North Carolina State University
2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey
Section I: Post-Tenure Review

Tables of Results
by College

The following tables provide results to questions in Section I: Post-Tenure Review, broken down by college. Statistically significant differences (p>.05) between colleges are noted with an asterisk (*). For exact question wording for this section, click here.

To download an MS Word document with Section I: Post-Tenure Review results by college, academic profile, and demographic profile, click here.

Table of Contents | Annotated Questionnaire | Section I by Academic Profile | Section I by Demographic Profile

I1_1: No experience with PTR

	Has experience (%)	No experience (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	61.9	38.1	926

I1_1: No experience with PTR
College of appointment*	Has experience (%)	No experience (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	67.5	32.5	255
..... CED	43.8	56.3	48
..... CHASS	55.1	44.9	156
..... CNR	66.7	33.3	51
..... COE	57.9	42.1	140
..... COM	65.9	34.1	44
..... COT	59.3	40.7	27
..... CVM	63.4	36.6	71
..... Design	66.7	33.3	24
..... FYC	100.0	.	2
..... PAMS	67.3	32.7	98
..... Student Affairs	50.0	50.0	10

I1_2: Have had PTR Comprehensive Review

	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	49.8	50.2	926

I1_2: Have had PTR Comprehensive Review
College of appointment*	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	42.7	57.3	255
..... CED	79.2	20.8	48
..... CHASS	52.6	47.4	156
..... CNR	49.0	51.0	51
..... COE	57.9	42.1	140
..... COM	50.0	50.0	44
..... COT	51.9	48.1	27
..... CVM	40.8	59.2	71
..... Design	50.0	50.0	24
..... FYC	.	100.0	2
..... PAMS	43.9	56.1	98
..... Student Affairs	60.0	40.0	10

I1_3: Have served on PTR committee

	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	63.2	36.8	926

I1_3: Have served on PTR committee
College of appointment	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	60.4	39.6	255
..... CED	68.8	31.3	48
..... CHASS	67.9	32.1	156
..... CNR	58.8	41.2	51
..... COE	67.1	32.9	140
..... COM	45.5	54.5	44
..... COT	55.6	44.4	27
..... CVM	63.4	36.6	71
..... Design	50.0	50.0	24
..... FYC	50.0	50.0	2
..... PAMS	68.4	31.6	98
..... Student Affairs	80.0	20.0	10

I1_4: Have been dept/college administrator in PTR process

	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	91.8	8.2	926

I1_4: Have been dept/college administrator in PTR process
College of appointment	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	91.4	8.6	255
..... CED	87.5	12.5	48
..... CHASS	92.9	7.1	156
..... CNR	94.1	5.9	51
..... COE	92.1	7.9	140
..... COM	93.2	6.8	44
..... COT	92.6	7.4	27
..... CVM	93.0	7.0	71
..... Design	83.3	16.7	24
..... FYC	100.0	.	2
..... PAMS	91.8	8.2	98
..... Student Affairs	90.0	10.0	10

I1_5: Had other PTR experience

	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	96.8	3.2	926

I1_5: Had other PTR experience
College of appointment	No (%)	Yes (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	97.6	2.4	255
..... CED	95.8	4.2	48
..... CHASS	98.1	1.9	156
..... CNR	96.1	3.9	51
..... COE	95.7	4.3	140
..... COM	95.5	4.5	44
..... COT	96.3	3.7	27
..... CVM	94.4	5.6	71
..... Design	91.7	8.3	24
..... FYC	100.0	.	2
..... PAMS	98.0	2.0	98
..... Student Affairs	100.0	.	10

I2a: Easy to find PTR information on NCSU website

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.9	16.4	62.2	17.9	3.5	653

I2a: Easy to find PTR information on NCSU website
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.0	18.1	63.7	13.7	4.4	182
..... CED	2.4	3.0	39.4	48.5	9.1	33
..... CHASS	2.9	12.6	67.0	18.4	1.9	103
..... CNR	3.0	22.5	60.0	12.5	5.0	40
..... COE	3.0	16.5	66.0	16.5	1.0	103
..... COM	2.9	25.0	50.0	18.8	6.3	32
..... COT	2.9	11.8	64.7	23.5	.	17
..... CVM	3.1	26.0	54.0	20.0	.	50
..... Design	2.7	21.1	42.1	26.3	10.5	19
..... FYC	2.0	.	50.0	.	50.0	2
..... PAMS	2.9	10.6	72.7	13.6	3.0	66
..... Student Affairs	2.8	.	83.3	16.7	.	6

I2b: PTR process known/understood in department

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.7	14.0	52.2	28.2	5.5	705

I2b: PTR process known/understood in department
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.9	17.2	55.4	23.5	3.9	204
..... CED	1.9	.	15.6	56.3	28.1	32
..... CHASS	2.6	8.5	53.8	30.8	6.8	117
..... CNR	2.7	11.9	54.8	26.2	7.1	42
..... COE	2.8	13.7	55.9	28.4	2.0	102
..... COM	2.7	16.7	46.7	26.7	10.0	30
..... COT	2.8	10.0	55.0	35.0	.	20
..... CVM	2.9	28.1	40.4	28.1	3.5	57
..... Design	2.4	.	45.5	45.5	9.1	22
..... FYC	2.0	.	50.0	.	50.0	2
..... PAMS	2.9	13.9	63.9	20.8	1.4	72
..... Student Affairs	3.2	40.0	40.0	20.0	.	5

I2c: Departmental PTR procedures are clear

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.9	18.6	58.8	18.5	4.1	704

I2c: Departmental PTR procedures are clear
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.0	22.7	60.6	14.3	2.5	203
..... CED	2.3	12.9	19.4	48.4	19.4	31
..... CHASS	2.9	16.8	63.9	15.1	4.2	119
..... CNR	2.9	16.3	62.8	14.0	7.0	43
..... COE	2.8	13.3	60.0	24.8	1.9	105
..... COM	2.9	23.3	53.3	16.7	6.7	30
..... COT	2.8	10.0	60.0	30.0	.	20
..... CVM	3.1	29.1	54.5	12.7	3.6	55
..... Design	2.4	10.5	31.6	47.4	10.5	19
..... FYC	2.0	.	50.0	.	50.0	2
..... PAMS	3.0	15.3	72.2	11.1	1.4	72
..... Student Affairs	3.2	40.0	40.0	20.0	.	5

I2d: Departmental PTR standards are clear

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.8	17.0	53.4	24.2	5.4	702

I2d: Departmental PTR standards are clear
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.9	19.6	53.4	23.5	3.4	204
..... CED	2.2	12.5	18.8	46.9	21.9	32
..... CHASS	2.9	17.8	57.6	19.5	5.1	118
..... CNR	2.7	4.7	67.4	18.6	9.3	43
..... COE	2.8	15.7	51.0	30.4	2.9	102
..... COM	2.9	19.4	54.8	19.4	6.5	31
..... COT	2.7	10.0	50.0	40.0	.	20
..... CVM	3.0	29.1	50.9	14.5	5.5	55
..... Design	2.5	10.5	36.8	42.1	10.5	19
..... FYC	2.0	.	50.0	.	50.0	2
..... PAMS	2.8	12.7	63.4	19.7	4.2	71
..... Student Affairs	3.0	20.0	60.0	20.0	.	5

I2e: Departmental PTR procedures are followed equitably

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	3.0	23.0	62.1	9.7	5.1	586

I2e: Departmental PTR procedures are followed equitably
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.1	27.3	63.1	6.3	3.4	176
..... CED	2.6	27.8	22.2	27.8	22.2	18
..... CHASS	2.9	16.7	63.5	12.5	7.3	96
..... CNR	2.9	7.9	81.6	7.9	2.6	38
..... COE	3.1	21.4	65.5	10.7	2.4	84
..... COM	3.0	25.9	59.3	7.4	7.4	27
..... COT	2.8	14.3	57.1	21.4	7.1	14
..... CVM	3.2	38.8	44.9	10.2	6.1	49
..... Design	2.5	17.6	29.4	41.2	11.8	17
..... FYC	2.0	.	50.0	.	50.0	2
..... PAMS	3.2	21.3	77.0	.	1.6	61
..... Student Affairs	3.3	25.0	75.0	.	.	4

I2f: Departmental PTR standards are applied fairly

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	3.0	23.1	61.0	10.1	5.9	577

I2f: Departmental PTR standards are applied fairly
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.1	27.7	60.7	7.5	4.0	173
..... CED	2.7	26.3	31.6	26.3	15.8	19
..... CHASS	2.8	15.3	59.2	17.3	8.2	98
..... CNR	3.0	6.1	87.9	3.0	3.0	33
..... COE	3.0	22.9	61.4	10.8	4.8	83
..... COM	3.1	25.0	64.3	3.6	7.1	28
..... COT	2.6	7.7	61.5	15.4	15.4	13
..... CVM	3.1	37.3	45.1	11.8	5.9	51
..... Design	2.7	20.0	46.7	20.0	13.3	15
..... FYC	2.0	.	50.0	.	50.0	2
..... PAMS	3.2	22.4	74.1	1.7	1.7	58
..... Student Affairs	3.3	25.0	75.0	.	.	4

I2g: Dept PTR committee members are well prepared and trained

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.8	16.2	55.1	20.1	8.6	537

I2g: Dept PTR committee members are well prepared and trained
College of appointment	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.9	19.0	57.1	16.6	7.4	163
..... CED	2.5	15.0	30.0	40.0	15.0	20
..... CHASS	2.7	13.0	57.6	19.6	9.8	92
..... CNR	2.6	3.0	66.7	18.2	12.1	33
..... COE	2.8	16.2	56.8	20.3	6.8	74
..... COM	2.6	20.0	36.0	32.0	12.0	25
..... COT	2.4	16.7	33.3	25.0	25.0	12
..... CVM	3.0	23.9	54.3	17.4	4.3	46
..... Design	2.3	7.7	30.8	46.2	15.4	13
..... FYC	2.0	.	50.0	.	50.0	2
..... PAMS	2.9	15.4	65.4	15.4	3.8	52
..... Student Affairs	3.0	20.0	60.0	20.0	.	5

I3: Overall satisfaction with PTR process

	Mean Rating	4: Very Satisfied (%)	3: Satisfied (%)	2: Dissatisfied (%)	1: Very dissatisfied (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.7	13.0	56.9	20.6	9.4	606

I3: Overall satisfaction with PTR process
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Very Satisfied (%)	3: Satisfied (%)	2: Dissatisfied (%)	1: Very dissatisfied (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.9	17.2	60.6	18.9	3.3	180
..... CED	2.3	4.5	36.4	40.9	18.2	22
..... CHASS	2.7	10.5	60.0	17.9	11.6	95
..... CNR	2.6	5.4	67.6	10.8	16.2	37
..... COE	2.7	13.8	57.5	18.4	10.3	87
..... COM	2.6	10.3	51.7	27.6	10.3	29
..... COT	2.6	6.3	50.0	43.8	.	16
..... CVM	2.8	19.6	52.9	15.7	11.8	51
..... Design	2.3	12.5	18.8	56.3	12.5	16
..... FYC	1.5	.	.	50.0	50.0	2
..... PAMS	2.7	9.1	60.6	16.7	13.6	66
..... Student Affairs	3.0	20.0	60.0	20.0	.	5

Continue to Section J: Pay and Compensation

View These Results by Academic Profile

View These Results by Demographic Profile