Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
Indicators
of the
UAE Higher Education Sector
Volume 1: Abridged
November 2012
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research
2
United Arab Emirates
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
3
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DATA AND STATISTICS (CHEDS)
INDICATORS OF THE UAE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR
2012
VOLUME 1: ABRIDGED
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
4
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
CHEDS Publication 2012: 11
A fuller version of this report (CHEDS 2012: 01) has been presented to the Minister for Higher
Education and Scientific Research, His Excellency Sheikh Nahayan bin Mubarak Al Nahayan. In
this abbreviated version, names of institutions have been removed. However, in graphs
showing institutions, each entry is a specific institution, albeit unnamed.
What is CHEDS?
The Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics (CHEDS), located within the Commission for
Academic Accreditation in the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, is the
national body for the collection, analysis and reporting of data on higher education in the UAE.
© 2012 Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
PO Box 45133
Abu Dhabi
United Arab Emirates
www.cheds.ae
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
5
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
TABLE OF CONTENTS :
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ...........................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 1: THE UAE HIGHER EDUCATION SCENE ..............................................................................7
1.1 The Institutions........................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 The Indicators ........................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Institutional Information: Governance & Scope Indicators ..................................................... 12
1.4 Human Capital .......................................................................................................................... 19
1.5 Research and Innovation .......................................................................................................... 23
1.6 Academic Programs .................................................................................................................. 25
1.7 Students and the Learning Environment ................................................................................. 26
1.8 Clusters of Institutions ............................................................................................................. 36
1.9 International Comparisons ....................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 2: DEFECTS IN THE DATA .................................................................................................. 54
2.1 Gaps in the Data ....................................................................................................................... 54
2.2 Incorrect Data........................................................................................................................... 54
2.3 Infeasible Data.......................................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 3: HOW TO IMPROVE THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS .................................................... 56
3.1 Delegation Level and Institutional Reviews ............................................................................. 56
3.2 Penalties and Fines ................................................................................................................... 57
3.3 Revised Data Request ............................................................................................................... 57
3.4 Submission System ................................................................................................................... 57
3.5 Data Schedule, 2012-2013 ....................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 4: FUTURE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 59
4.1 Clusters ..................................................................................................................................... 59
4.2 International Comparisons ....................................................................................................... 59
4.3 HE Factors................................................................................................................................. 60
4.4 CHEDS as the Main HE Data Source ......................................................................................... 60
4.5 Decision Support ...................................................................................................................... 60
4.6 Annual Reports. ........................................................................................................................ 61
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
2
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
4.7 Accessibility of Reports ........................................................................................................... 61
4.8 Freedom/Privacy of Information .............................................................................................. 62
APPENDIX 1: THE CHEDS TEAM ....................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX 2: THE CHEDS REFERENCE GROUP................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX 3: INDICATOR DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................ 66
APPENDIX 4: INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR STATUS .............................................................................. 71
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
3
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
His Excellency Sheikh Nahayan Bin Mubarak Al Nahayan, the Minister of Higher Education and Scientific
Research, issued decree No 347/year 2011 on 12 December 2011, to establish the Center for Higher
Education Data and Statistics (CHEDS). The primary responsibility of CHEDS will be to collect a wide set of
data from each higher education institution within the UAE, for the purposes of producing a
comprehensive picture of the UAE higher education sector, through facts-based reports on the
performance of the UAE higher education institutions and comparison with international norms and levels
of achievement. This will aid the Minister, the departments of the Ministry, the CAA and others in strategic
planning. Other tailored reports will be prepared to support the institutions in their self-monitoring,
expansion, and improvement of their services towards students and of the quality of their graduates.
CHEDS is also the focus for fulfilling regular statistical requests that are made by various governmental
and international official bodies, and will provide advice to institutions and other organisations, such as
the National Bureau of Statistics, National Development Council, TAWTEEN, UNESCO, etc, on the basis of
the data collected and analyses carried out.
A small project team (based on a Commissioner of the CAA, the officer in charge of the federal Data
Warehouse, and a Chief Statistician) was assembled to establish the basis on which CHEDS will operate,
and to this end it has worked with the institutions on data and indicators. The CHEDS team has:
established a Reference Group of stakeholders,
defined a comprehensive suite of 62 indicators and the corresponding 20 0+ data
elements,
designed and implemented a data collection system,
created a web site,
carried out an employer survey,
visited all institutions in the country,
advised and assisted institutions in submitting data and in re -submitting data that is more
complete and more correct,
processed the data submitted, and
compiled the indicators (to the extent that the data submitted allows) (Chapter 1).
The 62 CHEDS indicators were designed to achieve the purposes of the Center. The indicators are
commonly used internationally. In designing its indicators, CHEDS took account of the indicators
used by the Data Warehouse and the CAA, and included many of them, in order to permit as
much long-term continuity as possible in the statistical reporting. CHEDS also took account of
the indicators used by Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC) late in 2011 for a data-collection
activity within the Emirate, and the data collected by the Knowledge and Human Development
Authority (KHDA) from institutions in the Dubai free zones. This comprehensive approach was
adopted to make the new data collection as useful as possible across the whole country.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
4
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
The indicators are grouped into the following five functional areas:
Governance & finance
Academic programs
Research & innovation
Human capital
Students & learning environment
Some agencies collect indicator values or aggregate data from the institutions. This is simpler,
but more susceptible to vagaries of interpretation. CHEDS opted for a comprehensive collection
of raw data, with over 200 data elements. This has several advantages, mainly that it all ows
CHEDS to control the consistency of the calculation of each KPI across all institutions.
Furthermore, it provides the basis for a wide variety of follow up studies. This decision was made
despite the consequence being a lengthy process of data preparation and validation. The
validation criteria will be incrementally developed (some quality agencies use as many as 1000
validation criteria and conduct data auditing before computing publishable indicators), and as
the system matures, the level of confidence attributable to its indicators will increase. The
indicators will be used to carry out informative statistical analyses, and to fulfill accurately and in
timely manner statistical requests on behalf of the institutions. These analyses will include
financial robustness of institutions, completion and attrition rates, transfer of students between
institutions, quality of faculty and services, institutional targets, and identification of new programs
that may be offered.
The Center’s data collection replaces the data collection work previously done by the Data
Warehouse for the federal institutions and by the CAA for the CAA-licensed institutions.
This report on the completion of the pilot phase of the CHEDS project describes the progress
made and presents results computed on the basis of the data submitted. There are some
aggregate values for the whole country, as well as for some groups of institutions. The report
also discusses the challenges addressed during this phase (chapter 2).
The CHEDS project was very well received by the institutions when it was presented to them in
three one-day meetings (in Sharjah, Dubai and Abu Dhabi) in February 2012. Nonetheless, it was
a great challenge for them to provide all the requested data so soon after the project was
launched. The challenge was made greater by CHEDS requesting also the submission of the
previous Fall (2011) data, in order to increase the number of indicators that could be computed. This
was not an easy task, even for institutions possessing a sophisticated information system. Therefore, this
first collection is, as might have been expected, not all-inclusive. However, system improvements
will be implemented over the next year, beginning with the Fall 2012 data run. This first stage
consumed far more time than CHEDS was staffed to accommodate, in working with the
institutions, ‘cleaning’ the data, and personalizing the computational program according to the quality
and completeness of the submitted data. The difficulties mentioned above were not entirely
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
5
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
unexpected, as international experience shows that the establishment of an effective national
data system takes time and is an incremental and evolutionary process.
To achieve improvements in future, it will be necessary to work even more closely wit h the
institutions. The first step will be to provide a report to each individual institution, to detail the
results of their data submissions, to point out the inconsistencies and missing elements, to identify
problems and to clarify requirements. In the longer term, the staffing level of CHEDS will need to
provide for an adequate number of liaison staff to continue to work with the institutions on
successively refining their data collection and reporting. (See Chapters 3, 4.)
Also in the coming months, the CHEDS project team plans to produce further analyses based on
the first cycle of data collection (Chapter 4). One area will be international comparisons, starting
with an investigation of the national HE data collections in Australia, Germany, UK and U SA. The
team will also respond to any specific analysis requests from the Minister, His Excellency Sheikh
Nahayan or departments within the Ministry.
Even in this project phase, many statistical enquiries have been received by CHEDS, both from
within MOHESR and from other bodies. CHEDS’ Chief Statistician has responded to these on the
basis of prior data, but as CHEDS continues, the CHEDS data will increasingly be part of this mix.
Also, CHEDS should be resourced adequately to respond to the increasing num ber of requests.
It is anticipated that, by the end of 2012, CHEDS will be established according to the
specifications in the decree as a continuing entity which will continue to carry out regular data
collection and reporting.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
6
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
CHAPTER 1: THE UAE HIGHER EDUCATION SCENE
1.1 T HE I NSTITUTIONS
At the time of writing this report (October 2012), there are 102 higher education institutions
(HEIs) in the country. The precise number varies rather often as new ones are created and others
close or merge. Within this constituency are many different varieties of institutions, including
private and governmental, for-profit and not-for-profit, and institutions having different types of
recognition. Some are solely based in the UAE, while others are branches of institutions from
other countries. There are three institutions supported by the federal government (Higher
Colleges of Technology, UAE University and Zayed University), and referred to as ‘federal
institutions’, there are institutions that are licensed by the CAA and institutions that are not.
Some institutions are located within a recognized free zone in Dubai or Ras Al Khaimah. These
various categories overlap, and are listed in Table 1.1.1. (See also Appendix 4.)
T ABLE 1.1.1: DISTRIBUTION OF OPERATIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS OVER THE SEVEN
EMIRATES ( SEPTEMBER
2012).
TYPE
NO.
EMIRATE OF OPERATION ( MAIN CAMPUS OR HAVING BRANCH CAMPUS)
ABU
DUBAI
SHARJAH
AJMAN
DHABI
RAS
AL
FUJAIRAH
KHAIMAH
UMM
AL
QUWAIN
Federal/Governmental
3
3
2
1
X
1
1
X
CAA-
Operational
59
20 (4)
28 (1)
6 (2)
4
3
2 (3)
X
Private
Establishment
7
1
3
1
1
X
X
1
status
Stage
6
4
1
1
X
X
X
X
SUB TOTAL
75
28
34
9
5
4
3
1
not CAA-licensed - Free zone
27
X
21
X
X
6
X
X
102
29
56
8
5
10
3
1
licensed -
CAA-licensed - other
(5)
or others
GRAND TOTAL
(1) Includes University of Strathclyde Business School, UAE
(2) Includes Khalifa University of Science, Technology
& Research, Sharjah campus (3) Includes Ajman University campus
(4) Includes campus of EIBFS
(5) Institutions for the uniformed services
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
7
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
The federal institutions serve the whole country from different locations. UAE University (UAEU)
operates in Al Ain, Zayed University (ZU) operates in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and the Higher
Colleges of Technology (HCT) operate 16 campuses in six cities, namely Abu Dhabi, Al Ain, Dubai,
Sharjah, Ras Al Khaimah, and Fujairah. Each institution offers Foundation, Bachelor and Master
programs. In addition, UAEU offers PhD programs, while HCT offers Readiness, Diploma, and
Higher Diploma programs.
Their enrolment has increased by 22% from 2008/9 (33,144 students) to 2011/12 (40,433
students). This represents 37% of the enrolments at institutions recogn ized by MOHESR. See
Fig.1.1.2 for more detail.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
8
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
CAA-licensed institutions are private, non-federal, entities, regulated by the standards of the
Commission for Academic Accreditation of the federal Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific
Research. They are not funded by the federal government but some benefit from emirate
funding. Among CAA institutions are semi-government institutions, independent private
institutions, and branch campuses of international institutions. The number of CAA-licensed
institutions has increased from 54 to 74 in the last 5 years (2008-2011). In the same period,
enrollments at licensed institutions have increased from 52,926 to 69,509, an increase of 31%
(excluding specialized Police, Aviation, and Naval Colleges). Six of the 74 institutions are in the
establishment stage, and 12 are branch campuses of international institutions.
Non CAA-licensed free zone branch campuses are institutions operating under emirate
legislation, but without a federal license, within recognized f ree zones in Dubai and RAK. There
are 23 in Dubai, enrolling 13,000 students (according to the Dubai Bureau of Statistics), and five
in Ras Al Khaimah. The great majority of these institutions (2 6 of 28) are branch campuses of
international institutions, offering instruction toward degrees awarded by the home campus.
T ABLE 1.1.2: C OUNTRIES OF HOME INSTITUTIONS OF FREE ZONE BRANCH CAMPUSES
FREE ZONE
UK
USA
INDIA
AUSTRALIA
FRANCE
RUSSIA
PAKISTAN
IRAN
SWITZERLAND
NONE
DUBAI
8
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
0
2**
RAS AL KHAIMAH
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
** Allied Institute of Management Studies and National Institute of Vocational Education are not
branches of a foreign institution
During this first CHEDS data collection cycle, all 95 operating institutions in the country were
asked for data, and at least a partial data set was provided by 64 of them. All reported figures in
this report are based on that data, together with past data already submitted to the CAA or
MOHESR’s Data Warehouse.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
9
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.2 T HE I NDICATORS
The indicators were selected to give a comprehensive view of the operations and performance of each
institution within the country and are designed to be analyzed from many different vantage points. They
can be combined to analyze the entire sector, clusters of institutions can be combined to evaluate types
of institutions, geographic areas, or any other appropriate grouping, or they can be used to evaluate the
performance of individual institutions, or in comparison with another institution or group of institutions.
CHEDS believes that ranking institutions requires individual context, thus does not advocate a ranking
system based on the totality of the calculations. However, comparison of one institution to another, based
on the needs or criteria of individual requirement are appropriate, to this end, the CHEDS indicators are
an excellent source of comparative informatics.
The 62 indicators cover five functional areas of institutional performance:
SECTION
1
PERFORMANCE AREA
Institutional Information
NUMBER OF
INDICATORS
SUB-AREAS
Finances / Learning Investment
Student Aid
Scope - Programs and Partnerships
Educational Resources - Library
Learning Outcomes
Total
2
Human Capital
Faculty Load
Recruitment & Retention
Evaluation and Promotion
Quality of Instructors
Faculty Diversity
Total
2
4
2
1
4
13
2
5
1
8
Total
2
4
3
12
21
Total
Grand Total >>
1
4
2
7
62
Total
3
4
5
Research and Innovation
Academic Programs
Students
and
Environment
Institutional Investment
Productivity of Faculty
Student Engagement
Student & Alumni Satisfaction
Outside Learning Opportunities
Admissions and Selectivity
Student Attainment
Learning
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
4
1
3
3
2
13
Diversity
Loads
Class Sizes
10
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Discussion on the results in each area follows in the sec tions as shown, and Appendix 3 contains
the definitions of the indicators.
CHEDS initially planned to collect all the data from the institutions in April 2012, as this would
give enough time to clean, validate, and audit the data before processing and ana lyzing it,
interpreting the results and comparing them with international results, for a report later in the
year. Indeed, institutions began to submit data in April 2012, but it quickly became apparent that
more time would be required when preliminary analysis of the data submitted revealed that most
institutions would have to be requested to re-submit their data sets to reduce the number of
missing data elements, and correct inconsistencies that were observed during the preliminary
analysis. This occurred during the period May-August, and CHEDS produced a detailed analysis
of each institution’s data to assist them in filling the gaps.
CHEDS has computed the indicators that could be obtained from two semesters’ data for each
institution that submitted the needed data elements. Although, as noted in the introduction and
explained more fully in Chapter 2, the collection did not result in a complete data set, CHEDS has
successfully built a system that enables it to collect data and accurately compute indicator s,
subject to the availability of validated raw data. This is an asset to the country, and its value will
be increased as institutions provide more accurate and more complete data.
In Sections 1.3 to 1.7 are the national statistics which are based on CHED S indicators. Section 1.8
contains statistics on clusters which are composed of similar institutions according to several
dimensions. Section 1.9 contains some brief initial international information. Because of the
incompleteness of the data, different discussions are based on slightly different numbers of
institutions.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
11
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.3 I NSTITUTIONAL I NFORMATION : G OVERNANCE & S COPE I NDICATORS
(Indicators 1-13)
The 13 Governance & Scope indicators deal with revenues, expenditures, number of programs
offered, scholarships, number of accreditations and partnerships, library services, and employer
satisfaction.
1. Actual revenues and expenditures
The three federal institutions, 48 among the 59 operational civil CAA-licensed institutions and 2
other institutions submitted complete or partial financial data which consisted of the partition of
the budget of the current year into various types of revenues (tuition fees, donations, and
internal services) and expenditures (teaching, research, services, and administration) a nd their
corresponding actual/real figures for the last academic year 2010 -11.
In 2010-11, the total of the submitted actual expenditures is AED6199 million for an enrolment of
93,275 students out of the total 2010 enrolment of 103070 students. This enab les an estimate of
the national average annual cost per student as AED66,455 (USD18,108). On the other hand, the
total submitted revenues are AED6517 millions, relating to an enrolment of 92816 students. This
gives an estimate of the national average yearl y revenue per student as AED68,322 (USD18,600).
The annual cost per student is estimated as AED77,883 and AED58,586 for federal and CAA licensed institutions respectively, whereas the annual revenue per student is estimated as
AED75,148 and AED60,976 respectively. The cost per student varies very significantly between the
three federal institutions and it also varies considerably between CAA -licensed institutions. As
noted in Section 1.8.1, the annual cost and revenue per student for some CAA -licensed institutions
is significantly higher than the average figures of the federal ones whereas for others the figures
are around only AED35,000.
2. Budgeted revenues and expenditures
For the academic year 2011-12, the institutions that submitted financial data budgeted an expenditure
amount of AED6714 millions. These budgets show that the institutions expected their expenditures to
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
12
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
increase on average by 6.1% for a real increase in enrolment of 6.2%. The increase is 5.1% for federal
institutions for an increase of 4.9% in the enrolments. The budgeted increase in the expenditures of the
CAA-licensed institutions is 7% for an increase of 6.9 % in the enrolments.
Table 1.3.1 gives the distribution of the budgeted expenditure of the institutions. It shows that 21
institutions have a relatively small real expenditures budget (less than 20 million dirhams) in 2010-2011,
and seven CAA-licensed institutions had a real expenditure budget larger than 200 million dirhams.
Institutions with a budget less than 20 million dirhams are narrow specialization focused institutions.
T ABLE 1.3.1: D ISTRIBUTION OF INSTITUTIONS BASED ON TOTAL EXPENDITURES ( IN MILLION DIRHAMS )
less
than
20-
40-
60-
80-
100-
120-
200-
250-
300-
350-
400-
450-
500-
550-
1000-
20
40
60
80
100
120
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
1000
1500
Actual
21
12
2
5
0
1
0
3
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
Budget
19
10
4
3
3
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
The total expenditure is divided into three components, namely teaching, services and administrative and
others. The reported financial data of 2010-2011 shows that in the UAE 58% of the expenditures is
allocated to salaries of academic and administrative staff. This percentage is 69% and 46% for federal and
CAA-licensed institutions respectively. The significant difference will be investigated further in Section 1.3
because it is expected that this is due to the fact that many CAA institutions offer diploma degrees only
and therefore they do not require recruitment of terminal degree holders, while federal institutions hire a
very small number of part-time faculty.
AED468 million (15%) of the revenues of the CAA-licensed institutions is donated by local governments;
79% and 19% of it are donated by Abu Dhabi and Dubai governments respectively. Most of these
amounts represent tuition fees of students. The number of CAA-licensed institutions that are significantly
supported financially by local governments or business organisations is six.
3. Scope of the institutions
The scope is measured by the number of programs, their levels, areas of specialization and physical
infrastructure. The first grouping of the institutions based on the level of their programs is:
Institutions that offer only Diploma programs (9 CAA-licensed Institutions)
Institutions that offer up to Bachelor programs (18 CAA-licensed Institutions)
Institutions that offer up to Master programs (2 federal Institutions , and 29 CAA-licensed
Institutions)
Institutions that offer PhD programs (1 federal Institution and 8 CAA-licensed institutions).
During the current academic year, CAA-licensed institutions offered 619 programs with a total 778 majors
which are distributed over 10 areas of specialization: Arts & Design, Business & Economics, Education,
Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences, Engineering, Information Technology, Humanities & Social
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
13
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Sciences, Mass Communication, and Sharia & Law. Institutions were requested to submit the number of
programs but some of them submitted the number of majors. To ensure homogeneity, this report uses
the numbers of programs and majors which are available in the CAA Database.
Table 1.3.2 gives the nine institutions that offer only Diploma degrees (53 majors in 43 programs). This
group of institutions is analysed as a cluster in Section 1.8. The number of enrolments in this cluster,
excluding Horizon International Flight Academy, is 3,737 students, of which 74% are UAE National
students. The enrolment is evenly distributed over gender and represents 5% of the total enrolment of the
CAA-licensed institutions.
T ABLE 1.3.2 : I NSTITUTIONS THAT OFFER ONLY D IPLOMA PROGRAMS ( CLUSTER 1)
INSTITUTION
PROGRAMS
MAJORS
Abu Dhabi Polytechnic
2
2
Abu Dhabi Vocational Education and Training Institute
20
20
Al Ain International Aviation Academy
5
5
Computer College
3
6
Emirates College for Management and Information Technology
2
2
Emirates College of Technology
6
6
European International College
2
5
Horizon International Flight Academy, Al Ain
1
2
Syscoms College
2
5
43
53
Total
Table 1.3.3 indicates that 18 institutions offer Diploma & Bachelor degree or Bachelor programs only. This
second cluster (Section 1.8) offers 38 Bachelor programs (58 Majors) and 10 Diplomas (15 majors), for an
enrolment of 8,305, where 55% of them are UAE nationals.
T ABLE 1.3.3: I NSTITUTIONS THAT OFFER PROGRAMS UP TO B ACHELOR LEVEL ( CLUSTER 2).
INSTITUTION
DIPLOMA
BACHELOR
PROGRAMS
MAJOR
PROGRAMS
MAJOR
Al Khawarizmi International College
5
10
2
5
American College of Dubai
0
0
1
1
American University of Ras Al Khaimah
0
0
4
6
City University College of Ajman
0
0
1
4
Dubai Medical College for Girls
0
0
1
1
Dubai Pharmacy College
0
0
1
1
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
14
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Emirates Canadian University College
Emirates Institute for Banking and Financial
Studies
0
0
2
4
3
3
1
1
Fatima College of Health Sciences
0
0
1
1
Fujairah College
2
2
2
4
Imam Malik College for Islamic Sharia and Law
0
0
2
2
Jumeira University
0
0
2
5
Naval College
0
0
1
1
New York University, Abu Dhabi
0
0
10
10
Police Sciences Academy- Sharjah
0
0
1
1
University College of Mother and Family Sciences
0
0
1
1
University of Jazeera
0
0
4
8
University of Saint Joseph
0
0
1
0
10
15
38
56
Total
Table 1.3.4 shows that there are 29 CAA-licensed institutions that offer programs up to Master level (a
third cluster). The total enrolments of this cluster is 35,122 students (representing 50% of the enrolments
of CAA institutions) and the number of their Diploma, Bachelor, Graduate Diploma and Master programs
is 22, 154, 12 and 114 programs respectively. 39% of their students are UAE national students.
T ABLE 1.3.4: I NSTITUTIONS THAT OFFER PROGRAMS UP TO M ASTER L EVEL ( CLUSTER 3)
Institution
Diploma
Bachelor
PG Diploma
Master
Programs
Major
Programs
Major
Programs
Major
Programs
Major
Abu Dhabi School of Mngmnt
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
Ajman University of Science
0
0
24
32
1
1
8
11
0
0
10
16
1
7
4
9
Al Ghurair University
0
0
7
12
0
0
1
3
Al Hosn University
1
1
12
13
2
2
4
9
American University in Dubai
1
1
11
21
0
0
4
6
American Univ in the Emirates
0
0
9
20
0
0
3
3
American University of
0
0
26
32
1
1
14
14
Canadian University of Dubai
1
1
10
15
0
0
1
5
Dubai School of Government
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Emirates Academy of
2
2
4
4
0
0
1
1
and Technology
Al Ain University of Science &
Technology
Sharjah
Hospitality Management
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
15
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Emirates Aviation College
5
5
3
3
2
4
1
4
European University College
1
1
0
0
5
5
4
4
Gulf Medical University
1
1
4
4
0
0
3
3
Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-
2
2
5
5
0
0
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
4
4
0
0
1
1
8
8
0
0
1
1
9
9
Petroleum Institute
0
0
7
7
0
0
11
11
Police College, Abu Dhabi
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
Ras Al Khaimah Medical and
0
0
4
4
0
0
3
3
0
0
4
4
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Skyline University College
0
0
5
5
0
0
1
3
Tufts University Friedman
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
22
22
154
207
15
23
114
144
(Previously Nicolas & Asp
University College)
University
Insead- The Business School
for the World, Abu Dhabi
Institute of Management
Technology-Dubai
Masdar Institute of Science
and Technology
New York Institute of
Technology
Paris Sorbonne University,
Abu Dhabi
Health Sciences University
Rochester Institute of
Technology- Dubai
Royal College of Surgeons in
Ireland- Dubai
School- RAK
University of Modern
Sciences
University of Strathclyde
Business School- UAE
Total
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
16
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Eight CAA-licensed institutions offer PhD programs (Cluster 4, Table 1.3.5). Their total enrolment is 22,486,
of which 42% are UAE National students. Only one institution is a branch campus of an overseas
institution. The other 11 Branch campuses focus more on non-PhD level programs.
T ABLE 1.3.5: I NSTITUTIONS THAT OFFERS PROGRAMS UP TO P H D L EVEL ( CLUSTER 4)
Institution
Diploma
Bachelor
PG Diploma
Major
Programs
Major
Master
Programs
Doctorate
Programs
Major
Programs
Major
Programs
Major
0
0
27
27
1
1
9
11
1
1
0
0
4
5
15
19
11
16
2
2
2
2
0
0
4
4
6
6
3
3
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
4
2
4
0
0
14
14
0
0
5
5
1
3
0
0
2
11
0
0
2
5
1
1
9
9
47
51
1
1
16
16
4
4
0
0
15
15
0
0
12
12
2
2
11
11
111
125
21
25
63
75
16
20
Abu Dhabi
University
British Univ in
Dubai
Dubai Police
Academy
Islamic and
Arabic Studies
College-Dubai
Khalifa
University
University of
Dubai
University of
Sharjah
University of
Wollongong In
Dubai
Total
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
17
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
4. International accreditation & partnership
CHEDS asked institutions to submit the name of the international accrediting body if they possess either
or both of the types of international accreditation, namely institutional and program accreditation. Table
1.3.6 gives the list and type of accreditation and it indicates that about a third (19) of the 62 operational
institutions (59 CAA-licensed civil institutions and the three federal ones) have at least one international
accreditation.
T ABLE 1.3.6: I NSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION
Name of Institution
Accrediting - International body
INSEAD, Abu Dhabi
Khalifa University of Science, Technology &
Research
AACSB (USA), EQUIS (Europe)
Masdar Institute of Science & Technology
ABET, SACS (USA)
New York Institute of Technology
MSCHE (USA)
New York University, Abu Dhabi
MSCHE (USA)
Paris Sorbonne University, Abu Dhabi
AERES (France) , EQUIS (Europe)
University of Strathclyde Business School- UAE
AMBA (UK), EQUIS (Europe), AACSB (USA)
United Arab Emirates University
AACSB, ABET, CQAIE (USA), CSC, AIC (Canada), RSC(UK)
Zayed University
Higher Colleges of Technology
IAA, MSCHE (USA)
ABET, ACBSP, ACEJMC, CEA, ChemE, GCAA, IBMS, TEAC
(USA), CIPS, SCOR, SQA (UK), HIMAA (Australia)
American University in Dubai
ABET, SACSCOC, IACBE, IAA (USA)
Emirates Academy of Hospitality Management
IH(UK ), ICETHE (Australia)
Institute of Management Technology
IACBE (USA)
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland- Dubai
EQUIS (Europe)
Rochester Institute of Technology
MSCHE (USA)
University of Dubai
AACSB, ABET (USA)
University of Wollongong in Dubai
TEQSA (Australia)
American University of Sharjah
MSCHE, AACSB, ABET, NAAB, ACEJMC (USA)
University of Sharjah
ABET (USA)
IET (UK)
CHEDS also requested institutions to indicate if they have active partnership with international institutions
but this data element was not given a priority by the officers that were in charge of data submission and
they did not provide it. On the other hand, CHEDS had two data elements concerning student mobility
which could be used to estimate the strength of the partnership but few institutions reported that they
have exchange students during the current academic year.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
18
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.4 H UMAN C APITAL
(Indicators 43-55)
International quality agencies compute indicators that measure the quality and degree of satisfaction of
faculty of HE institutions. CHEDS defined indicators related to their rank, nationality, age, degree level,
university of origin, percentage of female faculty, percentage of full time faculty, teaching load and
student to faculty ratio. In this section are key findings for the country.
The last two rows of Table 1.4.1 show that there are 5489 Full time faculty and 959 Adjunct Faculty in 53
CAA-licensed civil institutions and the three federal institutions, for a total student enrolment of 109,441.
Using a conversion of two adjunct faculty members being equivalent to one full time faculty member, to
obtain ‘effective full time faculty’ (EFT), the national non-adjusted student to faculty ratio is 18.3. Also, the
ratio of Adjunct to Full time Faculty is 0.17. The values of these two important indicators are 16 and 0.05
respectively for the federal institutions whereas they are 20 and 0.27 for CAA institutions. It is relevant to
observe that the CAA Standards limit the adjunct/full-time faculty ratio to 0.25.
T ABLE 1.4.1: S TATISTICS OF FACULTY MEMBERS IN THE COUNTRY
Number
Federal
CAA
Total
%age
FT
2380
3109
5489
*
PT
109
850
959
17%
EFT
2434.5
3534
5968
*
FT-Male
1546
2227
3773
69%
FT-Female
834
882
1716
31%
PT-Male
29
432
461
48%
PT-Female
80
418
498
52%
As shown in the last line of Table 1.4.1, female full time faculty represents 31% of the population of fulltime faculty in the UAE. This percentage is 35% for the federal institutions and 28% for the CAA-licensed
institutions. The adjunct faculty are evenly distributed over the genders.
T ABLE 1.4.2: D ISTRIBUTION OF FULL - TIME FACULTY BY NATIONALITY
Number
Federal
CAA
Total
%age
UAE
198
53
251
4.6%
GCC
4
7
11
0.2%
Other Arabs
419
1275
1694
30.96%
US, UK, Canada
1157
769
1926
35.1%
India
60
311
371
6.8%
others
542
694
1236
22.5%
Table 1.4.2 shows that the faculty population is diverse.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
19
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Table 1.4.3 gives statistics of the countries/regions where their final degree was obtained.
T ABLE 1.4.3: D ISTRIBUTION OF FULL - TIME FACULTY BY COUNTRY OF STUDY
Number
Federal
CAA
Total
%age
UAE
20
46
66
1%
GCC
1
25
26
0%
Other Arabs
53
658
711
13%
US, UK, Canada
889
1336
2225
41%
India
23
283
306
6%
others
1394
761
2155
39%
The partition of the full time faculty over their academic rank is given in Table 1.4.4. The high percentage
of lecturers / instructors is due to the large number of faculty whose highest qualification is at Master
level in those institutions that offer programs only up to Diploma, and in HCT, where 80% of the faculty
are master or bachelor holders.
T ABLE 1.4.4: D ISTRIBUTION OF F ULL TIME F ACULTY PER A CADEMIC R ANK
Number
Federal
CAA
Total
%age
Professor
190
382
572
10%
Associate
Professor
303
675
978
18%
Assistant
Professor
501
1099
1600
29%
Lecturer
1288
757
2045
37%
Instructor
98
195
293
5%
The first rows of Table 1.4.5 give the distribution of the age of faculty according to their rank in the
country. They show that nationally the age of 12% faculty is over 60 years and the age of only 25% of the
faculty is less than 40 years. There is not a significant difference between the distribution of faculty of CAA
institutions and the federal ones except for the first two categories (younger than 40). It appears that CAA
institutions tend to hire younger faculty more than the federal ones.
T ABLE 1.4.5: D ISTRIBUTION OF AGE OF F ULL TIME F ACULTY
TYPE
RANK
Professor
Associate Professor
UAE
Assistant Professor
Lecturer
COUNT
20-30-
30-40-
40-50-
50-60-
60-70-
70+
525
0
22
96
214
174
19
%
0.00%
4%
18%
41%
33.1%
3.62%
893
%
1
0.11%
109
12%
396
44%
278
31%
103
11.5%
6
0.67%
1416
22
492
538
268
93
3
%
1.55%
35%
38%
19%
6.6%
0.21%
1825
%
52
2.85%
463
25%
670
37%
489
27%
146
8.0%
5
0.27%
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
20
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
TYPE
RANK
Instructor
COUNT
20-30-
194
%
15
7.73%
4853*
All ranks
Federal
Institutions
All ranks
CAA
Institutions
All ranks
30-40-
40-50-
50-60-
60-70-
50
26%
71
37%
38
20%
20
10.3%
0
0.00%
90
1136
1771
1287
536
33
%
1.85%
23%
36%
27%
11.0%
0.68%
1942
%
14
0.72%
330
17%
770
40%
600
31%
222
11.4%
6
0.31%
2911
76
806
1001
687
314
27
28%
34%
24%
10.8%
0.93%
%
2.61%
* The age of about 1000 faculty was not reported
70+
Table 1.4.6 summarizes information on the retention of faculty members at their institutions. 24% of the
Faculty served their institutions for more than 12 years. However, 63% of the Faculty worked for less than
six years at their institutions, and this could have a negative impact on the development of research
groups within institutions, and building partnerships with companies in the country. This percentage is
slightly higher (69%) for CAA institutions which could be due to the relatively large increase in their
number and the increase (30%) in their enrolments during the last five years. CHEDS does not expect that
this indicator could be compared widely with international values due to the fact that most of the faculty
are international and hired on a contract. However, comparison with other GCC countries might be useful.
T ABLE 1.4.6: D ISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF YEARS OF FULL - TIME FACULTY AT THE INSTITUTIONS
TYPE
RANK
Professor
Associate
Professor
UAE
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
COUNT
0-3-
3-6-
6-9-
9-12-
12-15-
15+
516
148
108
85
58
78
39
%
28.7%
20.9%
16.5%
11.2%
15.1%
7.6%
855
224
211
178
93
99
50
%
26.2%
24.7%
20.8%
10.9%
11.6%
5.8%
1350
550
447
162
60
52
79
%
40.7%
33.1%
12.0%
4.4%
3.9%
5.9%
1766
467
517
310
187
144
141
%
26.4%
29.3%
17.6%
10.6%
8.2%
8.0%
177
61
53
27
12
8
16
%
34.5%
29.9%
15.3%
6.8%
4.5%
9.0%
Instructor
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
21
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
TYPE
RANK
All ranks
Federal
Institutions
CAA
Institutions
All ranks
All ranks
COUNT
0-3-
3-6-
6-9-
9-12-
12-15-
15+
4664
1450
1336
762
410
381
325
%
31.1%
28.6%
16.3%
8.8%
8.2%
7.0%
1940
409
475
322
237
195
302
%
21.1%
24.5%
16.6%
12.2%
10.1%
15.6%
2724
1041
861
440
173
186
23
%
38.2%
31.6%
16.2%
6.4%
6.8%
0.8%
See also Section 1.8.4.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
22
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.5 R ESEARCH AND I NNOVATION
(Indicators 14-21)
Research indicators usually include research funding, PhD programs and enrolments, publications in
journals and conference attendance. CHEDS developed eight indicators covering these aspects to evaluate
the research performance of the institutions. This area showed the greatest shortcomings in the data and
required the most attention by CHEDS staff to convert it to a usable form. Hence the reported results
should be treated with caution.
The reported financial data of the institutions implies that most of them do not have an operational
budget for research. Only three institutions reported their budgeted research expenses for the current
year and last year’s real budget. Seven other institutions reported that their operational research budget
was less than AED200,000 in the academic year 2010-2011. There are only 13 institutions that have a
research budget greater than AED100, 000. 41 institutions did not report their operational research
budget.
Furthermore, CHEDS learned that the majority of institutions do not possess a system which enables them
to record and validate the publications of their faculty. Only a few institutions submitted the number, type,
and titles of the publications, books and patents for each of their faculty members. However, the reported
information does not comply with CHEDS request of only last year’s publications, books and patents. Due
to this noncompliance and the noncompliance with the definition of a book, leading to unreliability of the
resulting indicators, CHEDS decided not to publish them. (CHEDS has modified the data template to
attempt to ensure that institutions comply with the definitions of the various types of publication,
including year of publication.)
In order to ‘measure’ publications, CHEDS computed a ‘score’ as follows. CHEDS assigns one point to a
single-authored journal paper, 0.5 point for co-authored paper if the author is not a faculty member at
the institution, and 0.5 point for a single-authored conference paper. The resulting score could be
regarded as an ‘Equivalent Single-published paper in a journal during one academic year’. This scoring
approach is to measure competency and engagement of faculty (holders of a PhD) in research.
As CHEDS does not know whether the absence of submitted research data is due to the absence of
research output or to the non-collection of data on time, Table 1.5.1 and Fig 1.5.1 present two values of
the score. The first includes only institutions that submitted research data whereas the second considers
the non-submission as ‘no research production’.
Table 1.5.1 : Publication score of the clusters
up
Up
Up
Up
Abu
to
to
to
to
Small Medium Large Federal CAADhabi
Dubai Northern
Dip.
BS
MSc PhD Instns
Instns
Instns Instns
Instns Emirate Emirate Emirates
Data
0.24 0.35 0.79 0.62 0.92
0.87 0.59
0.53
0.73
0.62
0.77
0.62
provided
All instns
0.17 0.16 0.67
0.49
0.64
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
0.61
0.49
0.48
0.63
0.36
0.52
0.49
23
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
The score of the institutions that offer PhD programs (Cluster 4) is smaller than the score of institutions
that offer up to Master Programs which have on average an equivalent of one journal paper per PhD
holder. Also, the score of large institutions is significantly smaller than those of small and medium
institutions. The highest average score is obtained by the cluster of small institutions (Cluster 5; <1000
students), namely about one equivalent single-published paper in a Journal. This could be due to the fact
that this group contains focused institutions.
On the other hand, institutions in Dubai seem to be more active in research than those in Abu Dhabi and
Northern emirates.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
24
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.6 A CADEMIC P ROGRAMS
(Indicators 22-42)
1.6.1 Access of new students
Data reported from institutions show that the total number of new applicants is 69,870 (from UAE and
abroad) and places were offered to 42,079 (60%), resulting in 30,263 new students at all level of studies.
However, CHEDS traced 28,873 new students from the reported raw student data. The discrepancy
between the two numbers is only 5% and may be due to new students at the institution but transferring
from another institution being reported as transferred students rather than new; or because this first pilot
collection took place in spring and retrospectively requested fall data (or, of course, because of errors in
the data).
The 28,873 new students are composed of 25,044 undergraduate students and 3,829 new graduate
students. The new students were admitted to the various areas of specialization as shown in Figs 1.6.1 &
1.6.2, which indicate that Foreign languages, Arts, Science, and Education programs have the smallest
intakes, whereas Business Administration, and Engineering programs have the highest intakes.
CHEDS received the high school scores of 22,321 new students from the 25,044 students who appeared in
the student records. The analysis of their high school scores indicates that the average score is 81%, the
median is 81.5%, 25% of them had a score greater than 89%, and 25% had a score less than 74%. (The
minimum admission score is 60%.)
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
25
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.6.2 Transfer of students
The number of students that had transferred from another institution is 6006, representing 5.5% of the
total enrolments. There were 5042 transfers within the UAE, 171 from GCC, 224 from other Arab countries,
and 569 from other countries. This implies a high level of stability in educational attendance.
1.7 S TUDENTS AND THE L EARNING E NVIRONMENT
(Indicators 56-62)
1.7.1 Enrolments
In the academic year 2011-12, the 109,942 higher education students in the UAE were enrolled in a large
number of programs at different levels. Fig. 1.7.1 & Table 1.7.1 show the following:

62% of HE students are UAE nationals

37% of HE students are enrolled in the federal institutions

58% of HE students are female students
T ABLE 1.7.1: D ISTRIBUTION OF ENROLMENTS BY NATIONALITY AND GENDER – A CADEMIC YEAR 2011-12
Enrolments
Nationality
Gender
Number
Total-1
Total-2
UAE
UAE
Nationals
Private Institutions
Expatriates
UAE Nationals
Expatriates
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
26773 41079 19714 22376 16361 14238 18451 20459
67,852 (62%) 42,090 (38%)
30,599 (44%)
38,910 (56%)
109,942
69,509 (63%)
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
Federal Institutions
UAE Nationals
Expatriates
M
F
M
F
10412 26841 1263 1917
37,253 (92%)
3180 (8%)
40,433 (37%)
26
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Fig.1.7.2 and Table 1.7.2 show that:
21% of the students are enrolled in Diploma & Higher Diploma programs;
67% of the students are enrolled in Bachelor programs,
11.7% of the students are enrolled in Postgraduate Diploma & Master programs,
0.3% of them are PhD students.
T ABLE 1.7.2 : D ISTRIBUTION OF ENROLMENTS – A CADEMIC YEAR 2011-12
Nationality
Federal
Institutions
Private
Institutions
Total
Diploma
Nationals Expatriates
Bachelor
Nationals Expatriates
PG-Diploma &MSc
Nationals Expatriates
PhD
Nationals Expatriates
12,192
226
19,667
2731
5331
167
61
58
5978
4542
21,340
30,109
3170
4202
111
57
18,170
4768
41,007
32,840
8501
4369
172
115
The numbers of national and expatriate students are nearly equal (53% & 47% respectively) for graduate
and bachelor programs whereas UAE national students represent 78% of the enrolments of diploma and
higher diploma programs.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
27
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
The partition of UAE National students according to the level of study is as follows (see Fig. 1.7.3):
26.8% of UAE Nationals are enrolled in Diploma and Higher Diploma programs
60.4% of them are enrolled in Bachelor programs
12.5% of them are enrolled in Postgraduate Diploma and Master programs
0.3% UAE National students are enrolled in PhD programs
Fig.1.7.4 shows that the distribution of expatriate students by level of study is different from that of UAE
nationals :
Only 11.3% of the Expatriate students are enrolled in Diploma & Higher Diploma programs
78% of the Expatriates are enrolled in Bachelor programs
10.4% of them are enrolled in PG – Diploma & Master programs
0.3% of them are PhD students
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
28
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
The National Bureau of Statistics provided some statistics to CHEDS from which CHEDS estimated that the
total number of UAE nationals whose age is between 18 and 23 is 119,720 (59,120 Males, and 60,600
Females). This means that 57% of the UAE National population of this age band are enrolled in higher
education. This percentage is 68% for females and 45% for males.
1.7.2 Enrolment Growth (2008-2011)
Figure 1.7.5 illustrates the significant growth of the total enrolments in higher education institutions
during the last four academic years. In the academic year 2011-12, the total enrolments increased to
109,942 from 103,641 students in 2010-11, an increase of 6%. This increase is also 6% for the federal and
the private institutions considered separately.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
29
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Growth of Number of UAE National students in 2008-2011
Figure 1.7.6 depicts the growth of male and female UAE national students between 2008 and 2011.
The total number of UAE national students has increased for each academic year since 2008-09 in both
federal and private institutions. In fact, their number increased from 52,577 in 2008-09 to 67,852 in 2011,
an increase of 29% in four years. The number of male students has increased more in the private
institutions (57%) than in the federal ones (25%) whereas that of female students has increased by 30% in
the private institutions and by 17% in the federal ones.
Female UAE nationals prefer to enroll in federal institutions: 65% of them are enrolled in the federal
institutions whereas this percentage is only 39% for male students. On the other hand, the number of UAE
male students in the private institutions became greater than that of female ones since 2009. It may also
be seen that the percentage of UAE male students represented 35% of UAE national students in 2008 and
it has increased to 39% in 2011-12.
Growth of number of Expatriate students in 2008-2011
As for UAE national students, the number of expatriate students has increased. It rose from 33,513 (in
2008) to 42,090 (in 2011), increasing for both genders. See Fig.1.7.7. The three-year increase is only 26%
which is less than that of UAE national students (29%). This percentage is 21% and 30% for male and
female expatriate students respectively. 93% of expatriate students are enrolled in the private institutions.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
30
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.7.3 Distribution of students by area of specialisation
Figures 1.7.8-9 and Table 1.7.3 show the distribution of students over the broad areas of specialization.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
31
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
T ABLE 1.7.3: S TATISTICS OF E NROLMENTS 2011-12
Area of Specialization
Arts &Design
UAE Nationals
M
F
30
946
Expatriates
M
F
192
941
Total
2109
All
%age
1.9%
Business Administration
Education
Engineering
Foundation& Undeclared
Information Technology
Languages
7687
136
5098
3704
2119
64
11,319
2250
3753
7170
3586
571
6996
259
5436
658
1285
145
5959
1450
2742
536
738
429
31,961
4095
17,029
12,068
7728
1209
29.1%
3.7%
15.5%
11.0%
7.0%
1.1%
Law &Sharia
Mass Communication
Medical& Health Sciences
Science
Social Sci.& Humanities
5500
1671
379
87
298
3360
2919
2132
580
2493
1826
861
1286
230
540
1444
1590
4209
363
1975
12,130
7041
8006
1260
5306
11.0%
6.4%
7.3%
1.1%
4.8%
Total
26,773
41,079
19,714
22,376
109,942
100.0%
Total--Nationality
67,852
42,090
109,942
100.0%
The number of national students is greater than that of expatriates in all areas of specialization except
Arts & Design, Languages, and Medical & Health Sciences (Table 1.7.3).
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
32
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Fig.1.7.9 shows that UAE national male students represent less than 10% of the enrolments in six areas of
specialization, namely Arts & Design, Education, Languages, Medical & Health Sciences, Sciences, and
Social Sciences & Humanities. On the other hand, the percentage of male expatriates is less than 10% in
only two areas, namely Arts & Design and Languages.
Table 1.7.4 gives the distribution of students across the various areas of specialization for each gender
and nationality excluding those enrolled in foundation programs.
T ABLE .1.7.4: R ELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF ENROLMENTS BY GENDER AND NATIONALITY
UAE Nationals
Area of Specialization
Expatriates
Arts &Design
Business Administration
Education
Engineering
Information Technology
Languages
M
0.1%
33.3%
0.6%
22.1%
9.2%
0.3%
F
2.8%
33.4%
6.6%
11.1%
10.6%
1.7%
M
1.0%
36.7%
1.4%
28.5%
6.7%
0.8%
F
4.3%
27.3%
6.6%
12.6%
3.4%
2.0%
Law &Sharia
Mass Communication
Medical& Health Sciences
Science
Social Sci.& Humanities
23.8%
7.2%
1.6%
0.4%
1.3%
9.9%
8.6%
6.3%
1.7%
7.4%
9.6%
4.5%
6.7%
1.2%
2.8%
6.6%
7.3%
19.3%
1.7%
9.0%
Total
100%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
This shows that all students, regardless of nationality or gender, prefer business administration programs.
The second and third choices for UAE male students are Law & Sharia and Engineering programs but the
number of programs offered in Engineering is very large. In summary, about 80% of UAE male students
are enrolled in these three areas (BA, Law & Sharia and Engineering). Furthermore, there has been a
significant increase in the number of UAE national students enrolled in Law & Sharia over the last three
years.
For UAE female students, specialization is nearly evenly in Engineering, IT, Education, Medical Sciences,
Law, and Social Sciences. At the other end of the scale, only 6% of UAE female students are enrolled in the
three areas of Science, Arts & Design and Languages.
The distribution of expatriate male students is somewhat similar to that of UAE national males. The main
difference is that the percentage of Law & Sharia is relatively small (only 9.6%). The main difference
between the distribution of female expatriates and that of female UAE nationals is that Medical Sciences is
the second preferred specialization (19.3%) whereas this percentage is only 6.3% for UAE national female
students. The areas of Science and Languages are avoided by both male & female expatriate students.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
33
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Table 1.7.5 gives the distribution of students by area of specialization and by type of institution (federal &
private), providing further details on the concentration of students.
T ABLE 1.7.5: D ISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY AREA OF SPECIALIZATION & TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Specialization
Arts &Design
Business
Administration
Education
Engineering
Foundation&
Undeclared
Information
Technology
Languages
UAE-Nationals
Male
Private Federal
22
8
Female
Private Federal
347
599
Total
976
Expatriates
Male
Female
Private Federal Private Federal
191
1
929
12
Total
1133
5069
2618
4052
7267
19006
6519
477
5411
548
12955
96
2311
40
2787
550
1690
1700
2063
2386
8851
243
5190
16
246
1324
2525
126
217
1709
8178
690
3014
620
6550
10874
585
73
383
153
1194
1184
935
1014
2572
5705
1203
82
706
32
2023
64
0
270
301
635
143
2
351
78
574
Law &Sharia
Mass
Communication
Medical&
Health Sciences
Science
Social
Sci.&
Humanities
5075
425
2353
1007
8860
1756
70
1390
54
3270
1507
164
1559
1360
4590
842
19
1532
58
2451
219
160
1180
952
2511
1265
21
4133
76
5495
7
80
43
537
667
29
201
70
293
593
117
181
560
1933
2791
485
55
1705
270
2515
Total-1
16361
10412
14238
26841
67852
18451
1263
20459
1917
42090
Total-2
Grand total
26773
41079
67852
19714
109942
22376
42090
1.7.4 Distribution of UAE National Students
The final analysis in this section is of the percentage of UAE National students in the clusters. (See Section
1.8 for definition of the clusters.)
Fig.1.7.10 shows that UAE National students represent 80%, 40% and 35% of the total enrolments in the
three regions, Abu Dhabi Emirate, Dubai, and Northern Emirates, respectively. UAE national students
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
34
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
represent less than 40% of students enrolled in small institutions (Cluster 5) and they represent 70% of the
students enrolled in institutions which offer only Diploma programs (Cluster 1). The high percentage of
UAE national students in Cluster 2 (Bachelor degree) is due to HCT which is a member of this cluster.
(Although the HCT website says that the Colleges offer Master programs, no enrolment data submitted to
CHEDS included a student enrolled in a postgraduate program.) Finally, 92% of enrolments of federal
institutions are UAE Nationals.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
35
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.8 C LUSTERS OF I NSTITUTIONS
Despite the popularity of rankings, which often make inappropriate comparisons, it is generally
accepted that one should only make detailed comparisons of entities that share an underlying
similarity (“don’t compare apples and oranges”). Furthermore, even for entities that do exhibit
such similarity (apples and apples, for example) different stakeholders will be more interested in
different characteristics. Within the UAE there are institutions with very different characteristics.
It is interesting to consider ‘clusters’ of institutions with so me characteristics in common and see
how the composite indicator values for a cluster differ from other clusters and the overall
national value.
This section discusses the computed indicators for 12 clusters which were identified using the
following clustering criteria across four dimensions:
Level of programs offered : ( up to Diploma, B achelor degree, Master Degree , and up to
Doctoral programs) (clusters 1-4)
Size of institution : Small (<1000 students), medium (1000 to 3999 students), and large
(>3999 students) (clusters 5-7)
the federal institutions and the CAA-licensed institutions (clusters 8-9)
Location of main campus: Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Northern Emirates (Clusters 10-12)
Tables 1.8.1a-b give a summary of the mean value of the key indicator s for each cluster.
T ABLE 1.8.1 A : S ELECTED INDICATORS FOR C LUSTERS 1-7
Level of study
Indicator
Enrolment Size of institution
Diploma
BS
MSc
PhD
Small
Medium
Large
Revenue/student
37168
53659
67759
78751
91353
68813
63496
Expenditure/student
35260
54202
63919
82024
93257
64871
63350
Financial Aid/student
192
375
3394
1994
2507
1902
2078
Average number of programs
4.9
5.3
13.8
39.0
6.0
15.5
48.3
Average number of international accreds
0.0
0.7
1.0
1.4
0.5
0.4
3.1
Number of books/student
10
43
25
36
50
13
38
Number of Journals / area
9
1889
375
3766
1649
1484
949
Library funds/student
494
138
1049
651
1143
1205
537
Student satisfaction
0.75
0.84
0.73
0.68
0.71
0.75
0.76
Graduate satisfaction
0.73
0.67
0.61
0.56
0.61
0.64
0.59
Ratio of offered places to
number of applicants
0.84
0.60
0.56
0.65
0.27
0.75
0.80
Progress rate
0.81
0.76
0.83
0.81
0.82
0.83
0.79
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
36
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Level of study
Indicator
Enrolment Size of institution
Diploma
BS
MSc
PhD
Small
Medium
Large
Success rate
0.87
0.96
0.90
0.91
0.89
0.85
0.93
Teaching load/week (assistant & above)
16.35
14.55
10.74
10.39
7.82
11.61
13.64
Teaching load/week (lecturers)
6.29
16.73
4.38
1.47
5.78
8.32
7.40
Faculty satisfaction
0.68
0.69
0.67
0.79
0.67
0.69
0.77
Student / Faculty ratio
19.95
17.07
16.36
14.66
9.71
20.00
17.20
Proportion PT to FT
Publication score
0.21
0.24
0.18
0.35
0.25
0.79
0.14
0.62
0.32
0.92
0.34
0.87
0.12
0.59
% of UAE National Students
0.71
0.86
0.40
0.53
0.38
0.50
0.65
% of Faculty -PhD Holders
0.12
0.26
0.66
0.66
0.57
0.63
0.52
T ABLE 1.8.1 B : S ELECTED INDICATORS FOR C LUSTERS 8-12
Type of institution
Location
Dubai
Emirate
Indicator
Federal
CAA-licensed
Abu Dhabi
Emirate
Revenue/student
Expenditure/student
Financial Aid/student
Average number of progs
Average number of
internat accreds
Number books / student
Number Journals / area
Library funds/student
Student satisfaction
74067
79064
433
53
62563
58469
3160
11
75114
78932
980
17
58122
51415
1664
9
56020
50223
4353
15
7
41
268
627
0.86
1
25
22785
741.89
0.72
1
40
2222
803
0.78
1
16
1228
528
0.76
1
23
67
573
0.72
Graduate satisfaction
Ratio of offered places to
number of applicants
Progress rate
Success rate
Teaching load/week
(assistant & above)
Teaching load/week
(lecturers)
Faculty satisfaction
0.73
0.60
0.63
0.66
0.56
0.75
0.73
0.95
0.57
0.83
0.9
0.61
0.75
0.94
0.51
0.82
0.85
0.70
0.87
0.90
10.9
10.7
11.8
11.0
11.0
4.6
0.87
6.11
0.7
7.7
0.72
9.9
0.65
5.0
0.73
Student / Faculty ratio
Proportion PT to FT
Publication score
% of UAE National
Students
% of Faculty PhD Holders
15.8
0.05
0.53
17.9
0.30
0.73
17.3
0.08
0.62
20.5
0.52
0.77
16.0
0.27
0.62
0.91
0.41
0.43
0.65
0.80
0.46
0.42
0.73
0.35
0.65
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
Northern
Emirates
37
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.8.1 Revenue and Expenditure per Student
Fig 1.8.1c shows that average of both the revenues and the expenditures per student are highest
for smaller institutions. This could be explained by the fact this cluster (Cluster 5) contains
relatively new institutions which are in the establishment stage and therefore have small
enrolment due to their age, and specialized institutions which are specially funded. Revenues a nd
expenditures of the federal institutions, Abu Dhabi based institutions, and those that offer PhD
programs are similar to each other and show the second highest revenues / exp enditures per
student. The least costly institutions are those that are specialized in Associate Degree / Diploma.
Cluster 5 – Small institutions
The standard errors of these two indicators are large. In fact this is the case in every one of the
clusters. This is first examined in more detail in the highest expenditure cluster, namely the small
institutions (Cluster 5).
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
38
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
The institutions seem to collect in four groups, namely those with a per student figure
<=AED20,000; 20,001 to 40,000; 40,001 to 100,000; and >100,000. Omitting the last group, Fig.
1.8.1d is re-scaled to show the other three groups (Fig. 1.8.1e).
Cluster 1 – Diploma institutions
Fig 1.8.1f gives the distribution of the financial resources per student of Cluster 1 which is
composed of institutions offering only Diplomas.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
39
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Cluster 2- Bachelor institutions
Fig.1.8.1g indicates that there are four institutions of Cluster 2 (Bachelor institutions) whose
resources are close to AED100,000/student.
Cluster 3 – Master institutions
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
40
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Fig 1.8.1h depicts the distribution of the financial resources of the institutions of Cluster 3 which
is composed of the institutions that offer up to Master programs. This cluster includes some of
the largest institutions, and seven of the institutions whose financial resources per student
exceed or are close to AED100,000.
Fig. 1.8.1i is a reproduction of Fig. 1.8.1h, omitting the institutions with large resources.
Cluster 4 – Doctoral institutions
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
41
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Fig.1.8.1j illustrates the financial situation of the institutions that offer also PhD programs. This
cluster is composed of eight institutions.
Fig.1.8.1k omits the two institutions with the largest and smallest resources per student.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
42
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.8.2 Library
There are four indicators which are related to the library, namely number of books / student,
number of journals / student, annual expenditure / student, and databases /area. The first three
indicators are depicted in Figures Figs.1.8.2a-c. CHEDS intends to clarify the type of journals to
be reported in the next iteration because some institutions included E -journals or abstracts
whereas some institutions (including the federal ones) reported only hard copy journals.
The expenditure per student is shown in Fig.1.8.2c. This gives a distribution as expected in
relation to the size of the institution, ie it is expected to be larger for small institutions or
institutions which are in their early stage of their expansion.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
43
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
44
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.8.3 Academic Indicators
Indicators of academic activity and performance are obviously the heart of a higher education
data collection, and the Appendices give the full range collected by CHEDS. This section provides
a sample of five indicators only.
Satisfaction
The first two indicators are student satisfaction and graduate satisfaction which are represented
in Fig. 1.8.3a. ‘Rate’ denotes a normalised average of responses to a set of questions specified by
CHEDS. The data suggests that students are more satisfied than graduates. Students and
graduates of Abu Dhabi institutions seem more satisfied than the others. However, the lowest
student satisfaction (56%) is obtained for the cluster of small institutions, which is counter to the
usual tendency.
The details of this cluster are depicted in Fig 1.8.3b which shows that for most institutions the
graduate satisfaction fluctuates around 60% except for ECA and EUC which are about 30% and
40% respectively.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
45
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Progress and Success
Progress rate is the percentage of continuing students wh ich are in good academic standing
(CGPA >=2) and the success rate is defined as the percentage of credit passed (including D
grade) during the previous semester. Fig 1.8.3c indicates that both progress and success
indicators are similar for all clusters.
Their values (around 80% & 90% respectively) are to be
US assessment system. The fact that the progression rate
due to the implementation of academic warning policies
avoids accumulation of number of students who are not
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
expected in institutions that follow the
is smaller than the success rate may be
in t he HE institutions in the UAE which
in good academic standing. These two
46
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
indicators were also computed per area of specialization and the results showed a normal trend
for all of them taking into account the specificity of the specialization.
Selectivity
CHEDS computed three indicators normally associated with ‘selectivity’, namely the number of
offered places in relation to the number of applicants, the number of enrolled students in
relation to the number of offered places, and the average High School score.
The first of these indicators is shown in Fig.1.8.3d. This shows that Diploma, medium, large, and
federal institutions have on average comparable selectivity rate s (about 75-80%).
As in the previous analyses, the small institutions need more investigation. In this case, it is
because the group seems to be highly selective, making offers to only 20% of applicants.
The explanation is clear from Fig 1.8.3e, which shows that it is due to the high selectivity of three
institutions.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
47
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
48
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.8.4 Faculty
CHEDS considered 13 indicators related to academic staff / faculty. In this section, are findings
on two indicators, namely faculty satisfaction, and their teaching load per week. (The full
information is in Appendices 5 and 6.)
Satisfaction
Fig 1.8.4a gives the average of the satisfaction rates in seven areas (based on seven questions).
This figure indicates that the degree of satisfaction (70% and above) is considered as good for all
clusters, and that faculty of federal institutions, large institutions, and institutions offering PhD
degree are more satisfied than the faculty working in the other institutions.
CHEDS noted that the least satisfaction score obtained was for policies for promotio n to higher
academic rank.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
49
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Load
Fig1.8.4b shows that the teaching weekly load is less than 12 hours on average for most clusters.
The average teaching load (14.55) of Cluster 2 (Bachelor institutions) seems a bit larger than what
is expected as the CAA standard is 12 hours. The details of this cluster are given in Fig.1.8.4c.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
50
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Accuracy of this indicator requires the conversion of laboratory sessions into credit hours (half).
Unfortunately, the raw data of some institutions indicates that they did not convert the load into
credit hours but reported the number of contact hours.
1.8.5 Learning environment
Fig 1.8.5a gives the student to faculty ratio based on Equivalent Full Time students (EFTS) and
Equivalent Full Time faculty (EFTF). The latter was computed using the factor (1/3) for part time
faculty whereas the EFTS was determined using the norm of 12 registered credit hours for
undergraduate students. All new students were regarded as FT students because registered hours
by FT foundation students are not credited. The ratio fluctuates between 15:1 and 20:1 for all
clusters except cluster 5 (small institutions). Institutions in Dubai have a higher student to faculty
ratio (20) whereas institutions in Abu Dhabi and Northern emirates a re close to 15.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
51
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Fig.1.8.5b illustrates the reasons of the low ratio for cluster 5 (small institutions). There are only
11 institutions within this cluster whose ratio is more than 15 whereas there are many with a ratio
less than 5.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
52
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
1.9 I NTERNATIONAL C OMPARISONS
CHEDS’ data will not only be used for national planning and domestic benchmarking, but also for
international comparisons. In this first pilot phase, CHEDS has carried out a few comparisons with
some readily available Australian data to illustrate with few examples the possibilities of the CHEDS
system in conducting international comparisons in the near future.
No.
Indicator
1
2
Percentage of International students
National student to faculty ratio
3
4
5
6
7
8
% of faculty with rank assistant prof and above
Revenue /student
Average number of students per institution
% of enrolments up to associate degree
%of enrolments in bachelor programs
% of UAE national students in age-band 18-23
UAE
Australia
38%
18.4
28%
25.4
58%
$18,616
1,486
21%
67%
57%
82%
$18,579
9,857
3.4%
66%
26%
(in age-band 16-25)
CHEDS plans to compute attrition rate and persistence rates once the next set of data has been collected.
These indicators can then be compared with international figures. CHEDS is also developing a plan for
broader comparison across several countries.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
53
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
CHAPTER 2: DEFECTS IN THE DATA
The CHEDS data request is extensive, requiring 224 data variables to be collected at the
individual level across five areas of institution al operation. Despite most of the institutions being
accustomed to providing data to oversight bodies (eg MOHESR, CAA, KHDA), all have struggled
to provide comprehensive and correct data. UAE is not alone in this. Currently in Australia, for
example, only the most well-resourced and mature institutions can confidently provide all the
data requested by the federal government. Small institutions (typical of the UAE scene) struggle
to comply. Unfortunately, despite CHEDS’ data cleaning efforts, a few unusable items can detract
significantly from the statistics that can safely be calculated. This is not unexpected for the first
run, though it is troublesome for producing reliable outputs from the initial data collection.
These data defects come in three main forms: (1) Gaps, (2) Incorrect Data, and (3) infeasible
calculated outputs.
2.1 G APS IN THE D ATA
Although many institutions were able to submit much of the requested data, there are gaps in
the data provided to CHEDS. This is partly because, at this time, not all institutions collect data
on every one of the items in the CHEDS data set. For example, alumni are not yet surveyed on
their performance in professional examinations. In other cases the gap is because the data does
not yet exist. For example, there are no national research awards for faculty to gain. In other
cases, institutions are constrained by agreements, eg with faculty or with other partners or
organisations. This can result in the overall figures for UAE HE being under - or over-reported on
those factors. Another cause of data absence was that some institutions record some data only
manually and it will need a major effort for them to provide it in electronic form. In yet other
cases, institutions simply failed to provide data that they possess an d which they had undertaken
to provide.
CHEDS required institutions to list any data items not provided, with the reasons for the
omission. 29 institutions provided these Data Omission letters. Data not submitted was spread
across the range of data items. The overwhelming reason given for non-provision was that the
data is currently not recorded, not collected (in some cases because it is not relevant to the
institution) or does not exist. Other reasons include problems with the institution’s data
recording system(s) (two institutions hold data only manually) and (in two cases, both branches
of overseas institutions) certain data is identified as confidential. Almost all institutions stated
that they will endeavor to provide the information in future CHEDS data collection rounds.
In addition, though, there were many more gaps in the submitted data that were not described in
Data Omission letters.
2.2 I NCORRECT D ATA
Another defect in the data submitted was not the gaps (ie the lack of information) but errors (ie
incorrect information). Many institutions entered data incorrectly, eg transposing data items,
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
54
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
using incorrect terms, using inconsistent data formats within the same submission, etc. The team
has had to spend a great deal of time ‘cleaning’ the data. This data cleaning has been
programmed and automated for future runs. Additionally, a new data submission program is
being written that it is hoped will alleviate the need for much of this data cleaning.
2.3 I NFEASIBLE D ATA
During this process, the team was able to validate the data to some extent, but further validation
was necessary to identify submitted data that was correct by definition, but yet infeasible. An
example is an unreasonably high number of credits reported for a student’s enrolment in one
semester, or more passed credits than enrolled credits. This needs careful manual inspection
after the provisional indicator values have been calculated on the basis of the clean data, and is
extremely time-consuming. Some defence against such errors may be able to be built into future
analysis programs.
CHEDS took several preventative measures in the hopes of producing quality results from the
start of this project. In addition to the introductory workshops, a member of the CHEDS team
visited every institution in the country, and provided phone and email support before the
submission. CEOs were asked to provide a Management Representation letter, signing off the
data submitted (only 23 letters were in fact provided). Post -submission, the CHEDS team worked
through every piece of data and sent a detailed report back to the institution, identifying the
short-comings, and requesting correction of the data.
These efforts did not produce the desired results of having complete data for this first run, but
they did have the following effects:
Established CHEDS position in relation to the institutions
Allowed for face time with each institution and created a basis for future collaboration
Provided a platform for solid feedback from the institutions back to CHEDS
Framed expectations for future data collection
CHEDS believes that these efforts will have a lasting impact on the project. It has also provided a
foundation for CHEDS to significantly improve the data collection process.
This extensive work with the institutions took considerable person-time, and extended over many
months. It only gradually became apparent through this period that it would not be possible to
obtain comprehensive and clean data from the institutions in time to provide a full report on all
indicators by September 2012.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
55
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
CHAPTER 3: HOW TO IMPROVE THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
The first step in improving the data collection process is to simply continue doing what has been
implemented. The vast majority of data defects are due only to the fact that the process was
unfamiliar. If nothing were to change, data collection would improve incrementally due to
increasing familiarity with the system. However, in order to expedite the process of improvement,
the CHEDS project team is about to implement changes for cycle 2 to several key areas:
Delegation Level and Institutional Reviews at MOHESR
Penalties
Revised Data Request
Submission System
Calendar
3.1 D ELEGATION L EVEL AND I NSTITUTIONAL R EVIEWS
Ideally the chief executive at each institution should be responsible for the submission of the
CHEDS data. Individual tasks would naturally be delegated to staff at the institution, but the
ultimate responsibility should reside at the top. The CHEDS team has noted that the
responsibility for the CHEDS work has in many institutions been left entirely to lower level staff.
One consequence of this is that the CHEDS submission may be seen as more of a bureaucratic
task, unrelated to the staff members’ direct-line responsibilities, rather than a matter of
importance to the chief executive.
CHEDS will write to each chief executive to stress the need for his or her personal responsibility
for the data collection, completeness and accuracy. Some CEOs will be phoned directly, and
institution liaison people will participate in face-to-face meetings and/or information sessions in
September or October. The purpose of this is to
Evaluate the results of cycle 1 data submission,
Identify and advise on any problems encountered, and
Review CHEDS policies and procedures.
It is hoped that this close attention will make it clear to chief executives that they are ultimately
responsible for the data provided to CHEDS. If chief executives take a closer interest in the
execution of CHEDS-related tasks within their institutions, it is hoped that data will improve
greatly. As one example of the defects probably arising from the dispersion and delegation of
responsibility, few institutions reported the existence of partnerships. It is likely that this is
because the data was compiled by people who are unaware of such matter.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
56
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
3.2 P ENALTIES AND F INES
It is important for UAE’s HE planning and UAE’s international image that the available HE
information be as complete as possible. Therefore, the failure of an institution to provide the
required data does not affect that institution only, but affects the whole country and system. It is
therefore important that institutions provide the requested data and do so in a timely fashion.
CHEDS recognized that the first cycle of data collection w ould not be easy for the institutions.
Therefore, CHEDS repeatedly allowed deadlines to be extended and reset, and constantly gave
institutions more time to remedy gaps or defects. Despite this, the final data collection has more
defects than desirable.
In order to address this, CHEDS may consider in future a system of penalties for institutional
failure to comply with CHEDS requirements. The most straightforward penalties w ould be a
system of fines, and these can be set at appropriate levels for the vario us types of infringement.
This idea has been discussed with a handful of institutions and while no one would readily
welcome such a suggestion, no one rejected the reasoning behind it, and there is agreement that
penalties should apply for failure to provide requested data (unless the non-provision is
unavoidable).
3.3 R EVISED D ATA R EQUEST
CHEDS has implemented many suggestions provided by institutions into a new data request
template. This revised template is designed to aid institutions in the data assemb ly process and
will lead to better data. While the data requested remains essentially the same, definitions have
been clarified, the order of fields is more intuitive, and some data has been split into separate
tables to allow for tasks to more easily be delegated within an institution.
3.4 S UBMISSION S YSTEM
One of the most laborious tasks in cycle 1 was uploading Excel sheets submitted by institutions
into the Oracle database. Because of the design of the data request, CHEDS received over 500
tables. Uploading these data was not a process that could be easily automated as every file
required a degree of massaging before it would be accepted by Oracle. A system designed to
allow institution to upload directly into Oracle is under development. This will alleviate a large
burden placed on CHEDS staff, and remove a large area of potential human error.
3.5 D ATA S CHEDULE , 2012-2013
CHEDS has discussed the number of data requests that should be made to institutions each year,
ranging from one per year to six per year. The larger number would be if institutions were
requested to submit data for every semester (fall, spring) and session (winter, summer I, summer
II) separately, with a sixth submission of data that is required only annually.
The decision has been made to continue with two submission requests for this coming year and
to review the decision in the middle of 2013 with further input from institutions and the
Reference Group.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
57
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
The following is a schedule of required data elements and deadlines. Note that the deadlines are
firm.
Academic Year 2012-2013 Submission Schedule
Submission deadline
Referring to
Summer session(s)
Data sets
Enrollment
Graduation
Fall semester
Enrollment
Graduation
11-Nov-12
Faculty workload
Operations
Whole year
Surveys
Winter session
Enrollment
Graduation
Spring semester
Enrollment
Graduation
Faculty workload
24-Mar-13
Operations
Whole year
Institution overview
Finance
Faculty salaries
Faculty publications
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
58
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
CHAPTER 4: FUTURE ACTIVITIES
4.1 C LUSTERS
The clusters in Section 1.4 were pre-selected ‘obviously similar’ institutions. Cluster analysis of
institutions and data may reveal similarity between other groups of institutions. Conversely, it
may show that some of the ‘obvious’ groupings are not homogeneous at all.
In a future report, CHEDS will run cluster analyses on some significant indicators, and see how
the institutions group according to those. This will assist institutions in choosing benchmarking
partners. CHEDS will establish a procedure allowing an institution to requests aggregate data for
a specified group of institutions which it considers will be most helpful for its own comparison
and improvement.
4.2 I NTERNATIONAL C OMPARISONS
4.2.1 General Statistics
Many countries have comprehensive data collection systems for higher education. For our
purposes, the most useful ones are likely to be Australia, Germany, UK and USA. The OECD also
undertakes an annual data collection:
http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3746,en_2649_39263238_48634114_1_1_1_1,00.html
but it is mainly covering different things:
CHEDS is currently investigating the comparability of indicators from other c ountries. One
difficulty with making meaningful international comparisons is that indicators which are
ostensibly the same (using the same name) might have different meanings because they are
calculated differently. In this first report, a comparison is in cluded on a few indicators (Section
1.5). The CHEDS team hopes to be able to carry out more comparisons in future.
Possibilities include:
number of institutions per head of population
number of students per head of population
Students per institution
Total budget per head of population
Expenditure per student
Research performance
Graduates per field
Outcomes
Student Faculty Ratio
Once established, CHEDS will establish links with the HE data organisation in several countries.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
59
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
4.2.2 Research Indicators
As mentioned above, faculty research data was among the least satisfactory (and the NRF is
having similar difficulties). However, there are companies that track publications world -wide.
ADEC used one to compile the research indicators for its 2011 data col lection, and NRF is in
discussion with another. CHEDS has had a discussion with the former, and it would be worth
engaging them to carry out a similar task nation-wide (if adequate funding is available).
4.3 HE F ACTORS
The public and decision-makers are naturally interested in how well HE institutions are
performing, but simple linear rankings of whole institutions are simplistic and misleading, as they
conceal the different levels of performance of different institutions on different aspects or factors
of their activity. Such ‘factors’ include research quality, teaching quality, internationalisation etc.
For most factors of interest, there are several of CHEDS indicators that are relevant to
institutional performance on that factor. Hence, for each factor, it is possible to compute a ‘score’
based on the institution’s performance on several of CHEDS’ indicators, combining them into a
single number for the institution, according to some weighting.
In consultation, CHEDS will decide i. some factors, and ii. for each factor, the indicators that are
to be combined to measure it. Rather than CHEDS pre -determining the weighting to be used for
each indicator in computing the score on the factor, it is hoped to provide a user interface that
would include the ability for any user to insert the weightings of their choice.
4.4 CHEDS AS THE M AIN HE D ATA S OURCE
CHEDS has told institutions that it will be willing to relieve them of dealing with many of the data
requests that they are constantly receiving, using the data al ready collected from the institutions.
Institutions have indicated their gratitude for this. CHEDS will need to establish a system for
receiving, recording, processing and replying to these requests, and will need a data analyst to
assist the Chief Statistician. There will also need to be a system of charging the cost of meeting
these requests.
4.5 D ECISION S UPPORT
CHEDS is a statistical unit and its primary responsibility is to provide ‘neutral’ data that others
will interpret and use. CHEDS’ work will provide a service to many governmental and other
bodies, as well as to the institutions themselves, but each user will need to bring their own
understanding and interpretation. Any recommendations for action should also be made
elsewhere (eg by the Minister or CAA) although CHEDS will be willing to provide specific advice
on how the data can be used. (This is already happening.)
For institutions, the ability to see comparative data should inform their decisions. With more
work, institutions may collaborate on benchmarking, leading to mutual improvement.
Other bodies, and the sort of use they might make of CHEDS data include:
NAPO. Federal institutions, with co-ordination from the Ministry, through NAPO, decide
on enrolment of UAE national students in various majors. They could choose to
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
60
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
encourage more engineering programs or cut back on law programs. (Institutions always
prefer total freedom, but these emphases could emerge from CHEDS’ findings. CAA has
already advised institutions to reduce law enrolments.)
CAA may consider that CHEDS’ data shows that an institution is not performing up to its
potential, and the institution might then be told to improve, with some penalty for not
doing.
Cost per student metrics for Formula Funding at the federal institutions c ould be adjusted
Tawteen might draw on the CHEDS data as it develops policies and actions on
Emiratisation. (It has already requested, and received, data from CHEDS.)
Interpretations of the data must be done according to some parameters. For example, it i s not
CHEDS’ task to decide how much research should be done in the country, nor how much money
should be spent on it. CHEDS might be able to devise a measure for ‘the quantum of research in
the country’, but then it will be up to the national planners to set criteria against which this could
be interpreted as ‘too low’ or ‘too high’. If each institution has a level of performance on the
‘research factor’ (see Section 5.3), how might it be decided whether the performance of a
particular institution is satisfactory or not?
4.6 A NNUAL R EPORTS .
CHEDS envisages producing one or two main reports each year, as follows:
December: This is the major report comprising a full ‘Report Card’ on the previous
academic year, including the indicators and interpretations.
April: ‘Fact Book’, containing static facts, based on the data collection for the previous Fall
semester (akin to the current Data Warehouse Fact Book). (Experience may suggest
combining these reports.)
There will be other routine annual reports (such as the UNESCO report), as well as many ad hoc
or bespoke reports.
4.7 A CCESSIBILITY OF R EPORTS
After the signing of the decree, some of the technical capabilities of the Ministry were upgraded.
The most significant upgrade was to acquire a high quali ty reporting and decision support tool,
Oracle Business Intelligence (OBI). This tool will allow CHEDS to make reports accessible to users
on a web portal.
OBI is the best tool available to easily and efficiently present the graphical display of quantita tive
information. The tool has been installed and implemented. The calculation of the indicators is
complete and is currently under testing.
The portal will be available from any web-enabled device along with a customized iPad
application. From this portal, users would be able easily to customize reports and to explore the
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
61
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
data to get to the heart of the information required. Additionally, users could save views and
information for future analysis. There will need to be clear rules for who can access what (cf
Section 4.3), and security in place to enforce them.
4.8 F REEDOM /P RIVACY OF I NFORMATION
A major concern of the institutions has centred on what CHEDS intends to do with the data
collected. Most of these institutions are private, for-profit entities and the CHEDS data request
requires the disclosure of very sensitive information, including personal information of students
and faculty as well as institutional financial statements. The CHEDS project team has provided the
following guidance to institutions:
LEVEL OF PERMISSION
Full Access
Full Access After Approval
ENTITY
Office of the Minister
National Security Agency
CAA
NBS
Each individual Institution has access to its own data
Any other entity as required by law
CHEDS will provide information to requesting entities on behalf of
stakeholder institutions only upon written request by the institutions.
The types of requests that will trigger the need for institutional approval
are any request that individually identifies an institution, student, graduate
or faculty member
All Others
Any entity that requests information that does not individually identify an
institution, student, graduate or faculty member, e.g. UNESCO
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
62
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
APPENDIX 1: THE CHEDS TEAM
Dr David Woodhouse, Project Manager
Dr Mohammed Djeddi, Chief Statistician
Mr McSean Thompson, Team Leader, Data Architect & Institutional Liaison
Mr Riyaz Chomba Kadath, Programmer, Webmaster
Mr Mohamed Zaheer, Oracle Core DBA.
Ms Mervat Mahmoud Abdel Fattah, Administrative Assistant
Dr Badr Aboul-Ela, CAA Director
(Not all of the above are full time positions with CHEDS)
The Team was also assisted from time to time by
Mr Richard Ethington, Institutional Liaison
Ms Reena Rajiv, Website and Publication Design
Mr Mustafa Safwat, Data Upload programming
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
63
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
APPENDIX 2: THE CHEDS REFERENCE GROUP
Members:
Ms Shafika Al Ameri
Director, Data & Information Dept
Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Abu Dhabi
Dr Thomas Armstrong
Commissioner, CAA
Abu Dhabi
Ms Youmna Badowah
Director, HE Planning and Co-ordination Department
MOHESR, Abu Dhabi
Dr Fouzia Badri, Dept of Research,
Dr Fatima Ali Al Khajah, Dept of Information
Ministry of Education
Abu Dhabi
Dr Thomas Davies
Executive Director, Institutional Research and Strategy Team,
Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi
Dr Hesham Wagih Gomma
Section Manager, Planning and Performance Management
Abu Dhabi Education Council
Abu Dhabi.
Ms Maryam Aamir Khan
Director, Institutional Research and Planning Support Unit
UAE University, Al Ain
Dr Daniel Kratochvil
Director, Office of Institutional Effectiveness
University of Wollongong in Dubai, UAE
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
64
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
The Terms of Reference of the Reference Group are to:
Provide a link between the project team and the actual and potential st akeholders of the
CHEDS.
Advise on the information needs of the various stakeholder groups in UAE (and beyond)
and how they may best be met.
Advise on the utility of potential indicators and the feasibility of collecting potential data
elements.
Inform stakeholders about the CHEDS and how to make use of it.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
65
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
APPENDIX 3: INDICATOR DEFINITIONS
3.1 I NDICATORS RELATED TO I NSTITUTIONAL I NFORMATION
Information on number of students, total number of EFTSL, offered credit hours, and some items
of the operational budget of the institution will be needed to compute these indicators.
T ABLE 1
INDICATOR
NUMBER
SUB-AREA
INDICATOR
1
1.1
FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
REVENUE: TOTAL INSTITUTION BUDGET FOR THE YEAR, WITH
SOURCES
2
1.1
FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT
3
1.1
FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
EXPENDITURES PER EFTSL
4
1.1
FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
COST PER CREDIT HOUR
5
1.2
FINANCIAL
AID
PERCENTAGE OF TUITION SPENT ON SCHOLARSHIPS
6
1.3
SCOPE
NUMBER OF PROGRAMS
7
1.3
SCOPE
NUMBER OF ACCREDITATIONS
8
1.3
SCOPE
NUMBER OF ACTIVE PARTNERSHIPS
9
1.4
LIBRARY
LIBRARY HOLDINGS (BOOKS, JOURNALS)
10
1.4
LIBRARY
NUMBER OF DATABASES
11
1.4
LIBRARY
LIBRARY FUNDING AS PERCENT OF INSTITUTION EXPENDITURE
12
1.5
LABOR
RATE OF EMPLOYMENT WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF GRADUATION
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
66
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
MARKET
13
1.5
LABOR
MARKET
PERCENT OF EMPLOYERS SATISFIED WITH HE GRADUATES
3.2 I NDICATORS RELATED TO R ESEARCH AND I NNOVATION
Indicators in Table 2 are used to measure research and innovation in three broad categories (1)
Engagement; (2) Productivity; and (3) Quality.
Engagement is inferred from institutional funding efforts measured in acquiring research
equipment and databases, covering the cost of released time for researcher, offering competitive
salaries, and providing adequate research environments.
Productivity is measured by the quantity of research publications, books, number of patents,
and number of awards, and research programs offered by the institution.
Quality of the publications is measured by the journal and the citat ions which indicate the
degree of contribution of the paper in the related research areas.
T ABLE 2
INDICATOR
NUMBER
SUB-AREA
INDICATOR
14
RESEARCH
FUNDING
RESEARCH
FUNDING
RESEARCH
PRODUCTIVITY
INSTITUTION RESEARCH INCOME
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
RESEARCH
PRODUCTIVITY
RESEARCH
PRODUCTIVITY
RESEARCH
PRODUCTIVITY
RESEARCH
PRODUCTIVITY
RESEARCH
STUDENTS
FUNDING SOURCES
NUMBER OF PAPERS PUBLISHED IN PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS PER
YEAR; OR PEER-ENDORSED CREATIVE WORKS; PER FACULTY
MEMBER
NUMBER OF REFEREED BOOKS PUBLISHED BY RECOGNIZED
PUBLISHERS; PER FACULTY MEMBER
NUMBER OF PATENTS ISSUED PER YEAR; PER FACULTY MEMBER
CITATIONS PER FACULTY MEMBER
NUMBER OF NATIONAL AWARDS FOR HIGH ACHIEVING
RESEARCHERS
NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN DOCTORAL QUALIFICATIONS
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
67
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
3.3: I NDICATORS RELATED TO A CADEMIC P ROGRAMS
Table 3 includes selectivity of admitted students, partnerships with other institutions, student
attainment and satisfaction, and graduate employability. The selectivity criterion is based on
number of admitted applicants, total number of eligible applicants, score obtained in High
School certificate, CEPA and TOEFL scores, etc. Student attainment involves various rates such as:
persistence rate, completion rate, CGPA, attrition rate, success rate of final yea r students in
professional tests, and percentage of students who were granted admission in postgraduate
programs and scholarships. The satisfaction level of students and graduates, and employability of
graduates, will be inferred via surveys conducted by the individual institutions. Survey results will
be self-reported in aggregate in the ‘Institutional’ section of the data request.
T ABLE 3
INDICATOR
SUB-AREA
INDICATOR
ACADEMIC
PERCENT OF CURRENT STUDENTS SATISFIED WITH THE INSTITUTION
PROGRAMS
(OVERALL AND BY ASPECTS: CURRICULUM, TEACHING, FACILITIES, LIBRARY)
ACADEMIC
PERCENT OF ALUMNI SATISFIED WITH THE INSTITUTION (OVERALL AND BY
PROGRAMS
ASPECTS IDENTIFIED IN ALUMNI SURVEY: CURRICULUM, TEACHING,
NUMBER
22
23
FACILITIES, ETC.)
24
ACADEMIC
NUMBER OF STUDENTS STUDYING ABROAD (ANNUAL COUNT BY YEAR)
PARTNERSHIPS
25
ACADEMIC
NUMBER OF STUDENTS FROM ABROAD, STUDYING HERE (ANNUAL COUNT
PARTNERSHIPS
BY YEAR)
26
ACADEMIC
NUMBER OF INCOMING STUDENTS GRANTED TRANSFER OF CREDIT FROM
PARTNERSHIPS
ANOTHER INSTITUTION WITHIN UAE (USE CREDIT HOURS-BASED SYSTEM)
27
ADMISSIONS AND
AVERAGE SECONDARY / HIGH SCHOOL EXIT TEST SCORES (U/G STUDENTS);
SELECTIVITY
GPA (P/G STUDENTS)
28
ADMISSIONS AND
AVERAGE CEPA TEST SCORES (U/G STUDENTS)
29
ADMISSIONS AND
RATIO OF PLACES OFFERED TO APPLICANTS; AND OF ENROLMENTS TO
SELECTIVITY
OFFERS
LABOR MARKET
NUMBER OF INTERNSHIPS ARRANGED BY THE INSTITUTION (BY INDUSTRY
LINKAGES
SECTOR, BY GENDER)
SELECTIVITY
30
31
32
33
STUDENT
PERSISTENCE RATE: % OF STUDENTS STILL ENROLLED IN COMPARISON TO A
ATTAINMENT
BASE YEAR
STUDENT
ACCESS RATE: THE NUMBER OF COMMENCING STUDENTS IN THE CATEGORY
ATTAINMENT
AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL COMMENCING STUDENTS
STUDENT
PROGRESSION RATE: NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO RE‐ENROL AS A
ATTAINMENT
PROPORTION OF STUDENTS WHO WERE ENROLLED IN THE PREVIOUS
ACADEMIC YEAR AND COMPLETED THE YEAR WITH A CGPA >= 2.0 (LESS
THOSE WHO COMPLETED THEIR COURSE)
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
68
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
INDICATOR
SUB-AREA
INDICATOR
NUMBER
34
STUDENT
SUCCESS RATE: THE EFTSL OF UNITS PASSES AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL
ATTAINMENT
EFTSL OF UNITS ATTEMPTED. ATTEMPTED EFTSL COMPRISES UNIT PASSED,
FAILED AND WITHDRAWN
35
36
STUDENT
NUMBER OF GRADUATES OF DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE PROGS, BY
ATTAINMENT
PROGRAM AND TYPE OF DEGREE
STUDENT
PERCENT OF STUDENTS GRADUATING IN EACH DISCIPLINE
ATTAINMENT
37
STUDENT
ATTRITION RATE: NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO DO NOT RE‐ENROLL IN A
ATTAINMENT
GIVEN YEAR AS A PROPORTION OF STUDENTS WHO WERE ENROLLED IN THE
PREVIOUS YEAR, AFTER ALLOWING FOR THOSE WHO COMPLETED THEIR
COURSE. (INVERSE OF RETENTION)
38
STUDENT
PERFORMANCE IN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION EXAMS
ATTAINMENT
39
40
STUDENT
% OF STUDENTS COMPLETING PROGRAMS IN UP TO 1.5 TIMES THE
ATTAINMENT
NORMAL PERIOD OF STUDY (EXCLUDING FOUNDATION YEARS.
STUDENT
VALUE-ADDED MEASURE OF STUDENT LEARNING (E.G. CRITICAL THINKING)
ATTAINMENT
41
STUDENT
PERCENT OF GRADUATES RECEIVING SCHOLARSHIPS FOR GRADUATE
ATTAINMENT
STUDIES
42
POST-GRADUATION
ENGAGEMENT IN FURTHER STUDY WITHIN 12 MONTHS AFTER GRADUATION
OUTCOMES
3.4 I NDICATORS RELATED TO H UMAN C APITAL
The indicators of this area, Table 4, focus on whether the institution is staffed according to international
norms, working conditions and degree of satisfaction of full time faculty and support staff, and their
quality.
T ABLE 4
INDICATOR
NUMBER
SUB-AREA
INDICATOR
43
LOAD
AVERAGE TEACHING LOAD OF F/T AND OF P/T FACULTY
44
LOAD
RESEARCH LOAD
45
RECRUITMENT &
RETENTION
RECRUITMENT &
RETENTION
FACULTY SALARY
46
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
FACULTY SATISFACTION
69
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
INDICATOR
NUMBER
SUB-AREA
INDICATOR
47
STAFF SATISFACTION
51
RECRUITMENT &
RETENTION
RECRUITMENT &
RETENTION
EVALUATION &
PROMOTION
EVALUATION &
PROMOTION
FACULTY QUALITY
NUMBER OF FACULTY RECEIVING NATIONAL PERFORMANCE
AWARDS
% OF FACULTY WITH DIFFERENT HIGHEST DEGREES
52
FACULTY DIVERSITY
FACULTY NATIONALITY
53
FACULTY DIVERSITY
COUNTRY OF FACULTY HIGHEST DEGREE
54
FACULTY DIVERSITY
55
FACULTY DIVERSITY
PERCENT OF FEMALE FACULTY (AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL
FACULTY)
% OF FACULTY IN DIFFERENT AGE BANDS
48
49
50
FACULTY RETENTION – MEAN NO. OF YEARS AT THE
INSTITUTION
% OF FACULTY IN DIFFERENT RANKS
3.5 I NDICATORS RELATED TO S TUDENTS & L EARNING E NVIRONMENT
Table 5 lists indicators related to the learning environment. Information necessary to calculate
student/faculty ratio, class sizes and diversity are required in the data request.
T ABLE 5
INDICATOR
NUMBER
56
SUB-AREA
INDICATOR
DIVERSITY
57
LOAD
STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS (HEAD COUNT, EFTSL) IN TOTAL AND BY
CATEGORIES (INC. GENDER, NATIONALITY, FIELD OF STUDY, LEVEL)
STUDENT-FACULTY RATIO
58
LOAD
STUDENT STAFF RATIO
59
LOAD
FACULTY STAFF RATIO
60
LOAD
PROPORTION OF FACULTY WHO ARE FULL-TIME
61
CLASSES
SIZE OF THEORY CLASSES / LECTURES
62
CLASSES
SIZE OF PRACTICAL CLASSES / LABS & STUDIO
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
70
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
APPENDIX 4: INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR STATUS
Legal
status
CHEDS Data
provision status
Previous data
provision status
Abu Dhabi Polytechnic
C
X
C
Abu Dhabi School of Management
C
Abu Dhabi University
C
X
C
Abu Dhabi Vocational Education & Training Institute
C
X
C
Ajman University of Science and Technology
C
X
C
Al Ain International Aviation Academy
C
X
C
Al Ain University of Science & Technology
C
X
C
Al Ghurair University
C
X
C
Al Hosn University
C
X
C
Al Khawarizmi International College
C
X
C
Allied Institute of Management Studies*
K
American College of Dubai
C
X
C
American University in Dubai
C
X
C
American University in the Emirates
C
X
C
American University of Ras Al Khaimah
C
X
C
American University of Sharjah
C
X
C
Amity University
K
Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS)
Pilani- Dubai
K
Birla Institute of Technology RAK
R
Canadian University of Dubai
C
X
C
Institution Name
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
71
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Institution Name
Legal
status
CHEDS Data
provision status
Previous data
provision status
Cass Business School Dubai
K
City University College of Ajman
C
X
Computer College
C
X
C
Dubai Dental School
C,K
Dubai Medical College for Girls
C
X
C
Dubai Pharmacy College
C
X
C
Dubai Police Academy
C
X
Dubai School of Government
C
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
R
Emirates Academy of Hospitality Management
C
X
C
Emirates Aviation College
C
X
C
Emirates Canadian University College
C
Emirates College for Advanced Education
C
X
Emirates College for Management & Information
Technology
C
X
C
Emirates College of Technology
C
X
C
Emirates Institute for Banking and Financial Studies
C
X
C
European International College
C
X
C
C,K
X
C
X
C
X
C
European University College
Exeter University Dubai
K
Fatima College of Health Sciences
C
French Fashion University Dubai
K
Fujairah College
C
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
C
72
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Institution Name
Gulf Medical University
Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University
Legal
status
CHEDS Data
provision status
Previous data
provision status
C
X
C
C,K
X
C
X
D
Heriot Watt University Dubai
K
Higher Colleges of Technology
F
Horizon International Flight Academy, Al Ain
C
Hult International Business School
K
Imam Malik College for Islamic Sharia' and Law
C
X
Indian Institute of Management Indore RAK
R
X
INSEAD - The Business School for the World
C
Institute of Management Technology
C
C
C
C,K
X
C
Islamic and Arabic Studies College
C
X
C
Islamic Azad University
K
Ittihad University
C
X
C
Jumeira University
C
X
Khalifa Bin Zayed Air College
C
Khalifa University of
Research
Science,
Technology &
C
London Business School Dubai
K
Manchester Business School Dubai
K
Manipal University Dubai
K
Masdar Institute of Science & Technology
C
Michigan State University – Dubai
K
Middlesex University Dubai
K
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
X
C
X
C
73
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Institution Name
Legal
status
CHEDS Data
provision status
Previous data
provision status
Murdoch University International Study Centre
Dubai
K
National Institute of Vocational Education*
K
Naval College
C
New York Institute of Technology
C
X
C
New York University, Abu Dhabi
C
X
C
Notting Hill College UAE
R
X
Paris Sorbonne University, Abu Dhabi
C
X
Police College, Abu Dhabi
C
Police Sciences Academy- Sharjah
C
RAK- Medical and Health Sciences University
C
X
C
Rochester Institute of Technology
C,K
X
C
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland- Dubai
C,K
X
C
C
C
Royal University College
C
SAE Institute Dubai
K
Saint-Petersburg State University of Engineering
and Economics
K
Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and
Technology
K
Sharjah Institute of Technology
C
X
Skyline University College
C
X
C
SP Jain Center of Management Dubai
K
Syscoms College
C
X
C
C,K
X
C
The British University in Dubai
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
74
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
Legal
status
CHEDS Data
provision status
Previous data
provision status
The Petroleum Institute
C
X
C
United Arab Emirates University
F
X
D
Universal Empire Institute of Medical Sciences
R
University College of Mother & Family Sciences
C
X
C
University of Bradford Dubai
K
X
University of Dubai
C
X
C
University of Jazeera
C
X
C
University of Modern Sciences
C
X
C
University of Sharjah
C
X
C
C,K
X
C
X
C
C,K
X
C
X
D
Institution Name
University of St. Joseph
University of Strathclyde Business School- UAE
University of Wollongong in Dubai
Wisdom Business School
R
Zayed University
F
Col 1 lists all HE institutions
Col 2 is the legal/approval status, namely one or more of:
F - Federal
C - CAA licensed
K - KHDA licensed branch campus of accredited institution (except those marked with an
asterisk, which are not branch campuses)
R - In RAK free zone
Col 3 indicates whether data was provided to CHEDS.
Col 4 indicates to which of the following they previously provided data, if any:
D - Data Warehouse/MOHESR
C - CAA
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
75
Indicators of the UAE HE Sector
K - KHDA/DIAC
CAA-licensed institutions that have not previously provided d ata are primarily uniformed services
institutions, or in start-up phase.
© Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics
76