NC State logo

North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
College of Natural Resources


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 Natural Resources.

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
Total (N)
Year 3.3 38.1% 54.0% 7.9% 63
2004
2010 3.2 35.0% 46.7% 18.3% 60

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* 4.1 . 4.8% 16.1% 40.3% 38.7% 62
2004
2010 3.6 1.7% 13.3% 16.7% 56.7% 11.7% 60

Feel physically threatened 1

Feel physically threatened Mean 1: Never
2: Seldom
3: Occasionally 4: Often
Total (N)
Year 1.3 77.0% 19.7% 3.3% . 61
2004
2010 1.4 77.0% 13.1% 6.6% 3.3% 61

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 20.3% 40.6% 31.3% 7.8% . 64
2004
2010 3.7 17.9% 53.8% 15.4% 7.7% 5.1% 39

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* 3.5 14.1% 35.9% 39.1% 10.9% . 64
2004
2010 3.5 10.5% 63.2% 5.3% 10.5% 10.5% 19

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

1: Very uncomfortable

Total (N)
Year 4.5 59.4% 35.9% 4.7% . . 64
2004
2010 4.2 36.7% 53.1% 6.1% 2.0% 2.0% 49

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* 4.0 26.6% 45.3% 25.0% 3.1% . 64
2004
2010 3.6 10.4% 60.4% 16.7% 6.3% 6.3% 48

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 4.5 62.5% 26.6% 7.8% 1.6% 1.6% 64
2004
2010 4.4 61.7% 26.7% 5.0% 5.0% 1.7% 60

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 4.0 28.1% 56.3% 7.8% 7.8% . 64
2004
2010 4.1 45.7% 37.0% 4.3% 10.9% 2.2% 46

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 4.3 49.2% 36.5% 14.3% . . 63
2004
2010 4.3 43.8% 43.8% 8.3% 2.1% 2.1% 48

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 3.8 20.3% 45.3% 29.7% 4.7% . 64
2004
2010 3.6 18.2% 48.5% 15.2% 12.1% 6.1% 33

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 4.0 31.3% 43.8% 21.9% 3.1% . 64
2004
2010 3.8 18.2% 56.8% 11.4% 9.1% 4.5% 44

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 44.4% 52.4% 1.6% 1.6% . 63
2004
2010 4.4 60.3% 29.3% 5.2% 1.7% 3.4% 58

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 3.7 17.2% 48.4% 18.8% 14.1% 1.6% 64
2004
2010 3.8 22.2% 53.3% 15.6% 4.4% 4.4% 45

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 4.5 52.4% 42.9% 3.2% 1.6% . 63
2004
2010 4.2 39.0% 49.2% 8.5% . 3.4% 59

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 47.6% 46.0% 1.6% 4.8% . 63
2004
2010 4.2 40.7% 49.2% 5.1% 3.4% 1.7% 59

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 2.0 4.8% 3.2% 9.5% 50.8% 31.7% 63
2004
2010 1.6 . . 8.5% 40.7% 50.8% 59

Comments taken seriously by instructor 5

Comments taken seriously by instructor Mean 5: Strongly
agree
4: Agree

3: Neither
agree nor disagree
2: Disagree

Total (N)
Year 4.2 33.3% 58.7% 4.8% 3.2% 63
2004
2010 4.3 42.4% 49.2% 6.8% 1.7% 59

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 1.9 1.6% 4.8% 11.1% 46.0% 36.5% 63
2004
2010 1.8 1.7% 5.1% 8.5% 42.4% 42.4% 59

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 4.2 34.9% 50.8% 12.7% 1.6% . 63
2004
2010 4.0 27.1% 49.2% 20.3% 1.7% 1.7% 59

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* 2.2 . 7.9% 28.6% 42.9% 20.6% 63
2004
2010 2.1 1.7% 11.9% 23.7% 20.3% 42.4% 59

Professors communicate welcomeness in course 5

Professors communicate welcomeness in course Mean 5: Strongly
agree
4: Agree

3: Neither
agree nor disagree
2: Disagree

Total (N)
Year 4.3 41.3% 49.2% 6.3% 3.2% 63
2004
2010 4.3 39.0% 49.2% 11.9% . 59

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

Total (N)
Year 4.2 34.9% 54.0% 7.9% 3.2% 63
2004
2010 4.2 37.3% 50.8% 5.1% 6.8% 59

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 46.7% 24.4% 13.3% 15.6% 45
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 38.6% 50.9% 5.3% 5.3% 57
2004
2010 3.2 50.0% 31.0% 11.9% 7.1% 42

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair 7

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor
Total (N)
Year 3.4 57.8% 28.1% 10.9% 3.1% 64
2004
2010 3.4 55.4% 32.1% 8.9% 3.6% 56

Committee responsiveness 7

Committee responsiveness Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor
Total (N)
Year 3.2 37.7% 49.1% 11.3% 1.9% 53
2004
2010 3.2 40.4% 42.3% 15.4% 1.9% 52

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 3.3 38.6% 50.9% 8.8% 1.8% 57
2004
2010 3.1 38.5% 38.5% 21.2% 1.9% 52

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
Total (N)
Year 3.3 42.6% 45.9% 11.5% 61
2004
2010 3.3 39.5% 53.5% 7.0% 43

Selection process for TAs/RAs 7

Selection process for TAs/RAs Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor
Total (N)
Year* 3.2 35.2% 50.0% 14.8% . 54
2004
2010 3.0 33.3% 43.8% 8.3% 14.6% 48

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* 2.9 30.4% 34.8% 26.1% 8.7% 46
2004
2010 2.6 23.3% 39.5% 9.3% 27.9% 43
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 3.9 29.5% 44.3% 16.4% 9.8% . 61
2004
2010 4.0 43.1% 25.9% 24.1% 5.2% 1.7% 58

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* 2.9 8.9% 16.1% 33.9% 35.7% 5.4% 56
2004
2010 2.1 2.1% 6.4% 25.5% 34.0% 31.9% 47

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
Total (N)
Year 4.0 36.7% 34.7% 20.4% 8.2% 49
2004
2010 4.1 33.3% 46.7% 20.0% . 45

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* 2.8 7.1% 14.3% 38.1% 33.3% 7.1% 42
2004
2010 3.6 33.3% 21.2% 27.3% 9.1% 9.1% 33

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 32.1% 35.8% 28.3% 3.8% 53
2004
2010 4.1 37.0% 34.8% 26.1% 2.2% 46

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 3.6 20.6% 33.3% 34.9% 7.9% 3.2% 63
2004
2010 3.5 24.6% 24.6% 35.1% 5.3% 10.5% 57

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 3.6 22.2% 28.6% 36.5% 7.9% 4.8% 63
2004
2010 3.4 24.6% 26.3% 26.3% 8.8% 14.0% 57

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 3.3 22.6% 22.6% 27.4% 12.9% 14.5% 62
2004
2010 3.0 17.9% 17.9% 33.9% 10.7% 19.6% 56

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 3.3 23.8% 25.4% 23.8% 7.9% 19.0% 63
2004
2010 2.9 25.9% 16.7% 14.8% 7.4% 35.2% 54

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 17.5% 36.5% 27.0% 7.9% 11.1% 63
2004
2010 15.5% 39.7% 12.1% 22.4% 10.3% 58

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 49.2% 34.9% 15.9% 63
2004
2010 49.1% 36.8% 14.0% 57

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 44.4% 31.7% 14.3% 3.2% 6.3% 63
2004
2010 43.1% 32.8% 8.6% 6.9% 8.6% 58
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 51.6% 30.6% 11.3% 4.8% 1.6% 62
2004
2010 41.4% 32.8% 15.5% 10.3% . 58

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

Total (N)
Year 3.9 16.7% 60.0% 23.3% . 30
2004
2010 3.8 11.8% 58.8% 26.5% 2.9% 34

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events Never
Once
Two or three
times
Four or more
times
Total (N)
Year 69.4% 8.1% 14.5% 8.1% 62
2004
2010 63.8% 5.2% 27.6% 3.4% 58

Reasons for not participating: Not aware 10

Reasons for not participating: Not aware Yes, a reason No, not a reason Total (N)
Year 62.5% 37.5% 64
2004
2010 54.1% 45.9% 37

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* 12.5% 87.5% 64
2004
2010 35.1% 64.9% 37

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 71.9% 28.1% 64
2004
2010 73.0% 27.0% 37

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 53.1% 46.9% 64
2004
2010 62.2% 37.8% 37

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable 10

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable Yes, a reason No, not a reason Total (N)
Year 4.7% 95.3% 64
2004
2010 2.7% 97.3% 37

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 10.9% 89.1% 64
2004
2010 16.2% 83.8% 37

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic 10

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic Yes, a reason No, not a reason Total (N)
Year 26.6% 73.4% 64
2004
2010 40.5% 59.5% 37

Reasons for not participating: Location 10

Reasons for not participating: Location Yes, a reason No, not a reason Total (N)
Year 9.4% 90.6% 64
2004
2010 8.1% 91.9% 37

Reasons for not participating: Cost 10

Reasons for not participating: Cost Yes, a reason No, not a reason Total (N)
Year* 12.5% 87.5% 64
2004
2010 . 100.0% 37

Reasons for not participating: Other 10

Reasons for not participating: Other Yes, a reason No, not a reason Total (N)
Year 4.7% 95.3% 64
2004
2010 8.1% 91.9% 37
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 4.0 25.0% 53.1% 17.2% 4.7% . 64
2004
2010 3.9 20.7% 58.6% 13.8% 5.2% 1.7% 58

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% 42.9% 41.3% 9.5% . 63
2004
2010 3.3 8.9% 35.7% 35.7% 14.3% 5.4% 56

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 2.7 6.3% 14.1% 35.9% 34.4% 9.4% 64
2004
2010 2.6 5.3% 14.0% 29.8% 35.1% 15.8% 57

Diversity is good for NCSU 11

Diversity is good for NCSU Mean 5: Strongly
agree
4: Agree

3: Neither
agree nor disagree
Total (N)
Year 4.4 50.0% 39.1% 10.9% 64
2004
2010 4.4 46.6% 48.3% 5.2% 58

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 2.6 3.1% 20.3% 18.8% 45.3% 12.5% 64
2004
2010 2.4 1.7% 10.3% 29.3% 39.7% 19.0% 58

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 4.7% 14.1% 26.6% 39.1% 15.6% 64
2004
2010 2.4 . 15.5% 27.6% 36.2% 20.7% 58

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

Total (N)
Year 4.3 41.3% 46.0% 9.5% 3.2% 63
2004
2010 3.9 19.0% 62.1% 13.8% 5.2% 58

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
Total (N)
Year 4.3 46.9% 40.6% 12.5% 64
2004
2010 4.3 33.9% 60.7% 5.4% 56

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

Total (N)
Year 4.1 32.8% 46.9% 18.8% 1.6% 64
2004
2010 4.1 32.8% 53.4% 8.6% 5.2% 58

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 6.3% 19.0% 57.1% 12.7% 4.8% 63
2004
2010 3.2 1.7% 27.6% 58.6% 8.6% 3.4% 58

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

Total (N)
Year 3.9 32.8% 34.4% 18.8% 14.1% 64
2004
2010 4.1 41.4% 37.9% 10.3% 10.3% 58

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 2.5 7.8% 15.6% 17.2% 40.6% 18.8% 64
2004
2010 2.7 12.1% 19.0% 17.2% 34.5% 17.2% 58

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

Total (N)
Year 4.3 45.3% 35.9% 17.2% 1.6% 64
2004
2010 4.0 32.8% 41.4% 20.7% 5.2% 58

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

Total (N)
Year 4.3 42.2% 42.2% 15.6% . 64
2004
2010 4.1 36.8% 42.1% 17.5% 3.5% 57

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 34.4% 40.6% 15.6% 9.4% . 64
2004
2010 3.9 31.0% 39.7% 20.7% 5.2% 3.4% 58
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 3.4 42.9% 54.0% 3.2% . 63
2004
2010 3.3 42.9% 46.4% 8.9% 1.8% 56

Faculty respect for minority grad students

Faculty respect for minority grad students Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor
Total (N)
Year 3.3 41.3% 49.2% 9.5% . 63
2004
2010 3.2 33.9% 50.0% 14.3% 1.8% 56

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor
Total (N)
Year 2.8 15.5% 53.4% 24.1% 6.9% 58
2004
2010 2.8 15.4% 55.8% 19.2% 9.6% 52

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor
Total (N)
Year 2.9 13.6% 62.7% 20.3% 3.4% 59
2004
2010 3.0 17.0% 69.8% 9.4% 3.8% 53

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
Total (N)
Year 3.4 43.5% 51.6% 4.8% 62
2004
2010 3.4 43.6% 50.9% 5.5% 55

Grad student respect for minority faculty

Grad student respect for minority faculty Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor
Total (N)
Year 3.4 46.7% 46.7% 5.0% 1.7% 60
2004
2010 3.3 39.3% 51.8% 8.9% . 56

Faculty respect for female grad students

Faculty respect for female grad students Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor
Total (N)
Year 3.4 48.3% 46.7% 3.3% 1.7% 60
2004
2010 3.2 39.3% 46.4% 12.5% 1.8% 56

Grad student respect for female faculty

Grad student respect for female faculty Mean 4: Excellent 3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor
Total (N)
Year 3.5 50.0% 45.0% 5.0% . 60
2004
2010 3.3 46.4% 42.9% 8.9% 1.8% 56

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 3.0 31.1% 44.3% 19.7% 4.9% 61
2004
2010 3.2 29.1% 60.0% 10.9% . 55

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 2.8 25.4% 40.7% 22.0% 11.9% 59
2004
2010 3.0 22.6% 60.4% 11.3% 5.7% 53

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 4.1 29.7% 53.1% 15.6% 1.6% . 64
2004
2010 3.9 24.1% 48.1% 22.2% 3.7% 1.9% 54

NCSU Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students

NCSU Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year* 3.9 20.3% 50.0% 26.6% 3.1% 64
2004
2010 3.6 17.0% 26.4% 56.6% . 53

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year 4.0 28.1% 48.4% 20.3% 3.1% 64
2004
2010 3.8 18.5% 46.3% 31.5% 3.7% 54

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 3.9 23.4% 45.3% 25.0% 6.3% . 64
2004
2010 3.5 11.1% 40.7% 42.6% 1.9% 3.7% 54

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 41.3% 44.4% 9.5% 3.2% 1.6% 63
2004
2010 4.0 29.6% 44.4% 22.2% 3.7% . 54

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year 4.0 28.1% 53.1% 14.1% 4.7% 64
2004
2010 3.9 25.9% 46.3% 22.2% 5.6% 54

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year 4.1 31.3% 51.6% 14.1% 3.1% 64
2004
2010 3.9 16.7% 53.7% 29.6% . 54

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year 4.1 31.3% 51.6% 15.6% 1.6% 64
2004
2010 3.9 20.4% 51.9% 27.8% . 54

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 3.3 4.9% 39.3% 42.6% 9.8% 3.3% 61
2004
2010 3.4 7.5% 37.7% 43.4% 7.5% 3.8% 53

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
Total (N)
Year 3.9 25.0% 42.2% 26.6% 6.3% 64
2004
2010 4.0 31.5% 35.2% 31.5% 1.9% 54

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year 3.8 18.3% 46.7% 30.0% 5.0% 60
2004
2010 3.5 11.1% 42.6% 35.2% 11.1% 54

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 14.8% 39.3% 37.7% 6.6% 1.6% 61
2004
2010 3.6 11.1% 46.3% 37.0% 5.6% . 54

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year 3.8 16.4% 50.8% 31.1% 1.6% 61
2004
2010 3.7 13.0% 48.1% 35.2% 3.7% 54

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
Total (N)
Year 4.0 26.2% 47.5% 26.2% 61
2004
2010 3.8 18.9% 45.3% 35.8% 53

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 13.1% 42.6% 26.2% 13.1% 4.9% 61
2004
2010 3.3 7.4% 38.9% 35.2% 14.8% 3.7% 54

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 4.0 30.6% 46.8% 16.1% 6.5% . 62
2004
2010 3.8 25.5% 41.8% 27.3% 1.8% 3.6% 55

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
Total (N)
Year 3.9 26.2% 39.3% 29.5% 4.9% 61
2004
2010 3.9 27.3% 34.5% 38.2% . 55

Grad Program Supportiveness: Asian students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Asian students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year 4.0 29.0% 48.4% 17.7% 4.8% 62
2004
2010 4.0 35.7% 33.9% 28.6% 1.8% 56

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 31.1% 44.3% 18.0% 6.6% . 61
2004
2010 3.9 25.5% 43.6% 27.3% 1.8% 1.8% 55

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
1: Strongly
nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year 4.3 41.9% 46.8% 9.7% . 1.6% 62
2004
2010 4.1 35.7% 39.3% 23.2% 1.8% . 56

Grad Program Supportiveness: International students

Grad Program Supportiveness: International students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year 4.1 33.9% 48.4% 11.3% 6.5% 62
2004
2010 4.1 37.5% 33.9% 26.8% 1.8% 56

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 37.7% 50.8% 9.8% 1.6% 61
2004
2010 3.9 26.8% 41.1% 28.6% 3.6% 56

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
Total (N)
Year 4.3 41.9% 45.2% 12.9% 62
2004
2010 4.0 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 56

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 3.4 10.0% 31.7% 51.7% 5.0% 1.7% 60
2004
2010 3.5 13.2% 32.1% 49.1% 5.7% . 53

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 27.9% 41.0% 27.9% 1.6% 1.6% 61
2004
2010 3.7 18.2% 40.0% 40.0% 1.8% . 55

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
2: Nonsupportive
Total (N)
Year* 4.1 27.1% 52.5% 18.6% 1.7% 59
2004
2010 3.7 21.8% 32.7% 38.2% 7.3% 55

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 3.7 16.7% 41.7% 38.3% 1.7% 1.7% 60
2004
2010 3.7 20.0% 32.7% 43.6% 3.6% . 55

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 3.9 20.0% 51.7% 26.7% 1.7% 60
2004
2010 3.8 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% . 55

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students Mean 5: Strongly
supportive
4: Supportive
3: Neutral
Total (N)
Year 4.0 26.7% 45.0% 28.3% 60
2004
2010 3.8 21.8% 36.4% 41.8% 55

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 3.7 20.0% 45.0% 25.0% 5.0% 5.0% 60
2004
2010 3.7 23.6% 30.9% 36.4% 5.5% 3.6% 55
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

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Year 4.0 19.0% 63.5% 17.5% . . 63
2004
2010 3.7 17.0% 43.4% 35.8% 1.9% 1.9% 53

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

Total (N)
Year 4.0 20.6% 60.3% 19.0% . 63
2004
2010 3.8 17.3% 51.9% 26.9% 3.8% 52

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 3.8 14.3% 52.4% 33.3% . 63
2004
2010 3.6 11.3% 45.3% 39.6% 3.8% 53

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
Total (N)
Year 3.9 17.5% 50.8% 31.7% 63
2004
2010 3.6 9.8% 43.1% 47.1% 51

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 3.4 6.3% 30.2% 63.5% . 63
2004
2010 3.5 7.8% 39.2% 51.0% 2.0% 51

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
Total (N)
Year* 4.3 31.7% 61.9% 6.3% 63
2004
2010 4.1 34.6% 42.3% 23.1% 52

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 3.5 7.9% 31.7% 60.3% 63
2004
2010 3.5 7.1% 40.5% 52.4% 42

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 3.4 1.6% 40.3% 58.1% . 62
2004
2010 3.6 11.9% 35.7% 50.0% 2.4% 42

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 11.1% 61.9% 27.0% . 63
2004
2010 3.7 16.0% 36.0% 46.0% 2.0% 50

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

Total (N)
Year 3.8 20.6% 52.4% 14.3% 12.7% 63
2004
2010 4.0 28.0% 46.0% 20.0% 6.0% 50

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

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Year 3.8 19.0% 41.3% 38.1% 1.6% . 63
2004
2010 3.5 13.2% 28.3% 54.7% 1.9% 1.9% 53

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 20.6% 38.1% 41.3% 63
2004
2010 3.5 9.4% 30.2% 60.4% 53

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

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Year 3.5 12.7% 33.3% 50.8% 1.6% 1.6% 63
2004
2010 3.5 7.7% 34.6% 55.8% 1.9% . 52

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 3.8 14.3% 54.0% 31.7% 63
2004
2010 3.8 17.0% 41.5% 41.5% 53

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 3.8 15.9% 50.8% 33.3% . 63
2004
2010 3.7 17.0% 35.8% 45.3% 1.9% 53

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 19.4% 53.2% 27.4% 62
2004
2010 3.8 19.2% 36.5% 44.2% 52

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 17.5% 50.8% 31.7% 63
2004
2010 3.8 21.2% 36.5% 42.3% 52

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
1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Year 3.5 11.1% 34.9% 52.4% 1.6% 63
2004
2010 3.6 18.9% 24.5% 54.7% 1.9% 53
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