North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
College of Education

The NC State University Campus Climate Survey was conducted in two years: 2004 and 2010. This page shows trends in survey responses for items included in both survey waves, for students enrolled in the College of Education.

To skip directly to a particular section, select the section below.

Section A: Your NC State Experience	Section C: Multicultural Activities on Campus	Section E: Campus Climate
Section B: Interacting with Others	Section D: Role of Diversity in Higher Education	Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity

Section A: Your NC State Experience

Overall experience at NC State

Overall experience at NC State	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	28.5%	60.1%	10.1%	1.3%	158
2004
2010	3.2	35.8%	53.0%	9.9%	1.3%	151

Feel like you have a good support network ¹

Feel like you have a good support network	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	1.9%	10.8%	24.7%	33.5%	29.1%	158
2004
2010	3.3	6.6%	15.2%	25.8%	42.4%	9.9%	151

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	Total (N)
Year	1.4	67.9%	26.4%	4.4%	1.3%	159
2004
2010	1.3	76.0%	19.3%	4.7%	.	150

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Talley Student Center ^{2 3}

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Talley Student Center	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.7	18.9%	44.0%	27.0%	10.1%	.	159
2004
2010	3.9	24.7%	54.5%	13.0%	6.5%	1.3%	77

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Witherspoon Center ^{2 3}

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Witherspoon Center	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	20.1%	38.4%	29.6%	11.9%	.	159
2004
2010	4.0	31.3%	43.3%	19.4%	1.5%	4.5%	67

Comfort: Participating in a research project with faculty ²

Comfort: Participating in research project with faculty	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.3	46.3%	41.9%	7.5%	4.4%	160
2004
2010	4.2	37.0%	50.7%	11.0%	1.4%	73

Comfort: Participating in campus social life ²

Comfort: Participating in campus social life	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.7	21.4%	40.3%	25.8%	11.9%	0.6%	159
2004
2010	3.8	20.3%	51.9%	21.5%	5.1%	1.3%	79

Comfort: Meeting with advisor ²

Comfort: Meeting with advisor	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	4.4	56.9%	36.3%	0.6%	6.3%	.	160
2004
2010	4.0	44.7%	31.3%	11.3%	6.7%	6.0%	150

Comfort: Meeting with graduate committee ²

Comfort: Meeting with graduate committee	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.1	38.1%	42.5%	11.3%	7.5%	0.6%	160
2004
2010	4.1	34.4%	45.3%	15.6%	1.6%	3.1%	64

Comfort: Working with research team ²

Comfort: Working with research team	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.2	41.5%	40.9%	15.1%	1.9%	0.6%	159
2004
2010	4.4	46.7%	41.7%	11.7%	.	.	60

Comfort: Participating in multicultural/ethnic activities on campus ²

Comfort: Participating in multicultural/ethnic activities on campus	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.9	25.8%	47.2%	20.1%	6.3%	0.6%	159
2004
2010	4.0	27.5%	50.7%	15.9%	2.9%	2.9%	69

Comfort: Participating in student organizations ²

Comfort: Participating in student organizations	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.8	22.8%	44.3%	20.9%	11.4%	0.6%	158
2004
2010	4.0	29.8%	50.0%	14.3%	3.6%	2.4%	84

Comfort: Interacting with department/program support staff ^{2 4}

Comfort: Interacting with department/program support staff	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	4.4	51.3%	40.6%	3.1%	5.0%	.	160
2004
2010	4.1	36.3%	47.3%	10.3%	2.1%	4.1%	146

Comfort: Interacting with top level administrators ²

Comfort: Interacting with top level administrators	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	29.6%	39.0%	16.4%	13.2%	1.9%	159
2004
2010	3.9	19.5%	61.0%	14.6%	2.4%	2.4%	82

Comfort: Interacting with faculty during office hrs/outside classroom ²

Comfort: Interacting with faculty during office hrs/outside classroom	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	4.4	52.2%	39.6%	3.8%	4.4%	.	159
2004
2010	4.1	35.4%	50.0%	6.9%	2.8%	4.9%	144

Working hard leads to desired grade ⁵

Working hard leads to desired grade	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.4	51.9%	42.5%	1.9%	3.8%	.	160
2004
2010	4.3	48.6%	42.6%	4.1%	3.4%	1.4%	148

Ignored in class when attempting to participate ⁵

Ignored in class when attempting to participate	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	1.7	0.6%	1.3%	8.2%	48.7%	41.1%	158
2004
2010	1.6	.	2.0%	8.8%	33.8%	55.4%	148

Comments taken seriously by instructor ⁵

Comments taken seriously by instructor	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.3	38.8%	57.5%	3.1%	0.6%	.	160
2004
2010	4.4	50.7%	41.9%	5.4%	0.7%	1.4%	148

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work ⁵

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	1.7	0.6%	2.5%	1.9%	53.1%	41.9%	160
2004
2010	1.7	0.7%	4.1%	9.5%	35.4%	50.3%	147

Faculty recognize importance of ideas ⁵

Faculty recognize importance of ideas	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	4.3	36.3%	57.5%	4.4%	1.9%	.	160
2004
2010	4.3	46.3%	40.8%	8.2%	4.1%	0.7%	147

Singled out to speak on behalf of specific group ⁵

Singled out to speak on behalf of specific group	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	2.3	2.5%	13.8%	18.8%	39.4%	25.6%	160
2004
2010	1.9	0.7%	11.6%	12.9%	28.6%	46.3%	147

Professors communicate welcomeness in course ⁵

Professors communicate welcomeness in course	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.4	46.3%	45.6%	5.6%	1.9%	0.6%	160
2004
2010	4.4	52.7%	39.9%	6.1%	1.4%	.	148

Comfortable among students in courses ^{5 6}

Comfortable among students in courses	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.4	43.0%	52.5%	3.8%	0.6%	.	158
2004
2010	4.3	46.6%	44.6%	5.4%	2.7%	0.7%	148

Faculty support for attending conferences ⁷

Faculty support for attending conferences	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	35.8%	38.3%	15.8%	10.0%	120
2010

Faculty support for presenting at conferences ⁷

Faculty support for presenting at conferences	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	36.0%	48.2%	12.3%	3.5%	114
2004
2010	3.1	40.9%	37.4%	13.9%	7.8%	115

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair ⁷

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.3	48.0%	32.2%	17.8%	2.0%	152
2004
2010	3.1	44.9%	30.4%	18.1%	6.5%	138

Committee responsiveness ⁷

Committee responsiveness	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.1	35.0%	45.0%	16.0%	4.0%	100
2004
2010	3.2	45.7%	34.3%	15.7%	4.3%	70

Ability to select committee you are comfortable working with ⁷

Ability to select committee you are comfortable working with	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.9	34.0%	34.0%	24.7%	7.2%	97
2004
2010	3.1	38.8%	38.8%	13.8%	8.8%	80

Ability to work effectively with lab partners/research group ⁷

Ability to work effectively with lab partners/research group	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	29.8%	57.7%	11.5%	1.0%	104
2004
2010	3.2	32.4%	58.8%	4.4%	4.4%	68

Selection process for TAs/RAs ⁷

Selection process for TAs/RAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.8	21.2%	42.4%	28.2%	8.2%	85
2004
2010	2.7	31.3%	28.8%	18.8%	21.3%	80

Selection process for other funding opportunities ⁷

Selection process for other funding opportunities	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.5	19.3%	32.5%	30.1%	18.1%	83
2004
2010	2.6	26.3%	30.0%	18.8%	25.0%	80

Back to Top

Section B: Interacting with Others

Interact with students from different race/ethnicity ⁸

Interact with students from different race/ethnicity	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	4.2	48.4%	30.8%	15.1%	5.0%	0.6%	159
2004
2010	4.4	58.0%	27.3%	9.8%	4.9%	.	143

Interact with students who have a disability ⁸

Interact with students who have a disability	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	2.8	5.6%	16.2%	40.8%	31.0%	6.3%	142
2004
2010	2.6	7.2%	14.4%	26.8%	36.1%	15.5%	97

Interact with students with different religious belief ⁸

Interact with students with different religious belief	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	4.0	38.0%	30.3%	23.9%	7.0%	0.7%	142
2004
2010	4.2	47.5%	30.8%	18.3%	3.3%	.	120

Interact with students with different sexual orientation ⁸

Interact with students with different sexual orientation	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	3.3	18.3%	19.8%	40.5%	19.1%	2.3%	131
2004
2010	3.9	34.5%	28.2%	27.3%	8.2%	1.8%	110

Interact with students from different social/economic background ⁸

Interact with students from different social/economic background	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	Total (N)
Year	4.0	32.2%	36.8%	26.3%	4.6%	152
2004
2010	4.1	34.5%	41.6%	18.6%	5.3%	113

Socialized with student of different race/ethnicity than own within past year ⁸

Socialized with student of different race/ethnicity than own within past year	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	3.5	26.3%	31.3%	20.6%	11.9%	10.0%	160
2004
2010	3.3	26.1%	23.2%	23.9%	11.3%	15.5%	142

Worked in class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year ⁸

Worked in class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	4.1	38.8%	36.9%	20.6%	2.5%	1.3%	160
2004
2010	4.0	41.8%	29.8%	17.0%	6.4%	5.0%	141

Worked outside class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year ⁸

Worked outside class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	3.6	28.1%	29.4%	24.4%	5.6%	12.5%	160
2004
2010	3.5	34.0%	23.4%	17.0%	12.1%	13.5%	141

Worked on a research team with student of different race/ethnicity within past year ⁸

Worked on a research team with student of different race/ethnicity within past year	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	2.6	17.6%	12.6%	24.5%	5.0%	40.3%	159
2004
2010	2.6	22.5%	11.6%	12.4%	5.4%	48.1%	129

Number of classes taught by instructor of different race/ethnicity

Number of classes taught by instructor of different race/ethnicity	None	A few	Some	Most	All	Total (N)
Year*	16.9%	32.5%	34.4%	9.4%	6.9%	160
2004
2010	18.2%	46.9%	17.5%	10.5%	7.0%	143

Committee members of a different racial/ethnic/cultural background ⁹

Committee members of a different racial/ethnic/cultural background	Yes	No	Not Applicable	Total (N)
Year	33.1%	18.1%	48.8%	160
2004
2010	33.1%	14.1%	52.8%	142

Number of roommates of different race/ethnicity

Number of roommates of different race/ethnicity	Never had a roommate	Never	Once	Twice	Three or more times	Total (N)
Year	77.5%	17.5%	2.5%	1.3%	1.3%	160
2004
2010	73.0%	17.7%	6.4%	.	2.8%	141

Back to Top

Section C: Multicultural Activities on Campus

Number of grad courses with diversity issues clearly integrated

Number of grad courses with diversity issues clearly integrated	None	A few	Some	Most	All	Total (N)
Year*	10.6%	32.5%	24.4%	21.3%	11.3%	160
2004
2010	0.7%	25.7%	20.7%	40.0%	12.9%	140

Impact of courses on thinking about/understanding of diversity

Impact of courses on thinking about/understanding of diversity	Mean	5: Very positive impact	4: Positive impact	3: Neither positive nor negative impact	2: Negative impact	1: Very negative impact	Total (N)
Year	4.1	32.4%	45.1%	19.0%	3.5%	.	142
2004
2010	4.2	36.0%	46.0%	16.5%	0.7%	0.7%	139

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events	Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Year	64.1%	7.7%	14.1%	14.1%	156
2004
2010	57.1%	7.9%	12.1%	22.9%	140

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not aware	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	49.4%	50.6%	160
2004
2010	50.0%	50.0%	80

Reasons for not participating: Event has nothing to do with me ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Event has nothing to do with me	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	17.5%	82.5%	160
2004
2010	12.5%	87.5%	80

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	68.8%	31.3%	160
2004
2010	68.8%	31.3%	80

Reasons for not participating: Not convenient for schedule ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not convenient for schedule	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	71.3%	28.8%	160
2004
2010	72.5%	27.5%	80

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	5.6%	94.4%	160
2004
2010	3.8%	96.3%	80

Reasons for not participating: Friends do not participate ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Friends do not participate	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	5.6%	94.4%	160
2004
2010	7.5%	92.5%	80

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	25.0%	75.0%	160
2004
2010	17.5%	82.5%	80

Reasons for not participating: Location ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Location	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	15.0%	85.0%	160
2004
2010	16.3%	83.8%	80

Reasons for not participating: Cost ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Cost	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	11.9%	88.1%	160
2004
2010	5.0%	95.0%	80

Reasons for not participating: Other ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Other	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	16.3%	83.8%	160
2004
2010	7.5%	92.5%	80

Back to Top

Section D: The Role of Diversity in Higher Education

NCSU provides environment for free expression of ideas/opinions/beliefs ¹¹

NCSU provides environment for free expression of ideas/opinions/beliefs	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.8	16.3%	59.4%	13.8%	8.1%	2.5%	160
2004
2010	3.8	21.9%	51.8%	17.5%	6.6%	2.2%	137

NCSU is good place to learn about multicultural issues/perspectives ¹¹

NCSU is good place to learn about multicultural issues/perspectives	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.5	6.3%	55.6%	24.4%	11.9%	1.9%	160
2004
2010	3.6	11.1%	51.1%	24.4%	10.4%	3.0%	135

NCSU places too much emphasis on diversity ¹¹

NCSU places too much emphasis on diversity	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	2.6	6.3%	13.1%	28.8%	36.3%	15.6%	160
2004
2010	2.2	3.6%	9.5%	19.0%	38.0%	29.9%	137

Diversity is good for NCSU ¹¹

Diversity is good for NCSU	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.4	50.3%	44.0%	4.4%	0.6%	0.6%	159
2004
2010	4.5	56.9%	34.3%	5.8%	2.9%	.	137

Efforts to increase diversity lead to admission of less qualified students ¹¹

Efforts to increase diversity lead to admission of less qualified students	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	2.5	4.4%	14.4%	28.1%	33.1%	20.0%	160
2004
2010	2.3	4.4%	13.9%	21.9%	28.5%	31.4%	137

Efforts to increase diversity lead to less qualified faculty/staff/admin ¹¹

Efforts to increase diversity lead to less qualified faculty/staff/admin	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	2.5	5.6%	11.3%	30.0%	33.8%	19.4%	160
2004
2010	2.2	3.7%	11.1%	21.5%	26.7%	37.0%	135

Enhancing ability to partic in multicultural society should be part of univ mission ¹¹

Enhancing ability to partic in multicultural society should be part of univ mission	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.3	47.2%	38.4%	8.2%	5.7%	0.6%	159
2004
2010	4.2	38.0%	46.0%	13.1%	2.2%	0.7%	137

Fostering intellectual diversity should be goal of NCSU ¹¹

Fostering intellectual diversity should be goal of NCSU	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.3	44.0%	45.3%	5.7%	4.4%	0.6%	159
2004
2010	4.5	54.0%	38.0%	7.3%	0.7%	.	137

Building diverse/inclusive community should be key goal of NCSU ¹¹

Building diverse/inclusive community should be key goal of NCSU	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.1	40.3%	37.1%	11.9%	10.1%	0.6%	159
2004
2010	4.4	50.7%	37.5%	8.8%	2.9%	.	136

Easy to find diversity info on NCSU website ¹¹

Easy to find diversity info on NCSU website	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	4.4%	23.4%	50.0%	20.3%	1.9%	158
2004
2010	3.4	10.2%	32.1%	46.7%	10.2%	0.7%	137

Learning about different cultures is important part of grad education ¹¹

Learning about different cultures is important part of grad education	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	39.4%	37.5%	10.0%	11.3%	1.9%	160
2004
2010	4.4	53.3%	35.8%	5.8%	5.1%	.	137

Including diversity in curriculum detracts from more important knowledge ¹¹

Including diversity in curriculum detracts from more important knowledge	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	2.4	6.3%	15.0%	14.4%	36.3%	28.1%	160
2004
2010	2.2	10.2%	11.7%	8.0%	31.4%	38.7%	137

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me to work in chosen field ¹¹

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me to work in chosen field	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.4	53.1%	36.9%	6.3%	2.5%	1.3%	160
2004
2010	4.6	64.2%	29.9%	5.1%	0.7%	.	137

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me live in my community ¹¹

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me live in my community	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.2	44.7%	39.6%	11.9%	1.9%	1.9%	159
2004
2010	4.4	54.7%	34.3%	8.8%	1.5%	0.7%	137

Interaction with different people is essential part of grad education ¹¹

Interaction with different people is essential part of grad education	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.0	38.8%	35.6%	14.4%	8.8%	2.5%	160
2004
2010	4.2	46.0%	35.0%	13.1%	4.4%	1.5%	137

Back to Top

Section E: Campus Climate

Faculty respect for grad students in general

Faculty respect for grad students in general	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.3	36.9%	56.9%	5.6%	0.6%	160
2004
2010	3.3	43.3%	47.0%	8.2%	1.5%	134

Faculty respect for minority grad students

Faculty respect for minority grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	34.0%	56.0%	8.2%	1.9%	159
2004
2010	3.3	41.7%	48.5%	9.1%	0.8%	132

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.7	13.7%	50.3%	28.8%	7.2%	153
2004
2010	2.8	18.8%	50.9%	25.0%	5.4%	112

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.8	15.1%	56.6%	24.3%	3.9%	152
2004
2010	3.1	25.0%	58.0%	15.2%	1.8%	112

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	34.4%	56.3%	8.8%	0.6%	160
2004
2010	3.4	40.3%	55.2%	3.7%	0.7%	134

Grad student respect for minority faculty

Grad student respect for minority faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	33.1%	56.1%	8.3%	2.5%	157
2004
2010	3.3	38.9%	52.7%	6.9%	1.5%	131

Faculty respect for female grad students

Faculty respect for female grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	32.3%	58.9%	7.6%	1.3%	158
2004
2010	3.3	41.8%	47.8%	9.0%	1.5%	134

Grad student respect for female faculty

Grad student respect for female faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.3	36.1%	57.0%	6.3%	0.6%	158
2004
2010	3.4	42.4%	51.5%	5.3%	0.8%	132

Friendships between grad students of different racial/ethnic groups

Friendships between grad students of different racial/ethnic groups	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.1	25.9%	59.5%	12.0%	2.5%	158
2004
2010	3.2	32.8%	54.2%	11.5%	1.5%	131

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT grad students

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.9	20.0%	53.5%	20.0%	6.5%	155
2004
2010	3.0	28.3%	48.8%	18.9%	3.9%	127

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	22.6%	49.1%	22.6%	5.0%	0.6%	159
2004
2010	4.0	23.5%	53.0%	19.7%	3.0%	0.8%	132

NCSU Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students

NCSU Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.7	16.0%	42.9%	35.9%	4.5%	0.6%	156
2004
2010	3.7	14.6%	46.2%	32.3%	5.4%	1.5%	130

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	22.9%	48.4%	25.5%	3.2%	157
2004
2010	4.0	24.4%	52.7%	21.4%	1.5%	131

NCSU Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students

NCSU Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.8	18.7%	44.5%	30.3%	6.5%	.	155
2004
2010	3.7	16.8%	47.3%	29.8%	5.3%	0.8%	131

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.2	37.6%	48.4%	12.7%	1.3%	.	157
2004
2010	4.3	46.6%	42.7%	9.9%	.	0.8%	131

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	24.5%	48.4%	24.5%	2.6%	155
2004
2010	4.1	25.4%	56.2%	16.9%	1.5%	130

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	22.3%	61.1%	14.6%	1.9%	157
2004
2010	4.1	27.3%	56.1%	16.7%	.	132

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.2	34.8%	51.0%	13.5%	0.6%	155
2004
2010	4.3	42.0%	48.9%	9.2%	.	131

NCSU Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students

NCSU Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.4	9.0%	41.7%	34.0%	13.5%	1.9%	156
2004
2010	3.4	13.3%	37.5%	29.7%	18.0%	1.6%	128

Note: Transgendered students were included in 2004 question wording, but not 2010 wording.

NCSU Supportiveness: Christian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Christian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	22.2%	45.8%	28.8%	2.6%	0.7%	153
2004
2010	4.3	45.0%	37.4%	16.0%	1.5%	.	131

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.7	18.2%	46.8%	23.4%	11.0%	0.6%	154
2004
2010	3.6	19.1%	38.9%	24.4%	16.0%	1.5%	131

NCSU Supportiveness: Poor/working class students

NCSU Supportiveness: Poor/working class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.6	13.7%	43.8%	32.0%	7.2%	3.3%	153
2004
2010	3.8	18.3%	45.0%	32.1%	4.6%	.	131

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	20.8%	58.4%	18.2%	2.6%	154
2004
2010	4.0	24.4%	52.7%	21.4%	1.5%	131

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	28.6%	51.9%	19.5%	.	154
2004
2010	4.2	37.2%	45.7%	16.3%	0.8%	129

NCSU Supportiveness: Students with children

NCSU Supportiveness: Students with children	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.5	14.7%	36.7%	29.3%	18.0%	1.3%	150
2004
2010	3.4	17.6%	28.2%	35.9%	17.6%	0.8%	131

Grad Program Supportiveness: African American students

Grad Program Supportiveness: African American students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.1	33.6%	51.3%	12.5%	1.3%	1.3%	152
2004
2010	4.4	50.0%	40.9%	7.6%	1.5%	.	132

Grad Program Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	26.2%	45.6%	26.2%	1.3%	0.7%	149
2004
2010	4.1	38.8%	35.7%	25.6%	.	.	129

Grad Program Supportiveness: Asian students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	32.0%	47.3%	18.7%	1.3%	0.7%	150
2004
2010	4.3	45.4%	43.1%	10.8%	0.8%	.	130

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	27.9%	48.3%	21.8%	1.4%	0.7%	147
2004
2010	4.2	41.2%	38.9%	19.8%	.	.	131

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.3	40.7%	48.0%	10.0%	1.3%	150
2004
2010	4.5	53.8%	38.5%	6.9%	0.8%	130

Grad Program Supportiveness: International students

Grad Program Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	33.3%	46.0%	18.0%	2.0%	0.7%	150
2004
2010	4.3	45.8%	41.2%	13.0%	.	.	131

Grad Program Supportiveness: Female students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Female students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.2	34.2%	54.6%	10.5%	0.7%	152
2004
2010	4.4	49.6%	42.7%	6.9%	0.8%	131

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.2	36.0%	50.0%	12.7%	1.3%	150
2004
2010	4.4	52.3%	37.7%	8.5%	1.5%	130

Grad Program Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	20.1%	45.6%	28.2%	4.7%	1.3%	149
2004
2010	4.2	40.6%	37.5%	20.3%	1.6%	.	128

Note: Transgendered students were included in 2004 question wording, but not 2010 wording.

Grad Program Supportiveness: Christian students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Christian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	24.3%	43.9%	28.4%	2.7%	0.7%	148
2004
2010	4.2	41.2%	40.5%	16.8%	1.5%	.	131

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.3	43.0%	44.3%	9.4%	3.4%	149
2004
2010	4.2	43.1%	40.0%	13.1%	3.8%	130

Grad Program Supportiveness: Poor/working class students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Poor/working class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	23.6%	44.6%	25.0%	6.8%	.	148
2004
2010	4.1	40.8%	36.9%	18.5%	3.1%	0.8%	130

Grad Program Supportiveness: Middle class students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Middle class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	28.9%	51.7%	18.8%	0.7%	149
2004
2010	4.2	42.3%	40.8%	16.2%	0.8%	130

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.1	28.2%	51.0%	20.8%	.	149
2004
2010	4.3	45.0%	38.0%	16.3%	0.8%	129

Grad Program Supportiveness: Students with children

Grad Program Supportiveness: Students with children	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	27.7%	47.3%	20.9%	3.4%	0.7%	148
2004
2010	4.1	41.5%	36.2%	17.7%	3.8%	0.8%	130

Back to Top

Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity

Influence on thinking: Interactions with students in class ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	4.1	28.9%	56.0%	13.2%	1.9%	159
2004
2010	4.1	31.8%	53.8%	11.4%	3.0%	132

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	19.0%	57.6%	21.5%	1.3%	0.6%	158
2004
2010	4.2	32.3%	52.4%	14.5%	0.8%	.	124

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	4.0	24.5%	52.8%	20.1%	2.5%	159
2004
2010	4.2	35.7%	51.2%	11.6%	1.6%	129

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	19.0%	44.9%	34.2%	1.9%	158
2004
2010	4.1	29.4%	51.3%	18.5%	0.8%	119

Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.8	12.7%	62.0%	22.2%	3.2%	158
2004
2010	4.0	22.7%	56.8%	19.7%	0.8%	132

Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	4.2	32.7%	56.0%	10.1%	1.3%	159
2004
2010	4.2	34.4%	54.7%	10.9%	.	128

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.4	6.3%	23.3%	70.4%	159
2004
2010	3.8	17.9%	46.4%	35.7%	84

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.3	5.1%	25.0%	69.2%	0.6%	156
2004
2010	3.7	14.1%	45.9%	40.0%	.	85

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.8	12.7%	56.7%	28.0%	2.5%	157
2004
2010	4.0	22.8%	52.8%	22.8%	1.6%	127

Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	25.8%	49.1%	13.8%	10.1%	1.3%	159
2004
2010	3.8	27.7%	38.5%	20.0%	11.5%	2.3%	130

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	4.0	21.5%	52.5%	25.9%	.	158
2004
2010	4.1	30.8%	45.9%	21.8%	1.5%	133

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	20.9%	41.8%	37.3%	158
2004
2010	4.1	32.6%	43.9%	23.5%	132

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	16.6%	46.5%	35.7%	1.3%	157
2004
2010	4.0	24.2%	53.0%	22.7%	.	132

Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds

Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	20.4%	49.0%	30.6%	157
2004
2010	4.1	34.6%	41.4%	24.1%	133

Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity

Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	4.0	24.5%	53.5%	20.6%	1.3%	155
2004
2010	4.2	33.3%	51.5%	15.2%	.	132

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

Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	20.6%	52.3%	27.1%	155
2004
2010	4.1	32.3%	45.1%	22.6%	133

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

Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	21.2%	46.2%	32.7%	156
2004
2010	4.1	30.8%	47.4%	21.8%	133

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

Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.7	16.1%	41.3%	41.9%	0.6%	155
2004
2010	4.0	26.7%	43.5%	29.8%	.	131

Back to Top

 

For more information on the Campus Climate Survey trends 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: July, 2011

Return to OIRP Survey Page

Return to OIRP Home Page