North Carolina State University
2010 Campus Climate Survey (Graduate)
Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity

Tables of Results
by Student Demographic Profile

The following tables provide results to questions in Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity, broken down by gender, race/ethnicity, residency, socioeconomic background, college generation, sexual orientation, disability status, and age1. Statistically significant differences (p>.05) between groups (e.g., between women and men) are noted with an asterisk (*). For exact question wording for this section, click here.

To download an MS Word document with results by demographic profile, click here.

Campus Climate Survey Table of Contents | Annotated Questionnaire | Section F by Academic College

F1a-d: Influences on thinking about diversity: Interactions at NC State	F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff/administrators
F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from administration
F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences
F1g-h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs/activities/events	F2a-f: Influence of NC State understanding of diversity and behavior related to diversity
F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events	F2g-l: Influence of NC State: Working/interacting with people of diverse backgrounds

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	4.0	28.9%	47.9%	20.6%	1.8%	0.8%	1,168

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	4.0	28.6%	47.3%	21.7%	1.6%	0.7%	548
.....Male
.....Female	4.0	29.2%	48.4%	19.7%	1.9%	0.8%	620

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.8	25.0%	39.5%	31.6%	2.6%	1.3%	76
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.2	37.7%	49.8%	11.4%	0.7%	0.3%	297
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.3	48.4%	32.3%	19.4%	.	.	31
.....White/Caucasian	3.9	24.8%	48.6%	23.4%	2.2%	1.0%	726
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	4.0	27.8%	50.0%	19.4%	2.8%	.	36
.....Other/Unknown	5.0	100.0%	.	.	.	.	2

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.9	25.5%	47.6%	23.5%	2.4%	1.0%	822
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.2	37.0%	48.6%	13.9%	0.3%	0.3%	346

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*	4.0	27.7%	50.8%	16.4%	3.3%	1.8%	329
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	4.1	29.2%	49.1%	20.6%	0.6%	0.6%	538
.....Upper middle/Upper class	4.0	29.4%	42.6%	26.0%	2.1%	.	289

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.2	37.1%	47.6%	12.9%	1.6%	0.8%	124
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	4.0	27.5%	48.3%	21.6%	1.8%	0.8%	1,024

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	4.0	28.2%	49.2%	20.0%	1.7%	0.9%	1,049
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.9	29.0%	35.5%	32.3%	3.2%	.	62
.....Prefer not to answer	4.2	37.0%	43.5%	19.6%	.	.	46

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status*	4.0	28.9%	48.8%	20.0%	1.5%	0.8%	1,071
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.9	29.9%	37.1%	27.8%	5.2%	.	97

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	4.0	28.1%	48.3%	20.9%	1.8%	0.9%	1,016
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.1	34.2%	44.7%	19.1%	2.0%	.	152

F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	4.0	29.2%	48.8%	19.3%	1.9%	0.8%	1,150

F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	4.0	28.4%	49.8%	19.6%	1.7%	0.6%	542
.....Male
.....Female	4.0	29.9%	47.9%	19.1%	2.1%	1.0%	608

F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.8	23.0%	40.5%	33.8%	1.4%	1.4%	74
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.2	32.3%	55.8%	10.9%	0.7%	0.3%	294
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.4	58.1%	25.8%	12.9%	3.2%	.	31
.....White/Caucasian	4.0	26.8%	48.0%	22.2%	2.2%	0.8%	713
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	4.1	36.1%	47.2%	8.3%	5.6%	2.8%	36
.....Other/Unknown	5.0	100.0%	.	.	.	.	2

F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	4.0	27.5%	46.7%	22.4%	2.4%	1.0%	807
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.2	33.2%	53.6%	12.0%	0.9%	0.3%	343

F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*	4.0	27.5%	52.2%	16.3%	2.5%	1.6%	320
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	4.0	27.7%	51.8%	18.3%	1.5%	0.8%	531
.....Upper middle/Upper class	4.0	33.4%	40.1%	24.4%	2.1%	.	287

F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.2	33.3%	51.7%	14.2%	0.8%	.	120
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	4.0	28.5%	48.8%	19.8%	2.1%	0.9%	1,011

F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	4.0	29.1%	49.1%	19.2%	1.9%	0.7%	1,031
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.9	29.0%	40.3%	24.2%	3.2%	3.2%	62
.....Prefer not to answer	4.1	23.9%	63.0%	13.0%	.	.	46

F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	4.0	29.1%	49.3%	18.7%	2.0%	0.9%	1,054
.....No disability
.....Disability	4.0	30.2%	42.7%	26.0%	1.0%	.	96

F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	4.0	29.1%	49.0%	19.0%	2.0%	0.9%	1,004
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.1	30.1%	47.3%	21.2%	1.4%	.	146

F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	4.0	26.6%	47.7%	24.2%	1.4%	0.2%	1,150

F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	4.0	26.1%	47.1%	26.1%	0.6%	0.2%	541
.....Male
.....Female	4.0	27.1%	48.1%	22.5%	2.1%	0.2%	609

F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.9	21.6%	47.3%	27.0%	4.1%	.	74
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.2	34.4%	53.1%	11.9%	0.3%	0.3%	294
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.1	40.0%	33.3%	26.7%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.9	23.7%	46.2%	28.6%	1.5%	.	714
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.7	16.7%	47.2%	30.6%	2.8%	2.8%	36
.....Other/Unknown	5.0	100.0%	.	.	.	.	2

F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.9	23.5%	46.2%	28.3%	1.9%	0.1%	809
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.2	34.0%	51.0%	14.4%	0.3%	0.3%	341

F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*	4.0	26.4%	51.8%	18.4%	2.8%	0.6%	326
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	4.0	25.8%	47.5%	25.6%	1.1%	.	528
.....Upper middle/Upper class	4.0	28.4%	43.5%	28.1%	.	.	285

F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student*	4.2	36.6%	48.8%	14.6%	.	.	123
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	4.0	25.3%	47.9%	25.1%	1.5%	0.2%	1,008

F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	4.0	26.0%	48.5%	24.0%	1.4%	0.1%	1,033
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.9	30.6%	35.5%	30.6%	1.6%	1.6%	62
.....Prefer not to answer	4.1	28.9%	53.3%	17.8%	.	.	45

F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	4.0	26.9%	48.2%	23.4%	1.3%	0.2%	1,053
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.9	23.7%	41.2%	33.0%	2.1%	.	97

F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	4.0	26.1%	47.5%	24.8%	1.5%	0.2%	1,001
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.1	30.2%	49.0%	20.1%	0.7%	.	149

F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	4.0	25.7%	45.5%	27.8%	0.8%	0.2%	1,111

F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	4.0	25.4%	46.2%	27.8%	0.4%	0.2%	528
.....Male
.....Female	4.0	25.9%	44.9%	27.8%	1.2%	0.2%	583

F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.9	24.6%	42.0%	30.4%	2.9%	.	69
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.2	32.2%	53.3%	13.8%	0.3%	0.3%	289
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.2	41.4%	37.9%	20.7%	.	.	29
.....White/Caucasian	3.9	22.4%	43.3%	33.4%	0.7%	0.1%	688
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.8	20.6%	41.2%	35.3%	2.9%	.	34
.....Other/Unknown	5.0	100.0%	.	.	.	.	2

F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.9	22.6%	43.2%	33.1%	1.0%	0.1%	776
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.2	32.8%	51.0%	15.5%	0.3%	0.3%	335

F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*	4.0	24.7%	49.7%	23.7%	1.3%	0.6%	312
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.9	23.2%	46.1%	30.3%	0.4%	.	512
.....Upper middle/Upper class	4.0	30.3%	40.4%	28.5%	0.7%	.	277

F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.1	31.9%	45.4%	22.7%	.	.	119
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.9	24.7%	45.8%	28.4%	0.8%	0.2%	974

F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	4.0	25.2%	46.1%	27.7%	0.7%	0.2%	999
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.9	27.6%	34.5%	36.2%	1.7%	.	58
.....Prefer not to answer	4.0	25.0%	54.5%	20.5%	.	.	44

F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status*	4.0	25.8%	46.7%	26.6%	0.8%	0.1%	1,017
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.8	24.5%	33.0%	40.4%	1.1%	1.1%	94

F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	4.0	25.4%	45.7%	27.8%	0.9%	0.2%	970
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.0	27.7%	44.7%	27.7%	.	.	141

Back to Top

F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.7	18.3%	38.4%	42.4%	0.8%	0.1%	1,072

F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.7	17.1%	36.0%	45.9%	0.8%	0.2%	492
.....Male
.....Female	3.8	19.3%	40.5%	39.3%	0.9%	.	580

F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.8	19.7%	42.1%	36.8%	1.3%	.	76
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.0	24.3%	48.9%	26.1%	0.4%	0.4%	280
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.0	37.9%	31.0%	27.6%	3.4%	.	29
.....White/Caucasian	3.6	15.2%	33.7%	50.4%	0.8%	.	653
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.6	9.4%	40.6%	46.9%	3.1%	.	32
.....Other/Unknown	3.5	.	50.0%	50.0%	.	.	2

F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.6	15.0%	35.8%	48.5%	0.8%	.	749
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.0	26.0%	44.6%	28.2%	0.9%	0.3%	323

F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.8	17.6%	43.6%	37.8%	0.7%	0.3%	307
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.7	17.9%	37.3%	43.5%	1.2%	.	496
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.7	19.4%	34.9%	45.7%	.	.	258

F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student*	4.0	29.9%	40.2%	29.1%	0.9%	.	117
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.7	16.5%	38.3%	44.2%	0.9%	0.1%	937

F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.7	17.3%	38.6%	43.2%	0.8%	0.1%	956
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.8	21.0%	38.7%	38.7%	1.6%	.	62
.....Prefer not to answer	4.0	31.8%	36.4%	31.8%	.	.	44

F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status*	3.7	17.7%	39.7%	41.6%	0.9%	0.1%	980
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.8	25.0%	25.0%	50.0%	.	.	92

F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.7	17.9%	38.4%	42.7%	0.9%	0.1%	926
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.8	20.5%	38.4%	40.4%	0.7%	.	146

Back to Top

F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	4.1	33.6%	48.9%	16.5%	0.8%	0.2%	1,155

F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	4.1	31.4%	50.0%	17.3%	1.1%	0.2%	544
.....Male
.....Female	4.2	35.5%	48.0%	15.9%	0.5%	0.2%	611

F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	4.0	26.7%	49.3%	20.0%	2.7%	1.3%	75
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.2	32.9%	51.5%	14.6%	0.7%	0.3%	295
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.4	64.5%	16.1%	16.1%	3.2%	.	31
.....White/Caucasian	4.1	33.2%	49.0%	17.2%	0.6%	.	716
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	4.2	33.3%	55.6%	11.1%	.	.	36
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency	4.1	33.0%	48.9%	17.2%	0.7%	0.1%	812
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.2	35.0%	49.0%	14.9%	0.9%	0.3%	343

F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	4.2	32.2%	52.8%	14.1%	0.6%	0.3%	326
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	4.1	33.1%	49.2%	17.0%	0.6%	.	528
.....Upper middle/Upper class	4.2	36.3%	44.3%	18.3%	1.0%	.	289

F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.2	38.5%	43.4%	18.0%	.	.	122
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	4.1	33.0%	49.9%	16.2%	0.9%	0.1%	1,013

F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	4.1	33.1%	49.2%	17.0%	0.6%	0.1%	1,036
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	4.2	41.9%	41.9%	12.9%	3.2%	.	62
.....Prefer not to answer	4.2	30.4%	56.5%	13.0%	.	.	46

F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	4.1	32.9%	49.2%	16.8%	0.9%	0.2%	1,058
.....No disability
.....Disability	4.3	41.2%	45.4%	13.4%	.	.	97

F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	4.1	33.4%	49.2%	16.4%	0.9%	0.2%	1,007
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.2	35.1%	47.3%	17.6%	.	.	148

Back to Top

F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.8	20.1%	42.6%	35.4%	1.6%	0.3%	900

F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender*	3.8	19.2%	42.5%	34.9%	2.7%	0.7%	438
.....Male
.....Female	3.8	21.0%	42.6%	35.9%	0.4%	.	462

F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.8	19.0%	41.4%	39.7%	.	.	58
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	28.3%	53.9%	15.6%	1.9%	0.4%	269
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.1	44.0%	24.0%	32.0%	.	.	25
.....White/Caucasian	3.7	14.8%	37.7%	45.6%	1.5%	0.4%	520
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.8	19.2%	46.2%	30.8%	3.8%	.	26
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.7	15.1%	38.2%	45.0%	1.4%	0.3%	589
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.1	29.6%	50.8%	17.4%	1.9%	0.3%	311

F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.9	20.3%	47.3%	31.3%	0.4%	0.8%	256
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.8	20.5%	41.3%	36.5%	1.7%	.	414
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.8	19.4%	39.6%	38.3%	2.3%	0.5%	222

F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.0	27.8%	41.2%	29.9%	1.0%	.	97
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.8	19.0%	42.8%	36.2%	1.5%	0.4%	789

F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.8	20.2%	43.2%	34.5%	1.6%	0.4%	805
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.6	14.9%	29.8%	55.3%	.	.	47
.....Prefer not to answer	3.9	20.0%	47.5%	32.5%	.	.	40

F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.8	20.0%	43.7%	34.6%	1.3%	0.4%	824
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.7	21.1%	30.3%	44.7%	3.9%	.	76

F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age*	3.8	20.4%	44.3%	33.3%	1.6%	0.4%	796
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.6	18.3%	28.8%	51.9%	1.0%	.	104

F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.8	18.6%	41.4%	38.1%	1.4%	0.6%	888

F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.8	19.0%	41.0%	37.1%	2.3%	0.7%	437
.....Male
.....Female	3.8	18.2%	41.9%	39.0%	0.4%	0.4%	451

F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.7	16.9%	37.3%	44.1%	.	1.7%	59
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	26.6%	57.2%	14.8%	1.1%	0.4%	271
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.1	42.3%	26.9%	30.8%	.	.	26
.....White/Caucasian	3.6	12.9%	34.4%	50.3%	1.8%	0.6%	503
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.9	22.2%	40.7%	37.0%	.	.	27
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.6	13.0%	34.9%	49.8%	1.6%	0.7%	576
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.1	28.8%	53.5%	16.3%	1.0%	0.3%	312

F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.8	21.1%	43.4%	33.5%	0.4%	1.6%	251
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.7	17.0%	42.0%	39.1%	1.9%	.	412
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.7	18.8%	38.5%	41.3%	0.9%	0.5%	218

F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	3.9	26.0%	43.8%	29.2%	1.0%	.	96
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.7	17.6%	41.3%	39.2%	1.3%	0.6%	778

F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.8	18.3%	42.2%	37.4%	1.4%	0.6%	796
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.7	15.6%	35.6%	48.9%	.	.	45
.....Prefer not to answer	3.8	23.1%	38.5%	38.5%	.	.	39

F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.8	18.6%	42.7%	36.7%	1.4%	0.6%	812
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.6	18.4%	27.6%	52.6%	1.3%	.	76

F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age*	3.8	18.9%	43.6%	35.5%	1.4%	0.6%	778
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.6	16.4%	26.4%	56.4%	0.9%	.	110

Back to Top

F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.8	20.0%	45.1%	33.1%	1.5%	0.4%	1,025

F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.8	19.3%	46.1%	32.6%	1.2%	0.8%	488
.....Male
.....Female	3.8	20.7%	44.1%	33.5%	1.7%	.	537

F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.7	15.2%	42.4%	40.9%	1.5%	.	66
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	25.4%	57.7%	15.8%	0.7%	0.4%	284
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.2	48.0%	24.0%	28.0%	.	.	25
.....White/Caucasian	3.7	17.0%	40.6%	39.9%	1.9%	0.5%	616
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.8	15.6%	43.8%	40.6%	.	.	32
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.7	16.7%	41.1%	40.2%	1.6%	0.4%	696
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.1	27.1%	53.5%	17.9%	1.2%	0.3%	329

F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.9	21.0%	47.1%	29.6%	1.4%	1.0%	291
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.8	19.4%	44.8%	34.5%	1.3%	.	469
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.8	20.3%	43.0%	35.2%	1.2%	0.4%	256

F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.0	27.2%	45.6%	26.3%	0.9%	.	114
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.8	19.0%	44.7%	34.3%	1.5%	0.4%	894

F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation*	3.8	20.1%	44.7%	33.5%	1.4%	0.2%	924
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.6	17.6%	37.3%	39.2%	2.0%	3.9%	51
.....Prefer not to answer	4.0	16.7%	61.9%	21.4%	.	.	42

F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.8	20.2%	45.6%	32.3%	1.5%	0.3%	940
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.7	17.6%	38.8%	41.2%	1.2%	1.2%	85

F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age*	3.8	20.5%	46.3%	31.3%	1.6%	0.4%	899
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.7	16.7%	36.5%	46.0%	0.8%	.	126

Back to Top

F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with staff

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.9	20.5%	46.7%	31.4%	1.1%	0.3%	1,126

F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with staff	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.9	19.9%	47.2%	31.3%	1.1%	0.4%	527
.....Male
.....Female	3.9	21.0%	46.2%	31.6%	1.0%	0.2%	599

F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with staff	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.8	16.7%	47.2%	34.7%	.	1.4%	72
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	25.8%	56.4%	16.7%	0.7%	0.3%	287
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.1	41.4%	31.0%	27.6%	.	.	29
.....White/Caucasian	3.8	17.8%	43.6%	37.2%	1.3%	0.1%	702
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.8	20.6%	44.1%	32.4%	2.9%	.	34
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with staff	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.8	18.0%	44.3%	36.3%	1.1%	0.3%	793
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.0	26.4%	52.6%	19.8%	0.9%	0.3%	333

F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with staff	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.9	19.9%	53.6%	24.9%	1.3%	0.3%	317
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.8	19.1%	45.9%	34.1%	1.0%	.	519
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.9	23.4%	41.4%	34.2%	0.7%	0.4%	278

F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with staff	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student*	4.1	31.4%	47.9%	19.8%	0.8%	.	121
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.8	18.8%	47.0%	32.8%	1.1%	0.2%	987

F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with staff	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.9	20.2%	47.0%	31.3%	1.2%	0.2%	1,008
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.9	18.0%	49.2%	32.8%	.	.	61
.....Prefer not to answer	3.9	21.7%	45.7%	32.6%	.	.	46

F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with staff	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.9	20.5%	47.1%	31.0%	1.1%	0.3%	1,031
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.8	21.1%	42.1%	35.8%	1.1%	.	95

F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with staff	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.9	20.6%	46.9%	31.1%	1.0%	0.3%	980
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.8	19.9%	45.2%	33.6%	1.4%	.	146

Back to Top

F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with/messages from admin

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.7	15.3%	38.2%	43.9%	2.0%	0.7%	1,076

F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with/messages from admin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.6	15.3%	37.9%	43.7%	2.4%	0.8%	504
.....Male
.....Female	3.7	15.4%	38.5%	44.1%	1.6%	0.5%	572

F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with/messages from admin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.5	11.6%	34.8%	44.9%	5.8%	2.9%	69
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.0	23.3%	51.9%	24.0%	0.4%	0.4%	283
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.0	40.0%	23.3%	36.7%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.5	11.2%	33.8%	52.1%	2.3%	0.6%	662
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.5	13.3%	30.0%	53.3%	3.3%	.	30
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with/messages from admin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.5	11.4%	33.6%	51.5%	2.7%	0.8%	746
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.0	24.2%	48.5%	26.7%	0.3%	0.3%	330

F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with/messages from admin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.7	14.7%	41.8%	39.5%	3.0%	1.0%	299
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.7	14.7%	38.0%	45.4%	2.0%	.	498
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.7	17.1%	34.9%	46.5%	0.7%	0.7%	269

F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with/messages from admin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	3.8	21.2%	44.1%	33.1%	1.7%	.	118
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.6	14.6%	37.4%	45.5%	2.0%	0.5%	941

F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with/messages from admin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.7	15.4%	38.2%	43.9%	1.9%	0.5%	965
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.6	12.5%	41.1%	44.6%	1.8%	.	56
.....Prefer not to answer	3.6	13.3%	35.6%	46.7%	4.4%	.	45

F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with/messages from admin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.7	15.4%	39.0%	42.9%	2.0%	0.7%	987
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.6	14.6%	29.2%	55.1%	1.1%	.	89

F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with/messages from admin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.7	15.5%	38.9%	42.8%	2.1%	0.6%	933
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.6	14.0%	33.6%	51.0%	0.7%	0.7%	143

Back to Top

F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.9	29.0%	43.3%	19.1%	7.0%	1.6%	1,134

F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender*	3.9	26.4%	44.8%	21.8%	5.6%	1.3%	522
.....Male
.....Female	3.9	31.2%	42.0%	16.8%	8.2%	1.8%	612

F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	4.1	39.0%	36.4%	18.2%	5.2%	1.3%	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	30.2%	53.4%	14.9%	1.1%	0.4%	281
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.5	65.5%	20.7%	10.3%	3.4%	.	29
.....White/Caucasian	3.8	24.6%	41.5%	21.8%	9.8%	2.3%	711
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	4.4	52.9%	35.3%	8.8%	2.9%	.	34
.....Other/Unknown	5.0	100.0%	.	.	.	.	2

F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.8	27.7%	40.9%	20.1%	9.2%	2.1%	806
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.1	32.3%	49.1%	16.8%	1.5%	0.3%	328

F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*	3.8	26.0%	45.8%	16.0%	9.1%	3.1%	319
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.9	27.8%	44.0%	19.6%	7.7%	1.0%	521
.....Upper middle/Upper class	4.0	34.6%	39.9%	21.6%	3.2%	0.7%	283

F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	3.9	28.7%	43.4%	20.5%	5.7%	1.6%	122
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.9	29.0%	43.3%	19.0%	7.2%	1.5%	993

F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation*	3.9	29.4%	44.1%	19.4%	5.7%	1.4%	1,018
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.5	25.0%	35.0%	11.7%	23.3%	5.0%	60
.....Prefer not to answer	3.7	22.2%	42.2%	22.2%	13.3%	.	45

F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.9	28.6%	43.8%	19.0%	7.0%	1.5%	1,038
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.9	33.3%	37.5%	20.8%	6.3%	2.1%	96

F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.9	29.1%	43.7%	18.7%	6.8%	1.7%	987
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.9	28.6%	40.8%	21.8%	8.2%	0.7%	147

Back to Top

F2a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.8	22.2%	40.2%	35.6%	1.8%	0.3%	1,178

F2a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.8	20.8%	40.1%	36.8%	2.0%	0.4%	554
.....Male
.....Female	3.9	23.4%	40.4%	34.5%	1.6%	0.2%	624

F2a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.9	28.6%	33.8%	33.8%	3.9%	.	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.0	26.4%	51.8%	20.7%	0.7%	0.3%	299
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.3	53.3%	26.7%	20.0%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.7	18.7%	37.2%	41.6%	2.2%	0.3%	733
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.6	16.2%	32.4%	51.4%	.	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.7	19.6%	36.3%	41.7%	2.2%	0.2%	832
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.0	28.3%	49.7%	20.8%	0.9%	0.3%	346

F2a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.9	24.7%	39.2%	33.4%	2.1%	0.6%	332
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.8	20.1%	42.0%	35.9%	1.8%	0.2%	543
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.8	23.1%	38.3%	37.2%	1.4%	.	290

F2a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student*	4.0	29.9%	42.5%	24.4%	3.1%	.	127
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.8	21.2%	40.0%	37.0%	1.6%	0.3%	1,030

F2a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.8	21.8%	40.2%	35.9%	1.9%	0.3%	1,057
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	4.0	34.4%	28.1%	35.9%	1.6%	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	3.8	10.6%	57.4%	31.9%	.	.	47

F2a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.8	22.3%	40.5%	35.2%	1.7%	0.3%	1,081
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.8	20.6%	37.1%	39.2%	3.1%	.	97

F2a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.8	21.6%	40.0%	36.3%	1.9%	0.3%	1,026
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.9	25.7%	42.1%	30.9%	1.3%	.	152

F2b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.8	23.2%	40.4%	34.4%	1.7%	0.3%	1,171

F2b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender*	3.8	20.9%	42.5%	33.5%	2.5%	0.5%	550
.....Male
.....Female	3.9	25.3%	38.5%	35.3%	1.0%	.	621

F2b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.9	28.9%	27.6%	43.4%	.	.	76
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	28.8%	52.5%	17.3%	1.0%	0.3%	295
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.2	46.7%	30.0%	23.3%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.7	19.2%	37.9%	40.4%	2.3%	0.3%	731
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.8	27.0%	29.7%	43.2%	.	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.7	20.5%	35.5%	41.6%	2.2%	0.2%	829
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.1	29.8%	52.3%	17.0%	0.6%	0.3%	342

F2b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.9	24.5%	39.1%	34.2%	1.5%	0.6%	330
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.8	22.1%	41.6%	34.0%	2.2%	0.2%	539
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.9	23.9%	39.4%	35.6%	1.0%	.	289

F2b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.0	33.1%	37.8%	27.6%	1.6%	.	127
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.8	21.8%	41.0%	35.3%	1.7%	0.3%	1,023

F2b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.8	23.0%	40.6%	34.2%	1.9%	0.3%	1,050
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.9	28.1%	32.8%	39.1%	.	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	3.8	17.0%	46.8%	36.2%	.	.	47

F2b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.8	23.1%	41.0%	34.0%	1.7%	0.3%	1,075
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.8	25.0%	33.3%	39.6%	2.1%	.	96

F2b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.8	22.5%	41.0%	34.5%	1.7%	0.3%	1,020
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.9	27.8%	36.4%	33.8%	2.0%	.	151

F2c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.7	18.2%	40.2%	39.4%	2.0%	0.3%	1,176

F2c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.7	18.1%	38.4%	40.4%	2.7%	0.4%	554
.....Male
.....Female	3.8	18.3%	41.8%	38.4%	1.3%	0.2%	622

F2c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.9	27.3%	36.4%	35.1%	1.3%	.	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	3.9	22.1%	46.6%	28.9%	2.0%	0.3%	298
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.0	36.7%	26.7%	36.7%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.7	15.0%	38.7%	44.0%	2.0%	0.3%	732
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.6	13.5%	40.5%	43.2%	2.7%	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.7	16.2%	37.3%	44.2%	2.0%	0.2%	832
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	3.9	23.0%	47.4%	27.6%	1.7%	0.3%	344

F2c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.8	20.2%	40.8%	37.5%	0.9%	0.6%	331
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.7	17.2%	40.4%	39.9%	2.6%	.	542
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.7	17.6%	39.3%	40.7%	2.1%	0.3%	290

F2c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	3.9	26.0%	40.2%	32.3%	1.6%	.	127
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.7	17.0%	40.5%	40.2%	1.9%	0.3%	1,029

F2c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.7	18.1%	40.1%	39.6%	1.9%	0.3%	1,055
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.8	21.9%	37.5%	37.5%	3.1%	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	3.7	14.9%	44.7%	38.3%	2.1%	.	47

F2c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.7	18.1%	40.9%	38.8%	1.9%	0.3%	1,080
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.7	18.8%	32.3%	45.8%	3.1%	.	96

F2c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.7	18.0%	40.2%	39.4%	2.1%	0.3%	1,024
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.8	19.7%	40.1%	39.5%	0.7%	.	152

F2d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.9	23.0%	44.2%	31.6%	0.9%	0.3%	1,173

F2d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.9	21.0%	46.1%	31.3%	1.3%	0.4%	553
.....Male
.....Female	3.9	24.8%	42.4%	31.9%	0.6%	0.2%	620

F2d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.7	26.0%	23.4%	49.4%	.	1.3%	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	30.0%	51.5%	16.2%	1.7%	0.7%	297
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.3	56.7%	20.0%	23.3%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.8	18.5%	44.7%	36.2%	0.7%	.	730
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.8	21.6%	40.5%	35.1%	2.7%	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.8	20.2%	41.3%	37.3%	1.0%	0.1%	830
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.1	29.7%	51.0%	17.8%	0.9%	0.6%	343

F2d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.9	26.1%	40.3%	31.8%	1.2%	0.6%	330
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.9	21.3%	45.6%	31.9%	1.3%	.	540
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.9	22.4%	45.9%	31.4%	.	0.3%	290

F2d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.0	29.9%	42.5%	26.0%	1.6%	.	127
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.9	21.8%	44.8%	32.4%	0.8%	0.3%	1,025

F2d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.9	22.1%	45.3%	31.3%	1.0%	0.3%	1,052
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.8	26.6%	31.3%	40.6%	1.6%	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	4.0	31.9%	38.3%	29.8%	.	.	47

F2d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.9	23.1%	44.0%	31.7%	0.9%	0.3%	1,077
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.9	21.9%	45.8%	31.3%	1.0%	.	96

F2d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.9	22.3%	43.8%	32.6%	1.0%	0.3%	1,021
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.0	27.6%	46.7%	25.0%	0.7%	.	152

F2e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.9	24.8%	45.7%	28.7%	0.6%	0.2%	1,177

F2e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.9	24.4%	46.6%	28.5%	0.4%	0.2%	554
.....Male
.....Female	3.9	25.2%	44.9%	28.9%	0.8%	0.2%	623

F2e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.8	27.3%	28.6%	41.6%	1.3%	1.3%	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	30.5%	53.4%	14.8%	1.0%	0.3%	298
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.4	56.7%	23.3%	20.0%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.9	21.1%	45.7%	32.7%	0.4%	.	733
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.8	18.9%	40.5%	40.5%	.	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.9	22.7%	42.7%	33.8%	0.7%	0.1%	832
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.1	29.9%	53.0%	16.5%	0.3%	0.3%	345

F2e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.9	25.7%	42.6%	30.5%	0.6%	0.6%	331
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.9	23.8%	46.8%	28.9%	0.6%	.	543
.....Upper middle/Upper class	4.0	25.5%	47.9%	25.9%	0.7%	.	290

F2e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.1	30.7%	44.9%	24.4%	.	.	127
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.9	24.0%	45.9%	29.3%	0.7%	0.2%	1,029

F2e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.9	24.1%	46.9%	28.3%	0.6%	0.2%	1,056
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	4.0	32.8%	31.3%	34.4%	1.6%	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	3.9	25.5%	42.6%	31.9%	.	.	47

F2e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	4.0	25.2%	45.8%	28.3%	0.6%	0.2%	1,081
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.9	20.8%	44.8%	33.3%	1.0%	.	96

F2e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.9	23.9%	45.7%	29.8%	0.5%	0.2%	1,025
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.1	30.9%	46.1%	21.7%	1.3%	.	152

F2f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.9	24.3%	44.4%	30.3%	0.8%	0.2%	1,175

F2f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender*	3.9	23.7%	42.9%	31.6%	1.4%	0.4%	553
.....Male
.....Female	4.0	24.9%	45.8%	29.1%	0.2%	.	622

F2f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.9	27.6%	38.2%	34.2%	.	.	76
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.2	33.6%	52.7%	12.8%	0.7%	0.3%	298
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.4	53.3%	30.0%	16.7%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.8	18.9%	42.9%	37.2%	1.0%	0.1%	732
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.9	27.0%	35.1%	37.8%	.	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.8	20.6%	41.0%	37.3%	1.0%	0.1%	830
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.2	33.3%	52.8%	13.3%	0.3%	0.3%	345

F2f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	4.0	26.6%	44.4%	27.8%	0.6%	0.6%	331
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.9	22.6%	44.2%	32.2%	1.1%	.	541
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.9	24.8%	44.8%	30.0%	0.3%	.	290

F2f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.0	31.0%	44.4%	23.0%	1.6%	.	126
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.9	23.3%	44.5%	31.4%	0.6%	0.2%	1,028

F2f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.9	23.7%	44.8%	30.5%	0.9%	0.2%	1,054
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	4.0	31.3%	37.5%	31.3%	.	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	4.0	23.4%	48.9%	27.7%	.	.	47

F2f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.9	24.3%	45.4%	29.4%	0.7%	0.2%	1,079
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.8	25.0%	33.3%	40.6%	1.0%	.	96

F2f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.9	24.0%	43.9%	31.2%	0.7%	0.2%	1,024
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.0	26.5%	47.7%	24.5%	1.3%	.	151

Back to Top

F2g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	4.0	26.0%	46.3%	27.0%	0.5%	0.3%	1,175

F2g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.9	23.9%	48.6%	26.3%	0.7%	0.5%	552
.....Male
.....Female	4.0	27.8%	44.3%	27.6%	0.3%	.	623

F2g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.9	29.9%	28.6%	40.3%	1.3%	.	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.2	32.7%	53.9%	12.1%	0.7%	0.7%	297
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.5	60.0%	26.7%	13.3%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.9	21.7%	45.9%	31.8%	0.4%	0.1%	732
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.9	18.9%	48.6%	32.4%	.	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.9	23.4%	43.3%	32.7%	0.5%	0.1%	832
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.2	32.1%	53.6%	13.1%	0.6%	0.6%	343

F2g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	4.0	28.9%	43.2%	26.7%	0.6%	0.6%	329
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	4.0	25.4%	47.0%	27.3%	0.4%	.	543
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.9	23.1%	49.0%	26.9%	0.7%	0.3%	290

F2g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.1	36.5%	41.3%	21.4%	0.8%	.	126
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.9	24.4%	47.2%	27.6%	0.5%	0.3%	1,028

F2g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	4.0	25.5%	47.4%	26.3%	0.5%	0.3%	1,054
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	4.0	32.8%	31.3%	35.9%	.	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	3.9	21.3%	44.7%	31.9%	2.1%	.	47

F2g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	4.0	26.3%	46.8%	26.1%	0.5%	0.3%	1,079
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.8	21.9%	40.6%	36.5%	1.0%	.	96

F2g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	4.0	25.3%	46.3%	27.5%	0.6%	0.3%	1,023
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.1	30.3%	46.1%	23.7%	.	.	152

F2h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	4.0	24.8%	46.5%	28.1%	0.3%	0.3%	1,174

F2h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.9	22.5%	49.8%	27.2%	0.2%	0.4%	552
.....Male
.....Female	4.0	26.8%	43.6%	28.9%	0.5%	0.2%	622

F2h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.9	28.6%	32.5%	36.4%	1.3%	1.3%	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.2	31.0%	56.6%	12.1%	.	0.3%	297
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.4	63.3%	16.7%	20.0%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.9	20.5%	45.4%	33.5%	0.4%	0.1%	731
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.8	18.9%	43.2%	37.8%	.	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.9	22.3%	42.6%	34.4%	0.5%	0.2%	831
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.2	30.9%	56.0%	12.8%	.	0.3%	343

F2h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	4.0	26.7%	44.7%	27.1%	0.6%	0.9%	329
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.9	23.6%	46.1%	29.9%	0.4%	.	542
.....Upper middle/Upper class	4.0	24.5%	49.3%	26.2%	.	.	290

F2h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.1	33.3%	43.7%	23.0%	.	.	126
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.9	23.7%	46.9%	28.7%	0.4%	0.3%	1,027

F2h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.9	24.1%	47.5%	27.8%	0.3%	0.3%	1,053
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	4.0	32.8%	31.3%	34.4%	1.6%	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	4.0	23.4%	48.9%	27.7%	.	.	47

F2h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	4.0	25.0%	46.9%	27.4%	0.4%	0.3%	1,078
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.9	21.9%	41.7%	36.5%	.	.	96

F2h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.9	24.0%	46.8%	28.6%	0.4%	0.3%	1,022
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.1	30.3%	44.7%	25.0%	.	.	152

F2i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.8	22.1%	38.0%	38.6%	0.7%	0.7%	1,174

F2i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender*	3.7	19.2%	37.9%	40.6%	1.1%	1.3%	552
.....Male
.....Female	3.9	24.6%	38.1%	36.8%	0.3%	0.2%	622

F2i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.8	24.7%	31.2%	44.2%	.	.	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.0	26.9%	49.2%	22.6%	0.7%	0.7%	297
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.3	56.7%	13.3%	30.0%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.7	18.7%	35.4%	44.3%	0.8%	0.8%	732
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.6	13.9%	36.1%	50.0%	.	.	36
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.7	20.3%	34.2%	44.0%	0.7%	0.7%	831
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.0	26.2%	47.2%	25.4%	0.6%	0.6%	343

F2i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.8	24.6%	36.8%	37.4%	.	1.2%	329
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.8	21.2%	39.0%	38.3%	0.9%	0.6%	543
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.8	20.8%	37.7%	40.1%	1.0%	0.3%	289

F2i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.0	28.0%	41.6%	29.6%	.	0.8%	125
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.8	21.4%	37.6%	39.7%	0.8%	0.6%	1,029

F2i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.8	21.4%	38.8%	38.3%	0.8%	0.7%	1,054
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.8	29.7%	23.4%	45.3%	.	1.6%	64
.....Prefer not to answer	3.9	23.4%	40.4%	36.2%	.	.	47

F2i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.8	22.2%	38.6%	37.9%	0.7%	0.6%	1,078
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.7	20.8%	31.3%	45.8%	.	2.1%	96

F2i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.8	21.8%	37.8%	39.0%	0.7%	0.7%	1,022
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.8	23.7%	39.5%	35.5%	0.7%	0.7%	152

F2j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.8	20.9%	38.7%	39.9%	0.1%	0.4%	1,173

F2j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.8	20.3%	38.8%	39.9%	0.2%	0.9%	552
.....Male
.....Female	3.8	21.4%	38.6%	39.9%	.	.	621

F2j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.8	28.6%	23.4%	48.1%	.	.	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	28.6%	52.2%	18.2%	.	1.0%	297
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.2	46.7%	26.7%	26.7%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.7	16.1%	35.8%	47.6%	0.1%	0.3%	731
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.6	13.9%	30.6%	55.6%	.	.	36
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.7	18.1%	33.7%	47.8%	0.1%	0.2%	830
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.0	27.7%	50.7%	20.7%	.	0.9%	343

F2j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.8	23.9%	35.2%	40.3%	.	0.6%	330
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.8	19.6%	39.5%	40.4%	0.2%	0.4%	542
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.8	19.8%	41.0%	38.9%	.	0.3%	288

F2j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.0	27.0%	41.3%	31.7%	.	.	126
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.8	20.1%	38.4%	41.0%	0.1%	0.5%	1,027

F2j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.8	19.9%	39.7%	39.8%	0.1%	0.5%	1,054
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.8	29.7%	21.9%	48.4%	.	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	3.9	28.3%	37.0%	34.8%	.	.	46

F2j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	3.8	21.1%	39.0%	39.4%	0.1%	0.5%	1,077
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.7	18.8%	35.4%	45.8%	.	.	96

F2j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.8	20.5%	38.6%	40.3%	0.1%	0.5%	1,022
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.9	23.2%	39.7%	37.1%	.	.	151

F2k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.8	23.1%	40.5%	34.9%	0.9%	0.5%	1,175

F2k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	3.8	22.3%	41.5%	34.4%	1.3%	0.5%	552
.....Male
.....Female	3.9	23.9%	39.6%	35.3%	0.6%	0.5%	623

F2k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.8	27.3%	27.3%	45.5%	.	.	77
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.1	30.2%	54.0%	15.1%	0.3%	0.3%	298
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.3	60.0%	16.7%	20.0%	3.3%	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.7	18.6%	37.6%	41.9%	1.2%	0.7%	731
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.7	16.2%	37.8%	45.9%	.	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.7	20.0%	35.4%	42.8%	1.2%	0.6%	831
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.1	30.8%	52.9%	15.7%	0.3%	0.3%	344

F2k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	3.9	26.1%	36.8%	35.3%	0.9%	0.9%	329
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	3.8	21.4%	41.6%	35.5%	1.1%	0.4%	543
.....Upper middle/Upper class	3.9	22.4%	43.1%	33.4%	0.7%	0.3%	290

F2k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.0	29.1%	45.7%	24.4%	.	0.8%	127
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	3.8	22.2%	39.9%	36.3%	1.1%	0.5%	1,027

F2k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	3.8	22.9%	41.0%	34.7%	0.9%	0.6%	1,054
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	3.8	26.6%	29.7%	40.6%	3.1%	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	3.8	19.1%	44.7%	36.2%	.	.	47

F2k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status*	3.9	23.4%	41.2%	34.1%	0.8%	0.4%	1,079
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.7	19.8%	32.3%	43.8%	2.1%	2.1%	96

F2k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	3.8	23.1%	40.0%	35.3%	1.0%	0.6%	1,024
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	3.9	23.2%	43.7%	32.5%	0.7%	.	151

F2l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin

	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Total (N)	4.0	27.9%	44.1%	27.2%	0.3%	0.5%	1,174

F2l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Gender	4.0	27.4%	45.8%	25.5%	0.4%	0.9%	554
.....Male
.....Female	4.0	28.2%	42.6%	28.7%	0.3%	0.2%	620

F2l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity*	3.9	31.6%	31.6%	35.5%	.	1.3%	76
.....African American/Black
.....Asian	4.2	35.9%	51.7%	11.7%	.	0.7%	298
.....Hispanic/Latino	4.6	70.0%	16.7%	13.3%	.	.	30
.....White/Caucasian	3.9	22.7%	43.6%	32.7%	0.5%	0.4%	731
.....Multiple races/ethnicities	3.9	21.6%	43.2%	35.1%	.	.	37
.....Other/Unknown	4.0	50.0%	.	50.0%	.	.	2

F2l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Residency*	3.9	24.1%	41.5%	33.3%	0.5%	0.6%	829
.....U.S. resident
.....International student	4.2	36.8%	50.4%	12.5%	.	0.3%	345

F2l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background	4.0	31.4%	39.9%	27.5%	0.3%	0.9%	331
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class	4.0	25.7%	46.1%	27.6%	0.4%	0.2%	540
.....Upper middle/Upper class	4.0	27.2%	45.5%	26.2%	0.3%	0.7%	290

F2l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
First Generation College Student	4.2	36.2%	43.3%	20.5%	.	.	127
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation	4.0	26.7%	44.2%	28.1%	0.4%	0.6%	1,026

F2l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Sexual Orientation	4.0	27.1%	45.1%	26.9%	0.4%	0.6%	1,053
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual	4.0	32.8%	32.8%	34.4%	.	.	64
.....Prefer not to answer	4.0	31.9%	40.4%	27.7%	.	.	47

F2l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Disability Status	4.0	28.0%	44.5%	26.5%	0.4%	0.6%	1,078
.....No disability
.....Disability	3.9	26.0%	39.6%	34.4%	.	.	96

F2l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin	Mean Rating	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age	4.0	27.5%	44.1%	27.6%	0.3%	0.6%	1,023
.....Traditional (20-35)
.....Non-Traditional (>35)	4.0	30.5%	44.4%	24.5%	0.7%	.	151

Back to Top

View These Results by Academic College

To download an MS Word document with results by demographic profile, click here.

Endnote:
Gender, residency, and age are based on information obtained from official university records. Race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, college generation, sexual orientation, and disability status are based on self-reported survey data. Race/ethnicity was obtained from official university records for those who chose not to self-identify. (back)

For more information on the 2010 Campus Climate Survey contact:
Dr. Nancy Whelchel, Associate Director for Survey Research
Office of Institutional Planning and Research
Box 7002
NCSU
Phone: (919) 515-4184
Email: Nancy_Whelchel@ncsu.edu

Posted: January, 2011

Return to Student Demographic Profile Table of Contents

Return to 2010 Campus Climate Survey Table of Contents

Return to OIRP Survey Page

Return to OIRP Home Page