Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Oh man.. lol 'holistically' again. That word. That's exactly what happens isn't it? Haha! Like someone says they are from Harvard and everyone goes gaga. I mean who cares what they study there right? Wrong. 'cause they don't have great programmes for every single subject they teach there. I believe that within any university the quality of programmes of the various faculties and schools can really differ. Haha. Would be logical to expect experts in the field to know better than to go by the overall clout of the school but oh wells, the hard reality. Perceptions are hard to change anyway.
Oops, diverted a bit much, but yeah so anyone knows the starting pay for DXO psychologist? Does the DXO scheme pay a bit more than the MXO scheme in general? or does it depend?
|
The quality of education depends on the course. But the course itself is NOT dependant on QS rankings. For example,
SMU has great programmes across the board. But due to the nature of the university not having totally unrelated subjects like science and engineering, they are not ranked. Not even their undergraduate subjects are ranked and its all because the university is not a complete one per se.
I do agree with you that the university's overall ranking does not correlate to the strength of individual subjects. But again, your method of using the rankings to determine which school is better at which subject is unreliable. Especially so for individual subjects because those fluctuate the most.
DXO does pay a bit more than MXO scheme.