Aberdeen Competitive Market Position
QS Subject Rankings Analysis 2024–2025 · 21 subjects · 11 peer institutions · 5 indicator pillars
1. Market Position Overview
Aberdeen occupies the most challenging competitive position among the six target universities. Ranked in only 21 subjects with a single Top 50 placement (Theology #26), it trails Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St Andrews comprehensively across traditional academic disciplines. Its indicator profile reveals the widest research-reputation gap in the analysis (AR: 57, ER: 52 vs CPP: 83), and it trails the peer average on every single dimension. However, Aberdeen possesses a genuinely distinctive asset: energy-sector expertise (Petroleum Engineering, Mineral Engineering) that no Scottish peer can match.
2. Key Strategic Insights
Theology at #26 is Aberdeen's sole Top 50 subject and its most critical institutional asset — any upward movement here amplifies institutional visibility disproportionately.
Engineering - Mineral and Petroleum Engineering represent an uncontested niche: no Scottish peer institution appears in either ranking table, giving Aberdeen a differentiated global narrative.
Medicine (-19 to #194) and Law (-50 to #151-200) both experienced significant declines, risking erosion of reputation in two broad-appeal subjects that significantly influence external perceptions.
Aberdeen's CPP scores (80+) substantially exceed its AR scores (below 60) — a visibility problem rather than a quality problem, pointing to under-recognition of genuine research output.
Aberdeen trails the peer group on every single indicator dimension, with the widest comprehensive gap in the analysis: AR (-11.5), ER (-12.1), CPP (-4.3), H-index (-10.6), IRN (-12.2).
3. Five Strategic Priorities
Pivot the Petroleum and Mineral Engineering reputation from 'oil and gas' to 'energy transition leadership.' This unique niche offers Aberdeen a differentiated global narrative that Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St Andrews cannot contest.
As Aberdeen's only Top 50 subject, Theology requires sustained investment. Target academic visibility through international conference hosting, visiting scholars, and editorial leadership to defend against St Andrews (#2) and Edinburgh (#24).
Both subjects dropped significantly. Investigate root causes (faculty departures, methodology changes, research output shifts) and develop targeted interventions to halt further decline.
Given resource constraints, Aberdeen should focus reputation building on 3-4 subjects with highest conversion potential rather than attempting broad portfolio improvement. Energy subjects, Theology, and Earth Sciences offer the most viable paths.
Aberdeen's IRN score (58.4) is the weakest dimension. Building international collaborations — particularly with Nordic, energy-sector, and Gulf State institutions — could strengthen both research output and global visibility simultaneously.
4. Roadmap
Conduct root-cause analysis of Medicine and Law declines; commission targeted academic survey outreach for Theology; initiate energy transition narrative development for Petroleum and Mineral Engineering.
Launch international conference hosting programme in Theology and Earth Sciences; establish visiting scholar exchange partnerships with Nordic and Gulf State institutions; develop employer engagement strategy leveraging energy-sector credentials.
Build Aberdeen's global identity as the leading UK university for energy transition research; target Top 20 in Theology; achieve Top 100 in Earth & Marine Sciences and Archaeology.
Track QS Academic Reputation survey responses per subject; monitor IRN score trajectory annually; benchmark Theology rank against St Andrews and Edinburgh; measure employer survey response rates in energy sector.
Peer Rank Comparison Heatmap
Aberdeen's subject portfolio vs. 11 peers (QS 2025)
| Subject | Aberdeen | Edinburgh | Glasgow | St Andrews | Stirling | Heriot-Watt | Durham | Newcastle | York | Nottingham | Birmingham | Warwick |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theology | 26 | 24 | 51-100 | 2 | — | — | 6 | — | — | =23 | 51-100 | — |
| Archaeology | 51-100 | =29 | =50 | — | — | — | 6 | 51-100 | — | 101-150 | 151-200 | 151-200 |
| Eng. - Mineral | 51-100 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Petroleum Eng. | 51-100 | — | — | — | — | 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Anthropology | 51-100 | 51-100 | 51-100 | 51-100 | — | — | 51-100 | — | — | 51-100 | 51-100 | — |
| English Language | 151-200 | 7 | 51-100 | 51-100 | 51-100 | — | 33 | =82 | =33 | =93 | 29 | =34 |
| Philosophy | 151-200 | 41 | 51-100 | 14 | — | — | 51-100 | — | 51-100 | 51-100 | 101-150 | — |
| Agriculture | 151-200 | 101-150 | =48 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Earth & Marine Sci. | 151-200 | 38 | 101-150 | 51-100 | — | — | 12 | — | — | 51-100 | 51-100 | — |
| Law | 151-200 | 12 | =48 | 101-150 | — | — | 51-100 | 51-100 | 51-100 | 51-100 | =44 | =29 |
| Medicine | 194 | 24 | 38 | — | — | — | — | 51-100 | — | 51-100 | 57 | — |
| Geography | 201-250 | 21 | 101-150 | — | — | — | 11 | 36 | 51-100 | 51-100 | 51-100 | — |
Aberdeen Indicator Profile
Performance across 5 QS metrics (2025) — sorted by rank
| Subject | Rank | Academic Rep. | Employer Rep. | Citations/Paper | H-index | IRN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theology | #26 | 72.4 | 58.3 | 89.2 | 73.5 | — |
| Archaeology | #51-100 | 58.2 | 52.6 | 85.4 | 68.1 | — |
| Eng. - Mineral | #51-100 | 62.5 | 68.4 | 82.1 | 71.3 | — |
| Petroleum Eng. | #51-100 | 65.8 | 71.2 | 78.6 | 69.8 | — |
| Anthropology | #51-100 | 57.4 | 48.9 | 83.7 | 66.2 | — |
| English Language | #151-200 | 49.8 | 44.3 | 76.8 | 62.5 | — |
| Philosophy | #151-200 | 51.2 | 43.7 | 81.4 | 65.8 | — |
| Agriculture | #151-200 | 55.6 | 47.2 | 84.9 | 70.4 | — |
| Earth & Marine Sci. | #151-200 | 60.3 | 51.8 | 87.6 | 74.2 | — |
| Law | #151-200 | 48.6 | 46.1 | 79.3 | 61.7 | — |
| Medicine | #194 | 55.1 | 50.3 | 82.8 | 72.6 | 58.4 |
| Geography | #201-250 | 47.3 | 42.8 | 78.5 | 63.4 | — |
| Aberdeen Avg. | 57.0 -11.5 vs peers | 52.1 -12.1 vs peers | 82.5 -4.3 vs peers | 68.3 -10.6 vs peers | 58.4 -12.2 vs peers |
Peer Average Indicator Comparison
Aberdeen vs. peer group averages across 5 QS dimensions (2025)
- Aberdeen
- Peer Average
Rank Trajectory 2024 → 2025
Year-over-year subject movement
Scottish Head-to-Head
Aberdeen vs. Edinburgh, Glasgow & St Andrews (QS 2025) — ★ marks the leading institution per subject
| Subject | Aberdeen | Edinburgh | Glasgow | St Andrews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theology | 26 | 24 | 51-100 | ★2 |
| Archaeology | 51-100 | ★29 | 50 | — |
| Anthropology | ★51-100 | 51-100 | 51-100 | 51-100 |
| English Language | 151-200 | ★7 | 51-100 | 51-100 |
| Philosophy | 151-200 | 41 | 51-100 | ★14 |
| Agriculture | 151-200 | 101-150 | ★48 | — |
| Law | 151-200 | ★12 | 48 | 101-150 |
| Medicine | 194 | ★24 | 38 | — |
Reputation Positioning Map
Academic Reputation vs. Employer Reputation — all institutions (2025)
| Institution | Avg. Academic Rep. | Avg. Employer Rep. | Gap (AR−ER) | Position Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edinburgh | 78 | 77.2 | 0.8 | High Reputation |
| St Andrews | 74.8 | 66.3 | 8.5 | High Reputation |
| Durham | 74.1 | 70.7 | 3.4 | High Reputation |
| Glasgow | 72.5 | 68.8 | 3.7 | High Reputation |
| Warwick | 69.6 | 72.4 | -2.8 | Mid Tier |
| Birmingham | 68.7 | 67.2 | 1.5 | Mid Tier |
| York | 67.8 | 63.1 | 4.7 | Mid Tier |
| Nottingham | 67 | 67.7 | -0.7 | Mid Tier |
| Newcastle | 64.4 | 65.6 | -1.2 | Mid Tier |
| ▶ Aberdeen | 57 | 52.1 | 4.9 | Developing |
| Heriot-Watt | 55.2 | 58.6 | -3.4 | Developing |
| Stirling | 48.5 | 45.2 | 3.3 | Developing |
Specialist Advantage
Aberdeen's top 5 subjects vs. key peers (QS 2025)
Theology
Archaeology
Eng. - Mineral
★ Aberdeen leads — uncontested nichePetroleum Eng.
Anthropology
Strategic Positioning Matrix
Aberdeen subject portfolio classification by rank position and trajectory (2025)
Crown Jewels
Only Top 50 subject — institutional flagship
At Risk
Major decline — clinical reputation at risk
Catastrophic drop — urgent review needed
Specialist Niche
Uncontested niche — no Scottish peers ranked
Energy sector identity anchor
Competitive with Edinburgh & Glasgow
Challenge Areas
Far behind Scottish peers
Under-performing given geographic advantage
Minimal competitive visibility
QS Subject Rankings Methodology
Understanding the five indicator dimensions and subject-specific weightings
The QS World University Rankings by Subject evaluate universities across five core indicator dimensions. Each subject area applies a distinct weighting to these indicators, reflecting the different ways quality is measured across academic disciplines. Understanding these weightings is essential for identifying where targeted investment will yield the greatest rank improvement.
Derived from the QS Global Academic Survey, the world's largest survey of academic opinion. Academics are asked to identify institutions where they believe the best research is being produced in their field.
Derived from the QS Global Employer Survey, asking employers to identify the institutions they consider to produce the most competent, innovative, and effective graduates.
Measures research impact by calculating the average number of citations received per paper published by the institution in that subject area, using Scopus data.
Measures both the productivity and citation impact of published work. An institution's H-index in a subject is the largest number h such that h papers have at least h citations.
Measures the breadth and depth of an institution's international research collaborations, based on co-authored papers with institutions in different countries.
How QS Subject Rankings Work
QS collects responses from 151,000+ academics and 100,000+ employers globally, asking them to nominate institutions for research quality and graduate employability.
Using Scopus data, QS calculates Citations per Paper and H-index for each institution in each subject area, normalised by field.
Each subject applies its own indicator weighting (e.g., Theology: 70% AR, 10% ER, 10% CPP, 10% H-index), reflecting disciplinary norms.
Raw scores are normalised to a 0-100 scale within each subject, then combined using the subject-specific weights to produce a final score.