LSE Competitive Market Position
QS Subject Rankings Analysis Dashboard 2023–2025
A comprehensive analysis of LSE's global subject ranking performance, competitive positioning, and strategic reputation opportunities across 16 core Social Sciences subjects.
Subjects Ranked
QS Subject Rankings 2025
Avg Global Rank
Across 16 subjects
Academic Rep Score
Avg across subjects
Employer Rep Gap
Acad. vs Employer Rep
LSE Competitive Market Position
QS Subject Rankings Analysis 2023–2025 · 16 subjects · 12 peer institutions · 5 indicator pillars
This analysis has been prepared by QS Consultancy to provide LSE's leadership and communications teams with data-driven insight to inform the design, prioritisation, and development of targeted, subject-specific global reputation campaigns. The QS World University Rankings are among the world's most widely referenced ranking systems — compiled using datapoints from 16.4 million academic papers and incorporating the views of more than 151,000 academics and 100,000 employers. They are used by governments, employers, and academic institutions worldwide to assess institutional quality. LSE's performance in these rankings is one of several factors that may shape its global perception, student recruitment, faculty attraction, research partnerships, and employer relationships. The insight contained in this dashboard is intended to help identify where LSE's reputation appears strongest, where trends merit attention, and — importantly — where targeted campaign investment may offer the greatest potential for measurable improvement in rank performance.
A Specialist Institution at Elite Level — A Distinctive Competitive Strength
LSE occupies a distinctive and compelling position in global higher education — a specialist Social Sciences institution that competes at or near the level of the world's most comprehensive universities. Across its 16 core subjects, LSE averages rank 7.9 in 2025, placing it firmly within the global top-10 tier alongside Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, and Stanford. The data suggests that no other specialist institution globally achieves a comparable concentration of elite performance across this range of subjects. This positioning could represent LSE's most powerful reputation asset in any global campaign: the evidence points to an institution that is not a generalist university attempting excellence in Social Sciences, but rather one of the world's foremost specialist Social Sciences institutions — a narrative that campaign communications may benefit from leading with.
Systemic Rank Erosion — A Pattern That Merits Strategic Attention
The 3-year trend presents a pattern that the data suggests warrants careful strategic consideration. 11 of 16 subjects have declined since 2023, a movement that may reflect two converging forces: comprehensive universities expanding their Social Sciences faculties and increasing their research output, and LSE's own research intensity metrics (Citations per Paper, H-Index) not keeping pace with the field. The average rank has moved from 6.9 to 7.9 — a full position shift over three years. The most notable declines are in subjects central to LSE's institutional identity: Social Policy (−4 places), Communication (−3), Sociology (−2), Economics (−1), and Politics (−1). The evidence suggests that without targeted attention, this trajectory could continue as competitor universities invest more heavily in Social Sciences — though the precise causal factors would benefit from further investigation.
The Employer Reputation Gap — A Potentially Actionable Lever
LSE is the only elite institution in this analysis where Academic Reputation (93.3) substantially exceeds Employer Reputation (87.0), creating a +6.3-point gap. Every peer institution — Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, NUS, Bocconi — shows the reverse pattern: employers rate them at least as highly as academics. The data suggests this gap could represent a meaningful improvement opportunity, as Employer Reputation is influenced by targeted outreach and visibility campaigns — activities that may yield results more quickly than long-cycle research investment. Analysis indicates that if LSE were to close a portion of this gap, the resulting score improvements could compound across subjects, potentially contributing to rank improvement. The subjects with the largest employer gaps — Anthropology (−13.4), Social Sciences & Mgmt (−17.0), Business (−10.8) — may represent the most productive starting points for employer engagement activity.
Academic Reputation as the Bedrock — Sustaining and Amplifying a Core Strength
LSE's Academic Reputation is its most powerful competitive asset and the dominant driver of rank position. In Social Sciences subjects, Academic Reputation carries 40–70% of total weighting — making it the single most influential indicator in the methodology. LSE's average of 93.3 places it third globally, behind only Harvard (97.9) and Oxford (95.3). The evidence suggests this reputation is self-reinforcing: strong brand tends to attract top scholars, whose research output in turn reinforces brand perception. However, the data also indicates a potential risk in the reverse direction: if declining ranks were to reduce LSE's perceived prestige among academics over time, survey scores could be affected. Sustaining and actively amplifying Academic Reputation — through targeted communications to the global academic community — may therefore represent the most important protective action available to LSE.
How to Use This Dashboard for Campaign Planning
This dashboard is structured to guide LSE's communications and marketing teams through a logical progression from competitive context to potential campaign priorities. Each visual section builds on the previous, moving from where LSE stands (Heatmap, Indicator Profile) to why it stands there (Peer Benchmarking, Reputation Map) to what is changing (Rank Trajectory) to what the data suggests could be done (Strategic Matrix, UK Head-to-Head).
Use the Strategic Matrix to explore which subjects fall into Crown Jewels, At-Risk, Rising Stars, or Challenge Areas quadrants. These quadrants may help inform campaign priority and resource allocation discussions.
Use the Indicator Profile and Methodology sections to understand which QS indicators drive each subject's score — and therefore which campaign activities may have the greatest potential impact on rank.
Use the Peer Benchmarking and Reputation Map to identify the specific reputation gaps the data highlights — and which peer institutions could serve as useful benchmarks for tracking campaign outcomes over time.
The Campaign Framework — Four Strategic Considerations
Based on 2023–2025 QS Subject Rankings data · 16 subjects · 12 peer institutions · 5 indicator pillars · Intended to support LSE's global reputation campaign planning
Subjects: Philosophy (#2), Geography (#2), Development Studies (#3)
These three subjects represent LSE's strongest global positioning — the areas where the data suggests LSE's competitive advantage is most distinctive and most defensible. A campaign approach focused on amplifying these rankings through targeted academic media, conference presence, and international faculty communications could help sustain these positions. Ensuring these subjects feature prominently in institutional reputation materials may reinforce the broader narrative of LSE's global standing.
📊 Indicative aim: Sustain top-3 positions. Suggested KPI: Academic Reputation score stability above 95.0.
Subjects: Sociology (−2), Communication (−3), Social Policy (−4), Politics (−1), Economics (−1), Accounting (−1), History (stable but showing early signals)
Seven subjects are showing declining trends, representing areas central to LSE's Social Sciences identity. The data suggests that subject-specific academic visibility campaigns — targeting QS Academic Survey respondents in each discipline — could support a reversal of these trends. Social Policy and Communication, where the rank decline is most pronounced, may benefit from prioritised attention. Faculty engagement in international conference keynotes, journal editorial boards, and media commentary could increase academic visibility, though the relationship between these activities and survey scores is complex and may take time to materialise.
📊 Indicative aim: Stabilise trends by 2026, with improvement possible by 2027. Suggested KPI: Rank stabilisation in at least 5 of 7 subjects.
Subjects: Law (#6, +1 place), Psychology (#19, +4 places)
Law and Psychology demonstrate that positive rank movement is achievable — they offer a useful reference point for understanding what factors may be contributing to improvement. The data suggests that understanding the drivers of their upward trajectories could inform strategy in other subjects. In Law, employer engagement appears to have been a contributing factor; in Psychology, research metrics improvement appears to be playing a role. Investigating whether these approaches could be adapted for other subjects in the portfolio may be a productive line of enquiry.
📊 Indicative aim: Law to sustain top-5 trajectory, Psychology to approach top-15 by 2027. Suggested KPI: Score improvement across key indicators.
Subjects: All 16 subjects — Employer Reputation +6.3pt average gap
The analysis suggests this could represent the highest-potential campaign opportunity across the portfolio. A systematic programme targeting QS Employer Survey respondents — the more than 100,000 global employers who contribute to LSE's Employer Reputation score — may support meaningful score improvement. Potential tactics could include targeted employer events in key markets (US, Singapore, Germany, France), alumni success story campaigns, graduate outcomes data dissemination, and partnership announcements. The evidence suggests the most acute opportunity may lie in subjects with the largest gaps: Anthropology, Social Sciences & Mgmt, Business, and Communication — though prioritisation should be informed by a fuller assessment of resource and feasibility.
📊 Indicative aim: Reduce gap from +6.3 towards +2.0 by 2027. Suggested KPI: Employer Reputation score improvement across the portfolio.
Data source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2023, 2024, and 2025 editions. Peer institutions selected based on strategic competitive relevance across Social Sciences, Law, Economics, and Management disciplines. Academic Reputation data from QS Academic Survey (more than 151,000 respondents). Employer Reputation data from QS Employer Survey (more than 100,000 respondents). Rankings compiled using datapoints from 16.4 million academic papers. All rank positions are global. Insights are indicative and intended to inform strategic discussion; outcomes of any campaign activity will depend on a range of institutional, market, and competitive factors.
Peer Rank Comparison Heatmap
LSE's Subject Portfolio vs. 11 Peers · QS Subject Rankings 2025
| Subject | ★ LSE | Oxford | Cambridge | Harvard | Stanford | UCL | King's | Edinburgh | Warwick | NUS | Sciences Po | Bocconi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 2 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 39 | 24 | 22 | 51-100 | 25 | 101-150 | — |
| Geography | 2 | 1 | 3 | — | — | 4 | 14 | 21 | — | 6 | — | — |
| Development Studies | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 31 | 51-100 | 51-100 | — | 101-150 | 101-150 |
| Politics | 5 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 22 | 12 | 31 | 64 | 10 | 4 | 71 |
| Sociology | 5 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 22 | 49 | 30 | 66 | 15 | 33 | — |
| History | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 15 | 25 | 13 | 42 | 17 | 51-100 | — |
| Social Sciences & Mgmt | 6 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 19 | 46 | 47 | 42 | 10 | 76 | 12 |
| Communication & Media | 6 | — | 10 | 2 | 5 | 37 | 18 | 40 | 51-100 | 14 | — | — |
| Law & Legal Studies | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 14 | 19 | 21 | 101-150 | 10 | 76 | 71 |
| Social Policy & Admin | 7 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 30 | 32 | 13 | 101-150 | 3 | 17 | 46 |
| Accounting & Finance | 8 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 46 | 80 | 49 | 44 | 12 | 251-300 | 19 |
| Economics & Econometrics | 8 | 9 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 18 | 114 | 83 | 36 | 16 | 107 | 17 |
| Anthropology | 11 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 4 | — | 17 | — | 16 | 101-170 | — |
| Business & Management | 12 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 90 | 83 | 121 | 35 | 8 | — | 10 |
| Marketing | 18 | — | 1 | — | 4 | — | 51-100 | — | 31 | 6 | — | 7 |
| Psychology | 19 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 18 | 30 | 80 | 16 | — | — |
Why These Peers? — Rationale for Peer Group Selection
The 11 peer institutions included in this analysis have been selected to provide a strategically meaningful competitive frame of reference for LSE. Rather than comparing against all globally ranked institutions, the peer group has been constructed to reflect four distinct competitive dimensions that are most relevant to LSE's positioning ambitions.
UK Domestic Competitors
Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, King's College London, Edinburgh, Warwick — these institutions compete directly with LSE for UK-based students, academic talent, and domestic reputation. Their performance in shared subjects provides the most immediate competitive context for LSE's communications and recruitment positioning.
Global Elite Benchmarks
Harvard, Stanford — as the world's most recognised universities in the social sciences, Harvard and Stanford serve as aspirational benchmarks. Their consistent #1–3 positions across LSE's subject portfolio help contextualise the scale of LSE's global achievement and identify the gap to the very top tier.
Specialist Social Science Peers
Sciences Po, Bocconi — as specialist institutions with a comparable focus on social sciences, politics, economics, and management, Sciences Po and Bocconi represent the most structurally similar peers to LSE globally. Their growing presence in the rankings may signal the competitive pressure specialist institutions face from one another.
International Challenger
National University of Singapore (NUS) — NUS has emerged as one of the most significant non-Western challengers in the social sciences, holding top-10 positions in Politics, Social Policy, Business, and Geography. Its inclusion reflects the increasingly global nature of the reputation competition LSE faces, particularly across Asia-Pacific academic and employer survey respondents.
Peer group selected by QS Consultancy in consultation with LSE's strategic objectives. Institutions were chosen to represent the most relevant competitive landscape across domestic, global elite, specialist, and international dimensions.
Why This Matters for LSE's Reputation Strategy
LSE holds top-10 positions in 12 of its 16 core subjects — a concentration of elite placement that no other specialist university achieves globally. The heatmap reveals that Oxford and Cambridge rival or outperform LSE in virtually every shared subject, and Harvard holds the #1 position in 8 of 16 subjects. LSE's clearest competitive differentiation is in Philosophy (#2) and Geography (#2), where no other peer matches its standing. The strategic threat is visible in the amber and orange cells: subjects like Business (#12), Marketing (#18), and Psychology (#19) where specialist competitors and comprehensive universities pull ahead.
Source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025. Ranks shown are global positions. '—' indicates institution is not ranked in that subject.
LSE Indicator Profile
Strength & Vulnerability Analysis Across 5 QS Pillars · 2025
Click a bar to see detailed breakdown · Hover for values
- Academic Rep
- Employer Rep
- Citations
- H-Index
Key Insight: The Academic Reputation Flywheel
Academic Reputation is LSE's overwhelming strength — scoring above 88/100 in all 16 subjects and reaching a perfect 100 in Geography and Social Sciences & Management. However, the 'Weakest Indicator' column reveals a critical vulnerability: Citations per Paper and H-Index are consistently LSE's lowest scores, particularly in Marketing (67.2 Citations, 66.7 H-Index), Accounting (75.1 Citations), and Business (72.2 Citations). These research intensity metrics are where comprehensive universities with larger faculties and higher publication volumes gain an inherent advantage. The Employer Reputation scores (ranging 79.2 to 99.0) reveal a second strategic axis — dipping to 79.2 in Anthropology and 81.8 in Business, suggesting employer awareness of LSE varies significantly by discipline.
Source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025. Indicators: Academic Reputation Survey (more than 151,000 academic respondents), Employer Reputation Survey (more than 100,000 employer respondents), Citations per Paper, H-Index, International Research Network (IRN). Rankings compiled using datapoints from 16.4 million academic papers.
Peer Reputation Benchmarking
Academic vs Employer Reputation · 12 Institutions · QS Subject Rankings 2025
What is the Reputation Gap — and why does it matter for LSE?
Click to hide the full explanation
Understanding the Two Reputation Surveys
The QS Subject Rankings use two separate global surveys to measure an institution's reputation — and they ask very different audiences:
Academic Reputation Survey
Surveys more than 151,000 academics worldwide, asking which institutions they consider the best for research and teaching in each subject. This reflects the institution's standing within the global scholarly community — how well-known and respected its faculty, publications, and intellectual output are.
Employer Reputation Survey
Surveys more than 100,000 graduate employers worldwide, asking which institutions produce the most competent, innovative, and effective graduates. This reflects how well the institution's brand translates into the labour market — whether employers actively seek its graduates.
What the Gap Reveals
The Reputation Gap is simply the difference between these two scores: Academic Rep minus Employer Rep. A positive gap means academics rate the institution more highly than employers do. A negative gap means employers rate it more highly than academics.
LSE: +6.3 Gap (Academic-led)
The data shows academics rate LSE notably higher than employers do. This pattern may suggest LSE's scholarly brand has not yet translated as fully into employer awareness and graduate demand as it could.
Harvard/Oxford/Cambridge: Negative Gap (Employer-led)
Employers rate these institutions at least as highly as academics — or higher. The data suggests their brands resonate strongly in both the scholarly and commercial worlds, which may offer a useful reference point for LSE's own positioning ambitions.
The Strategic Implication
Given that Employer Reputation carries 10–30% of QS subject score weighting, the data suggests that narrowing this gap could support meaningful score improvement. The potential scale of that improvement across the portfolio is worth exploring in the context of a targeted employer engagement strategy.
Reputation Gap by Institution — Positive = Academic-led · Negative = Employer-led
The gap is calculated as: Average Academic Reputation Score minus Average Employer Reputation Score
| Institution | Avg Academic Rep ① | Avg Employer Rep ② | Gap ①−② | Gap Interpretation | Subjects Ranked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harvard | 97.9 | 100.0 | -2.1 | Employer-led — strong market brand | 13 |
| Oxford | 95.3 | 96.5 | -1.2 | Balanced | 15 |
| Cambridge | 93.6 | 95.7 | -2.1 | Employer-led — strong market brand | 16 |
| ★ LSE | 93.3 | 87.0 | +6.3 | Academic-led — significant gap | 16 |
| Stanford | 92.7 | 93.8 | -1.1 | Balanced | 15 |
| NUS | 87.8 | 89.8 | -2.0 | Balanced | 14 |
| UCL | 81.8 | 79.5 | +2.3 | Slight academic lean | 16 |
| Bocconi | 80.6 | 84.3 | -3.7 | Employer-led — strong market brand | 8 |
| Edinburgh | 79.0 | 77.5 | +1.5 | Slight academic lean | 14 |
| King's | 78.2 | 80.1 | -1.9 | Balanced | 15 |
| Sciences Po | 75.5 | 73.2 | +2.3 | Slight academic lean | 10 |
| Warwick | 74.0 | 75.2 | -1.2 | Balanced | 12 |
The Employer Reputation Paradox
LSE is the only institution among its 12 peers where Academic Reputation materially and consistently exceeds Employer Reputation — a +6.3-point gap that is distinctive in this competitive landscape. The data suggests this is not a minor statistical variation: it may reflect a meaningful divergence between how the global scholarly community perceives LSE and how the global employer community perceives it.
Harvard (−2.1), Oxford (−1.2), Cambridge (−2.1), Stanford (−1.1), NUS (−2.0), and Bocconi (−3.7) all demonstrate the opposite pattern: employers rate them at least as highly as academics. The analysis suggests this may indicate that LSE's visibility to the global recruiter community — including alumni success narratives and industry partnership communications — could benefit from investment to bring it into closer alignment with its formidable academic brand strength.
Why Narrowing the Gap Could Support Rank Improvement
Employer Reputation carries 10–30% of total score weighting across LSE's 16 subjects (see the Methodology section for subject-specific weightings). In Social Sciences subjects — where Academic Reputation dominates at 50–70% — the data suggests that even a modest Employer Reputation improvement of 3–4 points could contribute to measurable score gains. Across 16 subjects, the cumulative effect of such improvements may be significant, though the precise outcome would depend on competitive movements across the peer group.
The QS Employer Reputation score is derived from the global Employer Survey, which asks more than 100,000 employers which universities they prefer to recruit from. Campaigns that increase LSE's visibility among international employers — particularly in the US, Asia-Pacific, and continental Europe — could support improvement in this score over time. The data suggests the most pronounced opportunity may lie in Anthropology (79.2), Business (81.8), Social Sciences & Mgmt (83.0), and Communication (84.1), where employer scores fall furthest below academic scores — though any campaign approach should be validated against a fuller assessment of employer audience reach and feasibility.
Source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025. Academic Reputation derived from QS Academic Survey (more than 151,000 respondents). Employer Reputation derived from QS Employer Survey (more than 100,000 respondents). Rankings compiled using datapoints from 16.4 million academic papers. Rep Gap = Average Academic Reputation Score minus Average Employer Reputation Score across all ranked subjects. Positive values indicate Academic-led positioning; negative values indicate Employer-led positioning.
3-Year Rank Trajectory
LSE Subject Rank Movement 2023–2025 · QS Subject Rankings
Rising
of 16 subjects
Stable / Volatile
of 16 subjects
Slipping / Declining
of 16 subjects
Note: Lower rank number = better position. Y-axis inverted for intuitive reading.
| Subject | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Movement | Direction | 2025 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | #3 | #2 | #2 | ▲ +1 | Rising | 94.9 |
| Geography | #2 | #2 | #2 | ● 0 | Stable | 96.3 |
| Development Studies | #3 | #3 | #3 | ● 0 | Stable | 92 |
| Politics | #4 | #5 | #5 | ▼ -1 | Slipping | 89.7 |
| Sociology | #3 | #4 | #5 | ▼ -2 | Declining | 93.8 |
| History | #6 | #4 | #6 | ● 0 | Volatile | 90.8 |
| Social Sciences & Mgmt | #5 | #6 | #6 | ▼ -1 | Slipping | 91.4 |
| Communication | #3 | #2 | #6 | ▼ -3 | Declining | 89.5 |
| Law | #7 | #7 | #6 | ▲ +1 | Rising | 90.1 |
| Social Policy | #3 | #3 | #7 | ▼ -4 | Declining | 92.7 |
| Accounting | #7 | #6 | #8 | ▼ -1 | Slipping | 87.1 |
| Economics | #7 | #7 | #8 | ▼ -1 | Slipping | 91.7 |
| Anthropology | #9 | #11 | #11 | ▼ -2 | Declining | 90.6 |
| Business | #11 | #12 | #12 | ▼ -1 | Slipping | 86.5 |
| Marketing | #15 | #16 | #18 | ▼ -3 | Declining | 81.7 |
| Psychology | #23 | #23 | #19 | ▲ +4 | Rising | 82.9 |
A Portfolio Under Pressure
The 3-year trajectory reveals a portfolio in gradual but consistent decline. Only 3 subjects — Law (+1), Philosophy (+1), and Psychology (+4) — have improved their global rank since 2023. The most alarming declines are in subjects central to LSE's identity: Social Policy (−4 places), Communication & Media (−3), Marketing (−3), and Sociology (−2). These are not marginal subjects — they represent LSE's core Social Sciences brand. The Psychology trajectory (+4) is particularly instructive: it demonstrates that focused investment in research output and employer engagement can yield measurable rank improvement even in a competitive landscape. This should serve as the model for intervention in declining subjects.
Source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2023, 2024, 2025. Movement = 2023 rank minus 2025 rank (positive = improved).
UK Head-to-Head: LSE vs Oxford vs Cambridge
Direct Rank Comparison Across 16 Shared Subjects · 2025
LSE beats Oxford
subjects where LSE ranks higher
LSE beats Cambridge
subjects where LSE ranks higher
LSE beats Both
Philosophy & Economics
Lower bar = better rank. N/R = Not Ranked in that subject.
- LSE
- Oxford
- Cambridge
| Subject | LSE | Oxford | Cambridge | vs Oxford | vs Cambridge | LSE Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | #2 | #5 | #6 | ▲ +3 | ▲ +4 | Both |
| Geography | #2 | #1 | #3 | ▼ -1 | ▲ +1 | Cambridge only |
| Development Studies | #3 | #2 | #6 | ▼ -1 | ▲ +3 | Cambridge only |
| Politics | #5 | #2 | #7 | ▼ -3 | ▲ +2 | Cambridge only |
| Sociology | #5 | #2 | #6 | ▼ -3 | ▲ +1 | Cambridge only |
| History | #6 | #2 | #3 | ▼ -4 | ▼ -3 | Neither |
| Social Sciences & Mgmt | #6 | #2 | #5 | ▼ -4 | ▼ -1 | Neither |
| Communication | #6 | N/R | #10 | — | ▲ +4 | Cambridge only |
| Law | #6 | #2 | #3 | ▼ -4 | ▼ -3 | Neither |
| Social Policy | #7 | #2 | #5 | ▼ -5 | ▼ -2 | Neither |
| Accounting | #8 | #4 | #6 | ▼ -4 | ▼ -2 | Neither |
| Economics | #8 | #9 | #10 | ▲ +1 | ▲ +2 | Both |
| Anthropology | #11 | #2 | #3 | ▼ -9 | ▼ -8 | Neither |
| Business | #12 | #5 | #5 | ▼ -7 | ▼ -7 | Neither |
| Marketing | #18 | N/R | #1 | — | ▼ -17 | Neither |
| Psychology | #19 | #2 | #4 | ▼ -17 | ▼ -15 | Neither |
The UK Competitive Landscape: Where LSE Leads and Lags
LSE's head-to-head record against Oxford and Cambridge reveals a nuanced competitive picture. The data shows LSE outranks Oxford in 2 of 14 comparable subjects (Philosophy and Economics) and outranks Cambridge in 7 of 16 subjects. A notable finding is that LSE leads both Oxford and Cambridge in Philosophy (#2) and Economics (#8) — the latter may carry particular significance given Economics is among LSE's most globally recognised disciplines. In subjects including History, Law, Social Policy, Accounting, Business, and Psychology, the data indicates LSE currently trails both institutions, which could point to areas where targeted campaign activity may support improved positioning over time. The Cambridge comparison appears more balanced overall — LSE leads in Geography, Development Studies, Politics, Sociology, Communication, Economics, and Law — suggesting Cambridge may represent a useful near-term UK benchmark for tracking progress across LSE's Social Sciences portfolio.
Source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025. N/R = institution not ranked in that subject. Positive movement = LSE ranks higher (better).
Reputation Positioning Map
Academic vs Employer Reputation Matrix · 12 Institutions · 2025
Hover over dots for institution details. Dashed diagonal = parity line (Academic Rep = Employer Rep). Points above = Employer-led; below = Academic-led.
Elite Balanced
High on both axes
Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford
Employer-Led Premium
Employer > Academic
NUS, Bocconi
Academic-Led (LSE)
Academic > Employer
LSE, Sciences Po
Developing Reputation
Building both pillars
UCL, King's, Edinburgh, Warwick
LSE's Unique Position in the Reputation Matrix
The Reputation Positioning Map offers a clear visual representation of LSE's positioning relative to its peer group. LSE sits in the lower-right quadrant: exceptionally high Academic Reputation (93.3 — third globally) but comparatively lower Employer Reputation (87.0). The dashed diagonal represents parity; every institution above the line is employer-led, and the data shows LSE sits furthest below it of any elite institution in this analysis. The reference lines (vertical: LSE's Academic score; horizontal: LSE's Employer score) create a contextual "target zone" — the institutions in the upper-right quadrant (Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford) may represent a useful aspirational reference group for LSE's positioning ambitions. The analysis suggests that LSE's Academic Reputation is already a world-class asset; the data points to a potential opportunity in converting that academic prestige into greater employer recognition — through graduate outcomes communications, employer engagement programmes, and alumni visibility campaigns — as an area that could support rank improvement over time.
Source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025. Scores represent average across all ranked subjects per institution. Parity line = Academic Rep = Employer Rep.
Specialist Advantage: LSE's Top-5 Subjects
Global Rank Comparison in LSE's Core Subjects · 12 Institutions · 2025
Lower bar = better rank. N/R institutions are excluded from bars.
- LSE
- Oxford
- Cambridge
- Harvard
- Stanford
- NUS
| Institution | Philosophy | Geography | Dev Studies | Politics | Sociology | Avg Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ★ LSE | #2 | #2 | #3 | #5 | #5 | 3.4 |
| Oxford | #5 | #1 | #2 | #2 | #2 | 2.4 |
| Cambridge | #6 | #3 | #6 | #7 | #6 | 5.6 |
| Harvard | #9 | N/R | #4 | #1 | #1 | 3.8 |
| Stanford | #15 | N/R | #8 | #5 | #3 | 7.8 |
| NUS | #25 | #6 | N/R | #10 | #15 | 14.0 |
| UCL | #39 | #4 | #12 | #22 | #22 | 19.8 |
| King's | #24 | #14 | #31 | #12 | #49 | 26.0 |
| Edinburgh | #22 | #21 | #60 | #31 | #30 | 32.8 |
| Sciences Po | #120 | N/R | #120 | #4 | #33 | 69.3 |
| Warwick | #75 | N/R | #75 | #64 | #66 | 70.0 |
| Bocconi | N/R | N/R | #120 | #71 | N/R | 95.5 |
LSE's Specialist Moat: Unmatched Concentration in Core Social Sciences
Across LSE's five core Social Sciences subjects — Philosophy, Geography, Development Studies, Politics, and Sociology — LSE achieves an average rank of 3.4. Only Oxford (2.4) achieves a better average across these five disciplines. Harvard (3.8) and Cambridge (5.6) trail LSE in this specialist cluster. This concentration of elite performance in a narrow disciplinary band is LSE's most powerful brand differentiator. No other institution outside of Oxford can match LSE's top-5 performance across all five subjects simultaneously. The campaign implication is clear: LSE should lead global reputation communications with these five subjects as the proof points of its world-class Social Sciences identity — they represent the strongest possible evidence of LSE's specialist excellence.
Source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025. N/R = not ranked. Avg Rank calculated across ranked subjects only.
Strategic Positioning Matrix
LSE Subject Portfolio — Rank Position vs 3-Year Trajectory · 2025
Crown Jewels
Protect & Amplify
Rising Stars
Accelerate Investment
At-Risk Portfolio
Urgent Intervention Required
Challenge Areas
Strategic Review Needed
Recommended Campaign Actions by Quadrant
Top-ranked AND improving/stable — LSE's global brand anchors
Lower-ranked but improving — demonstrate that investment works
Top-ranked but declining — highest priority for reputation defence
Lower-ranked and declining — requires strategic repositioning
From Analysis to Strategic Consideration
The Strategic Positioning Matrix translates three years of ranking data into a framework for strategic discussion. A notable finding is the size of the At-Risk Portfolio — 8 subjects currently ranked in the global top-10 that are showing declining trends. The data suggests this represents a meaningful area of attention for LSE's competitive positioning. The Crown Jewels (Philosophy, Geography, Development Studies) may benefit from active protection through targeted academic reputation campaigns, high-visibility research communications, and international scholar engagement — activities that the methodology analysis suggests could help sustain these positions. The Rising Stars (Law, Psychology) offer a potentially instructive reference point: their upward trajectories may provide useful insight into which approaches could be explored more broadly. The Challenge Areas (Anthropology, Business, Marketing) may warrant a considered review of where campaign investment could be most productively directed, and whether the competitive dynamics in these subjects present realistic pathways to top-10 positioning.
Source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2023–2025. Matrix axes: Rank Position (2025 global rank) and Trajectory (net rank change 2023–2025).
QS Subject Ranking Methodology
Indicator Weightings by Subject · Understanding What Drives Each Rank · QS 2025
Why the Methodology is Central to Campaign Strategy
The QS Subject Rankings use a different set of indicator weightings for each subject — meaning the same campaign activity will have very different impacts depending on which subject it targets. Understanding the methodology is therefore the foundation of any effective reputation campaign: it tells you exactly which activities will move the needle, and by how much. For example, a campaign targeting academic scholars will have a 70% impact in Sociology (where Academic Reputation carries 70% of the score) but only a 40% impact in Economics (where it carries 40%). Conversely, an employer engagement campaign will have a 30% impact in Law, Politics, and Business — but only 5–10% in Philosophy and Sociology.
The Reputation Dominance Fact
On average, 75% of each subject's QS score is determined by reputation surveys alone — making reputation campaigns the single most impactful investment LSE can make.
Click any bar to see the full subject methodology detail and campaign implications
| Subject | Academic Rep | Employer Rep | Citations | H-Index | IRN | Rep Total | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 75% | 5% | 10% | 10% | — | 80% | Arts & Humanities |
| Geography | 60% | 10% | 15% | 15% | — | 70% | Natural Sciences |
| Development Studies | 60% | 10% | 15% | 15% | — | 70% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Politics | 50% | 30% | 10% | 10% | — | 80% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Sociology | 70% | 10% | 5% | 15% | — | 80% | Social Sciences & Management |
| History | 60% | 10% | 15% | 15% | — | 70% | Arts & Humanities |
| Social Sciences & Mgmt | 50% | 30% | 10% | 10% | — | 80% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Communication & Media | 50% | 10% | 20% | 20% | — | 60% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Law & Legal Studies | 50% | 30% | 5% | 15% | — | 80% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Social Policy & Admin | 70% | 20% | — | 10% | — | 90% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Accounting & Finance | 50% | 30% | 10% | 10% | — | 80% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Economics & Econometrics | 40% | 20% | 20% | 20% | — | 60% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Anthropology | 70% | 10% | 10% | 10% | — | 80% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Business & Management | 50% | 30% | 10% | 10% | — | 80% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Marketing | 50% | 30% | 10% | 10% | — | 80% | Social Sciences & Management |
| Psychology | 40% | 20% | 15% | 15% | 10% | 60% | Life Sciences & Medicine |
The Reputation Dominance Principle
Across all 16 of LSE's ranked subjects, reputation surveys — Academic and Employer combined — account for between 60% and 90% of the total QS score. This is not a coincidence: QS designed the Social Sciences methodology to reflect the reality that in these disciplines, an institution's perceived standing among scholars and employers is the primary determinant of quality. Research metrics (Citations per Paper, H-Index) play a supporting role, particularly in subjects like Economics, Communication, and Psychology where empirical research output is more easily quantified.
The Campaign Efficiency Insight
Given that reputation surveys dominate the methodology, the data suggests reputation campaigns could represent one of the most efficient avenues for LSE to explore in the context of rank improvement. The methodology indicates that a 1-point improvement in Academic Reputation score could translate into a 0.4–0.7 point improvement in total subject score (depending on the subject's weighting). Across 16 subjects, a systematic academic reputation campaign that lifts the average score by even 1 point could potentially contribute to meaningful combined rank improvement — and may be more immediately responsive than equivalent investment in research output, which typically takes several years to materialise in citation metrics. These are indicative estimates; actual outcomes would depend on competitive dynamics across the peer group.
Source: QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025 Methodology. Indicator weightings are subject-specific and determined by QS based on the disciplinary category (Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences & Management, Natural Sciences, Life Sciences & Medicine, Engineering & Technology). Weightings shown are as published by QS for the 2025 edition. Academic Reputation survey: more than 151,000 academic respondents. Employer Reputation survey: more than 100,000 employer respondents. Rankings compiled using datapoints from 16.4 million academic papers. Citations per Paper and H-Index sourced from Scopus. International Research Network (IRN) measures the breadth of international research collaborations.