which relies mostly on some bigger fool to buy the investment (home) later at a higher price will eventually fail when the fools dry up.
[/quote]
Technically it's the castle in the air theory, which was articulated by Keynes and he referred to it as such, and the greater fool just became a popular name for it. The reality of the markets is that they are neither inefficient nor efficient, they are both. Castle in the air and firm foundation are both correct, and the optimal market is one in which they are balanced.</p>
<p>Most of this, despite claims to the contrary that are so prevalent in media (which is not surprising, as financial news outlets would loathe to blame themselves and their peers), was not an issue with giving money to those with poor credit histories. It can be argued that it wasn't even an issue with giving money to people that couldn't afford it. The fundamental problem was that a large portion of real estate inventory in a multitude of states was changing hands at so rapid a pace that when those who didn't have the money or who had poor credit were finally priced out of the market, when they finally couldn't get that loan or they finally knew better and when they finally weren't getting the free-flowing money the speculators got, well, speculators started playing with themselves (no, I did not mean it like that--you have a very dirty mind).</p>
<p>Speculators were playing with phantom money, and they knew it, and that's why the rate of change was so astronomically fast. It was not the responsibility of the banks to stop this. It was the responsibility of the banks to profit. It was the responsibility of the banks to profit when many of their colleagues were jumping from open windows on 9/11. That is their responsibility, it is what they are supposed to do. There was a massive regulatory breakdown, and everyone was afraid of touching the speculation either because the government preferred good economic news, or they themselves preferred good economic news. They went purposely blind, ignorance is an invalid argument because what was happening was obvious. Again, everyone was complicit in this, but the "okay, we need an adult here now" responsibility fell to regulatory agencies.</p>
<p>So all the sudden the buy and hold public is priced out, which leads speculators to sell to speculators to sell to speculators to sell to speculators. Then, finally, when that reached critical mass and they themselves were no longer getting easy money, when they couldn't get the valuations on the properties they wanted, we hit absolute zero. Everything froze. Lender profits didn't actually fall, if you look at the time line. They stagnated completely. To compensate, and to continue to increase profit, they did what you do. They screwed around with the terms on the more exotic loans. Exotic loans that both speculators and many of the people who bought in earlier had.</p>
<p>Fast forward, the changes in terms priced people out of their houses. They had to downgrade, which started to cause migration. They were holding on prior to this, even if they were in homes they shouldn't have been. When this started impacting the prices of commodities, this artificially propped up market, it further increased the strain on these people. No more free money meant no more loans, and it made consolidation difficult. See where this was going?</p>
<p>Speculators realized this, many speculators stopped speculating, but not before they had a multitude of greatly overpriced properties. And here we are. Lenders made the mistakes. Regulatory agencies made the mistakes. The only mistake bankers may have made was not diversifying enough, but that's a decision at the upper management levels. Inherent to the financial industry is greed, it's why the financial industry works. That must be offset by regulation and monitoring. No regulation and monitoring, great greed. Recession. Fun, no? Hopefully by the time I graduate we start up another one of these idiot cycles, I can make a fair amount of money, cash out and live the rest of my days leisurely touring the property around my mansion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It can be argued that it wasn't even an issue with giving money to people that couldn't afford it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There were many problems here, and one of the problems was definitely the fact that uneducated consumers were getting ARM loans that they could not afford. This had been apparent for quite some time, but the overall effect had been mitigated due to real estate appreciation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fundamental problem was that a large portion of real estate inventory in a multitude of states was changing hands at so rapid a pace that when those who didn't have the money or who had poor credit were finally priced out of the market,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem here was unrealistic price appreciation. Consumers purchased homes with the expectation that prices would appreciate and the idiotic mind-set that real estate prices never go down. Inventory in TX was changing hands at a rapid rate, but TX was not affected like other states because it did not experience much unrealistic price appreciation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the bankers largely did what they were supposed to do. Underwrite the loans if the lenders are willing to loan and if they're paying you back.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are the banks not losing billions of dollars in part because of improperly rated MBSs? Did the banks really do their job? Perhaps they did...if their job is to lose money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There were many problems here, and one of the problems was definitely the fact that uneducated consumers were getting ARM loans that they could not afford. This had been apparent for quite some time, but the overall effect had been mitigated due to real estate appreciation.
[/quote]
I do not think it wasn't a problem, but if the rampant speculation and mass delusionality wasn't as prevalent, and if banks and speculators alike did not panic at the first sign of trouble, money would have been available for second mortgages, consolidation, even some debt forgiveness. There have always, historically, been people in homes they could not afford. There may have been more this time, but there weren't enough to be the sole, or even main catalyst. People struggle, but they make it through. While I have no doubt many of these people were looking to move their houses in <3yrs for a profit, if commodities across the board didn't start rapidly accelerating and banks didn't start tinkering with exotic loans to continue growth the problem would not have spread to all reaches of our economy, and to the global scale, like it has.
[quote]
The problem here was unrealistic price appreciation. Consumers purchased homes with the expectation that prices would appreciate and the idiotic mind-set that real estate prices never go down. Inventory in TX was changing hands at a rapid rate, but TX was not affected like other states because it did not experience much unrealistic price appreciation.
[/quote]
Yes, that's what I'm saying. When the people who were already going beyond their means were finally priced out of the market, keeping in mind that these people were already getting loans way past what they could reasonably afford, the market was artificially propped so high up that there was nowhere to go but down. It was almost impossible to have a soft landing at that point, but people could've been kept in their homes if there was an immediate move, and yes, it would have been collusion essentially, to start giving minor debt forgiveness, to start freezing debts, to allow consolidation on lines of credit. All properties were rapidly increasing in value, and these people had to live somewhere. They're partially to blame, but they didn't start it, they weren't the primary reason for it, and they're absolutely going to pay for it.</p>
<p>Now we're not only facing the prospect of a mass revaluation of millions of properties (I still do not believe this has happened), we're facing the issue of massive migration and increased crime as a result of people walking away from their mortgages. Homeless rates are probably going to peak at highs we haven't seen in 60 years sometime this decade.
[quote]
Are the banks not losing billions of dollars in part because of improperly rated MBSs? Did the banks really do their job? Perhaps they did...if their job is to lose money.
[/quote]
At a basic level, I don't really think even the most well-diversified bank could have weathered this storm. The banking industry is inherently self-destructive, not because it looks for profit, but because it will look for profit over and over and over again in the same place if it can find it. Regulation isn't even meant to stop fraud or antitrust so much as it is to "gingerly" move the market away from tearing apart specific areas (which inevitably leads to fraud and antitrust issues anyway), for fear that they will run it into the ground, which they did here. Bankers underwrote loans. Lenders did anything they could to get people into homes, including using predatory practices. Speculators... well, speculated early on, and then the transitory portion of our society that always shows up a day late and a dollar short (late to NASDAQ, started "day-trading" in the late 80s, people who try Amway/Quixtar, basically) got in on it, exacerbated the ridiculous valuations and lost their money like they always do.</p>
<p>It is not in the best interest of a financier to be rational when his clients are irrational, when the market is irrational, when the regulators are irrational, when the investors on the ground are irrational, when the builders are irrational, and when NAR is irrational. You make your client money, you do that by investing where you'll make money. People made a lot of money, faster than anyone ever has, in the real estate game. Had regulatory agencies started investigating predatory loaning earlier, or started questioning the quality of property appraisals, or really done anything at all to dampen spirits (which is something they are apparently now chronically afraid of doing) it is actually possible that we would have averted a boom, and had a soft landing instead.</p>
<p>Exuberance has always caused crashes, this was the first time almost every single person and agency was complicit in it. It's why it's going to be so painful, it's why the Fed is trying to save face and at the same time is probably setting us up for a great 7-10 year depression (lowering interest rates to nothing will not stop this, it is too late, and having interest rates at nothing is going to cause absolutely insane inflation when this is all over), and it's why... Well, it's why I'm going to teach myself how to program better so I can get a job as a software engineer, which is probably going to be the good entry-level job into the early '10s, and spend 90% of my paycheck on real estate in a few years before the financial industry starts their next true, massive round of recruiting.</p>
<p>To answer the question of the original post, if you are talking strictly about rankings of business majors and business schools, Business Week's undergraduate ranking is far superior. The US News ranking for business schools is only based on the personal rankings of deans at the schools themselves. They don't take into account the students, recruiters, test scores, faculty, etc. It's a popularity contest...an opinion poll. As a parent, I found the Business Week ranking to be very useful.</p>
<p>That being said, the US News ranking of colleges overall is great, but don't confuse that with the business school ranking.</p>
<p>AHH, the Businessweek rankings are mostly based on surveys of students and recruiters. Has little to do with factual data.</p>
<p>I disagree as I believe Tepper is Top 5 currently. IS is part of HSS (Median 58k) and Econ actually brings down BA postgrad surveys but still, looking at Tepper's postgrad surveys (Median 60k), it is on the same league as Stern/Sloan/Ross/McDonough. After Wharton, there are actually about 5 schools that are "Top 5" as they are all on the same tier. </p>
<p>As you can see here: Surveys</a> & Employment Statistics : Tepper School of Business The Econ and Tepper surveys are split, and the IS surveys are also split here:
<a href="http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/employ/salary/infosys.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/employ/salary/infosys.pdf</a></p>
<p>As shown above the IS School has its own postgrad surveys, so Tepper's postgrad survey does not include IS majors nor Econ majors which are arguably less prestigious/successful as Tepper grads as it is a joint program. Now, Tepper does offer a Management Information Technology track which is #1 in the nation, however the most popular major at Tepper by far is currently Finance (perhaps 90% of all males take this track, with the others being International/Management/MIS). Females also overdominantly track in Finance but with more split between Marketing/International and very few in MIS. </p>
<p>PS: And yes, postgrad surveys are #1, then Us News, and Businessweek should be disregarded. Its factors and
consequently, its rankings are quite misinforming.</p>
<p>PPS: There is no Arts and Sciences, its called HSS which is Humanities and Social Sciences which comprises the bullk of Economics (part of it is in Tepper) and of course, interdisciplinary Information Systems which has 0 relation to Tepper.</p>
<p>as per the original question</p>
<p>US news is better than business week</p>
<p>^^ yea. Businessweek puts BYU and Notre Dame in the top 5 lol, and puts MIT Sloan below them! i dont think any ranking system that does that should be taken seriously</p>
<p>Depends on what you're looking at. It seems Business Week focuses a lot on post-graduate employment opportunities. That's why schools with good alumni networks tend to show up better in BW than USNews: Notre Dame (difference of 15), BYU (31), Richmond (51). Wisconsin, ranked tied for 12th by USNews and 37th in BW, had 16% of their grads report as not having received a job offer.</p>