North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
College of Engineering

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 Engineering.

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	28.1%	62.3%	8.1%	1.5%	334
2004
2010	3.2	31.3%	61.1%	6.7%	1.0%	416

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	3.6	2.7%	13.0%	25.1%	42.9%	16.3%	331
2004
2010	3.5	4.4%	10.5%	26.0%	46.7%	12.4%	411

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Year*	1.5	64.8%	27.7%	5.4%	1.8%	0.3%	332
2004
2010	1.3	80.0%	15.5%	2.4%	1.7%	0.5%	414

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*	3.8	19.5%	48.3%	27.6%	4.2%	0.3%	333
2004
2010	4.0	27.3%	53.4%	14.4%	2.8%	2.1%	326

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*	3.6	15.3%	41.4%	35.4%	6.6%	1.2%	333
2004
2010	4.0	30.0%	45.2%	18.4%	3.2%	3.2%	217

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*	4.3	45.6%	44.1%	8.1%	1.2%	0.9%	333
2004
2010	4.1	34.6%	46.4%	14.6%	2.0%	2.4%	295

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	19.0%	44.0%	30.1%	6.6%	0.3%	332
2004
2010	3.8	18.2%	51.2%	23.1%	4.6%	2.8%	324

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	4.2	40.8%	45.3%	9.0%	4.2%	0.6%	333
2004
2010	4.2	44.6%	40.4%	9.5%	3.2%	2.4%	379

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*	3.9	28.0%	42.8%	23.2%	5.1%	0.9%	332
2004
2010	4.0	27.4%	50.9%	16.4%	2.8%	2.5%	281

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	40.5%	42.9%	14.4%	1.5%	0.6%	333
2004
2010	4.2	39.5%	42.2%	14.0%	2.7%	1.7%	301

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*	3.6	13.6%	40.0%	37.3%	8.5%	0.6%	330
2004
2010	3.9	24.5%	49.3%	18.4%	4.3%	3.5%	282

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	18.2%	49.5%	25.5%	5.5%	1.2%	329
2004
2010	3.9	26.9%	48.4%	18.6%	3.8%	2.2%	312

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*	4.1	33.1%	49.7%	12.7%	4.2%	0.3%	332
2004
2010	4.1	37.2%	48.0%	9.5%	2.3%	3.0%	398

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*	3.5	14.6%	37.7%	34.0%	12.8%	0.9%	329
2004
2010	3.7	17.1%	49.7%	26.2%	3.7%	3.2%	187

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	4.2	35.6%	53.8%	7.9%	2.4%	0.3%	331
2004
2010	4.1	32.2%	51.5%	11.7%	2.7%	2.0%	410

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*	4.1	35.2%	52.7%	5.1%	5.4%	1.5%	332
2004
2010	4.0	33.0%	47.3%	12.3%	6.1%	1.3%	391

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	1.9	1.2%	3.0%	11.7%	54.8%	29.2%	332
2004
2010	1.9	1.8%	3.3%	9.0%	50.8%	35.1%	390

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	4.0	25.4%	59.5%	9.7%	4.2%	1.2%	331
2004
2010	3.9	24.6%	52.3%	14.6%	6.4%	2.1%	390

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	0.9%	4.2%	9.4%	54.1%	31.4%	331
2004
2010	1.8	1.0%	3.8%	9.2%	50.1%	35.8%	391

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	3.9	19.9%	53.9%	21.7%	4.2%	0.3%	332
2004
2010	3.8	15.2%	54.3%	26.4%	3.1%	1.0%	387

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	2.4%	9.0%	20.8%	42.8%	25.0%	332
2004
2010	1.9	1.8%	5.1%	15.7%	35.2%	42.2%	389

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*	4.0	25.9%	58.4%	11.1%	2.1%	2.4%	332
2004
2010	4.1	32.0%	50.1%	15.2%	2.3%	0.3%	387

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	4.1	27.4%	59.9%	8.4%	3.6%	0.6%	332
2004
2010	4.1	30.1%	56.8%	9.0%	3.1%	1.0%	389

Faculty support for attending conferences ⁷

Faculty support for attending conferences	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.9	28.6%	43.9%	17.6%	9.9%	262
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	3.0	30.3%	44.7%	20.1%	4.9%	244
2004
2010	3.0	31.0%	46.0%	16.1%	6.9%	248

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair ⁷

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	40.9%	38.8%	16.1%	4.2%	286
2004
2010	3.2	41.8%	40.8%	14.1%	3.2%	311

Committee responsiveness ⁷

Committee responsiveness	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.0	25.7%	46.9%	24.9%	2.4%	245
2004
2010	3.0	26.0%	54.1%	18.3%	1.6%	246

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	27.4%	44.4%	22.4%	5.8%	259
2004
2010	3.1	28.6%	52.4%	16.3%	2.8%	252

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	31.2%	55.6%	10.8%	2.4%	295
2004
2010	3.1	31.7%	52.6%	12.7%	2.9%	306

Selection process for TAs/RAs ⁷

Selection process for TAs/RAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.6	18.9%	37.1%	26.8%	17.1%	280
2004
2010	2.6	18.8%	41.9%	21.1%	18.2%	303

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	2.4	15.4%	36.6%	24.8%	23.2%	254
2004
2010	2.4	14.2%	35.1%	28.4%	22.3%	282

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	46.6%	29.3%	18.3%	4.9%	0.9%	328
2004
2010	4.3	54.5%	24.9%	16.8%	3.1%	0.8%	382

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*	2.4	2.2%	6.1%	32.9%	47.3%	11.5%	313
2004
2010	2.4	6.3%	9.9%	29.3%	28.0%	26.6%	304

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*	4.2	41.9%	38.0%	14.6%	5.2%	0.3%	308
2004
2010	4.3	53.6%	30.8%	12.0%	2.3%	1.4%	351

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*	2.6	7.4%	12.7%	27.9%	37.7%	14.3%	244
2004
2010	3.1	22.4%	16.3%	26.5%	15.9%	18.8%	245

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	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	4.2	38.3%	43.5%	15.6%	2.3%	0.3%	308
2004
2010	4.3	50.3%	32.7%	15.3%	1.4%	0.3%	346

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	3.7	29.1%	31.8%	25.5%	9.4%	4.2%	330
2004
2010	3.6	29.0%	29.5%	25.7%	8.7%	7.0%	369

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*	3.8	32.1%	36.7%	19.1%	7.3%	4.8%	330
2004
2010	3.6	31.2%	26.8%	23.6%	6.8%	11.5%	365

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*	3.7	30.3%	32.1%	21.2%	8.8%	7.6%	330
2004
2010	3.4	28.8%	24.1%	23.0%	10.7%	13.4%	365

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*	3.5	33.8%	23.2%	22.3%	5.5%	15.2%	328
2004
2010	3.2	30.3%	22.9%	13.3%	7.1%	26.3%	353

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*	1.5%	9.4%	32.7%	37.3%	19.1%	330
2004
2010	3.4%	10.7%	19.8%	35.5%	30.5%	383

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*	58.1%	8.2%	33.7%	329
2004
2010	48.4%	10.5%	41.1%	382

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*	32.8%	45.0%	11.9%	3.6%	6.7%	329
2004
2010	20.1%	55.4%	13.1%	5.0%	6.5%	383

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*	80.9%	13.9%	3.6%	1.2%	0.3%	330
2004
2010	71.9%	12.6%	9.9%	4.0%	1.6%	374

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*	3.5	4.8%	44.4%	44.4%	4.8%	1.6%	63
2004
2010	3.8	14.6%	53.4%	31.1%	.	1.0%	103

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events	Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Year*	70.9%	9.3%	14.9%	5.0%	323
2004
2010	53.1%	15.4%	22.9%	8.6%	371

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not aware	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	55.5%	44.5%	335
2004
2010	59.4%	40.6%	197

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*	24.2%	75.8%	335
2004
2010	33.0%	67.0%	197

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*	68.7%	31.3%	335
2004
2010	58.4%	41.6%	197

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	48.7%	51.3%	335
2004
2010	49.2%	50.8%	197

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	12.2%	87.8%	335
2004
2010	7.6%	92.4%	197

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	22.1%	77.9%	335
2004
2010	21.8%	78.2%	197

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	35.8%	64.2%	335
2004
2010	35.5%	64.5%	197

Reasons for not participating: Location ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Location	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	7.8%	92.2%	335
2004
2010	11.7%	88.3%	197

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%	335
2004
2010	12.7%	87.3%	197

Reasons for not participating: Other ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Other	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	4.8%	95.2%	335
2004
2010	7.1%	92.9%	197

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	14.1%	60.2%	20.1%	4.8%	0.9%	334
2004
2010	4.1	26.2%	58.6%	12.4%	1.9%	0.8%	362

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*	3.6	8.7%	49.7%	35.0%	6.3%	0.3%	334
2004
2010	3.8	15.2%	52.4%	28.0%	3.3%	1.1%	361

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	3.0	9.0%	15.3%	49.7%	21.6%	4.5%	334
2004
2010	3.1	11.0%	20.1%	41.3%	23.4%	4.1%	363

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	4.2	31.7%	55.7%	10.8%	1.5%	0.3%	334
2004
2010	4.1	33.4%	50.6%	14.1%	1.4%	0.6%	362

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	2.9	6.9%	23.0%	34.9%	28.1%	7.2%	335
2004
2010	3.1	10.3%	22.6%	37.9%	23.4%	5.8%	359

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	2.8	6.6%	18.6%	33.0%	32.7%	9.0%	333
2004
2010	3.0	9.0%	20.8%	37.9%	25.8%	6.5%	356

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*	4.0	29.6%	51.5%	12.6%	5.1%	1.2%	334
2004
2010	3.8	16.3%	53.7%	21.9%	6.1%	1.9%	361

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*	4.1	33.3%	48.6%	12.9%	4.8%	0.3%	333
2004
2010	4.0	28.6%	49.4%	20.0%	1.7%	0.3%	360

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*	3.7	17.4%	48.3%	23.1%	10.2%	0.9%	333
2004
2010	3.9	20.0%	52.5%	23.6%	3.1%	0.8%	360

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*	3.2	3.6%	24.9%	57.5%	12.3%	1.8%	334
2004
2010	3.5	10.2%	36.8%	49.6%	2.5%	0.8%	361

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*	3.7	19.3%	44.6%	20.5%	13.9%	1.8%	332
2004
2010	3.8	24.7%	46.1%	16.1%	8.1%	5.0%	360

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*	3.1	9.0%	29.2%	31.9%	25.0%	4.8%	332
2004
2010	3.3	15.4%	29.6%	33.2%	17.9%	3.9%	358

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	3.9	26.0%	51.8%	14.4%	6.0%	1.8%	334
2004
2010	4.0	27.7%	49.9%	15.8%	4.7%	1.9%	361

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	3.9	24.9%	48.3%	19.5%	5.7%	1.5%	333
2004
2010	4.0	27.3%	52.9%	14.2%	2.8%	2.8%	359

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	3.8	28.1%	41.6%	16.8%	10.5%	3.0%	334
2004
2010	3.8	24.0%	44.6%	19.8%	7.0%	4.7%	359

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*	3.1	27.1%	60.4%	11.6%	0.9%	328
2004
2010	3.3	38.8%	52.8%	6.7%	1.7%	356

Faculty respect for minority grad students

Faculty respect for minority grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	23.9%	59.8%	14.4%	1.8%	326
2004
2010	3.2	36.7%	53.8%	7.3%	2.2%	357

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.5	8.0%	47.7%	32.6%	11.7%	325
2004
2010	3.0	24.1%	54.4%	18.1%	3.4%	353

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.8	11.1%	57.4%	29.0%	2.5%	324
2004
2010	3.1	28.0%	58.5%	12.4%	1.1%	354

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	30.6%	61.2%	7.0%	1.2%	327
2004
2010	3.3	38.9%	56.0%	4.2%	0.8%	357

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	28.2%	60.7%	10.1%	0.9%	326
2004
2010	3.3	36.1%	56.9%	5.9%	1.1%	355

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	27.0%	62.3%	9.5%	1.2%	326
2004
2010	3.3	40.3%	51.8%	7.0%	0.8%	357

Grad student respect for female faculty

Grad student respect for female faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	27.5%	61.8%	9.5%	1.2%	327
2004
2010	3.3	39.3%	54.8%	5.1%	0.8%	356

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*	2.9	20.9%	53.4%	20.6%	5.2%	326
2004
2010	3.1	29.4%	54.3%	13.2%	3.1%	357

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*	2.6	11.9%	43.9%	35.7%	8.5%	319
2004
2010	2.9	21.6%	50.9%	21.9%	5.7%	352

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	22.0%	49.2%	25.1%	3.4%	0.3%	327
2004
2010	4.1	27.8%	55.8%	15.6%	0.3%	0.6%	353

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	12.6%	43.6%	41.4%	1.5%	0.9%	326
2004
2010	3.9	21.7%	51.6%	24.8%	1.1%	0.9%	351

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	20.1%	46.8%	29.2%	2.7%	1.2%	329
2004
2010	4.0	26.2%	53.0%	18.3%	1.7%	0.8%	355

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*	3.7	13.6%	43.5%	38.0%	4.6%	0.3%	324
2004
2010	3.9	20.2%	55.1%	23.3%	0.9%	0.6%	352

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	30.5%	44.6%	21.8%	2.2%	0.9%	325
2004
2010	4.0	32.8%	44.7%	18.5%	2.0%	2.0%	351

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	19.7%	47.7%	27.4%	3.7%	1.5%	325
2004
2010	4.1	29.1%	50.8%	17.2%	2.0%	0.8%	354

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	20.4%	56.0%	22.6%	0.9%	.	323
2004
2010	4.1	29.4%	53.4%	16.4%	0.3%	0.6%	354

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	19.7%	49.2%	29.5%	1.2%	0.3%	325
2004
2010	3.9	26.0%	46.9%	24.3%	1.4%	1.4%	350

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	6.6%	30.3%	51.9%	9.7%	1.6%	320
2004
2010	3.7	17.3%	45.5%	32.1%	4.3%	0.9%	352

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*	3.8	18.2%	44.4%	35.2%	1.9%	0.3%	324
2004
2010	4.1	32.4%	48.3%	18.2%	.	1.1%	352

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.6	11.8%	47.4%	32.8%	6.2%	1.9%	323
2004
2010	3.9	22.1%	49.0%	24.6%	3.1%	1.1%	353

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*	3.5	9.6%	42.5%	41.6%	5.6%	0.6%	322
2004
2010	3.9	22.7%	48.4%	25.8%	2.3%	0.8%	353

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	11.5%	46.0%	39.4%	2.8%	0.3%	322
2004
2010	3.9	20.2%	49.1%	29.3%	0.6%	0.9%	352

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	16.2%	43.0%	39.6%	1.2%	.	321
2004
2010	3.9	22.7%	47.9%	27.5%	1.1%	0.8%	353

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	9.3%	42.1%	41.7%	6.2%	0.6%	321
2004
2010	3.8	20.1%	48.2%	26.3%	4.0%	1.4%	353

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*	3.8	16.4%	49.1%	31.8%	2.5%	0.3%	318
2004
2010	4.0	26.1%	50.6%	21.6%	1.1%	0.6%	352

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*	3.7	14.3%	40.1%	42.7%	2.5%	0.3%	314
2004
2010	4.0	25.1%	48.9%	24.6%	0.9%	0.6%	350

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	4.0	28.5%	44.3%	25.6%	0.9%	0.6%	316
2004
2010	4.1	30.2%	50.3%	17.8%	0.8%	0.8%	354

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*	3.7	14.7%	43.3%	38.1%	3.5%	0.3%	312
2004
2010	4.0	24.2%	49.9%	24.5%	0.9%	0.6%	351

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	4.0	26.9%	47.5%	23.7%	1.6%	0.3%	316
2004
2010	4.0	28.7%	50.9%	18.2%	1.1%	1.1%	352

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*	4.0	26.5%	47.0%	23.7%	1.6%	1.3%	317
2004
2010	4.1	32.0%	50.1%	16.7%	0.3%	0.8%	353

Grad Program Supportiveness: Female students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Female students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	20.1%	51.9%	25.2%	2.2%	0.6%	318
2004
2010	4.1	29.5%	49.1%	19.9%	0.6%	0.9%	352

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	20.8%	47.6%	30.6%	0.9%	.	317
2004
2010	4.0	26.3%	49.7%	22.3%	0.9%	0.9%	350

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	6.7%	29.7%	58.8%	4.2%	0.6%	313
2004
2010	3.8	19.7%	46.6%	30.9%	1.7%	1.1%	350

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*	3.7	13.6%	42.3%	42.3%	1.9%	.	317
2004
2010	4.0	26.3%	47.6%	24.6%	0.6%	0.8%	353

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.8	17.6%	49.7%	29.9%	2.2%	0.6%	318
2004
2010	3.9	24.5%	48.4%	24.8%	1.7%	0.6%	351

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*	3.6	11.4%	40.5%	43.4%	4.1%	0.6%	316
2004
2010	3.9	23.4%	48.1%	27.1%	0.6%	0.9%	351

Grad Program Supportiveness: Middle class students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Middle class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.6	11.7%	43.7%	42.1%	1.9%	0.6%	316
2004
2010	3.9	23.4%	47.6%	28.2%	0.3%	0.6%	351

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	15.2%	42.5%	41.9%	0.3%	.	315
2004
2010	3.9	24.4%	47.6%	26.6%	0.6%	0.9%	349

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*	3.6	11.5%	44.3%	41.7%	2.5%	.	314
2004
2010	3.9	24.0%	48.0%	24.6%	2.9%	0.6%	350

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	20.0%	62.5%	15.4%	1.5%	0.6%	325
2004
2010	4.0	27.8%	51.6%	18.3%	1.1%	1.1%	349

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	4.0	22.8%	56.2%	16.7%	3.4%	0.9%	324
2004
2010	4.1	29.5%	52.6%	16.2%	1.2%	0.6%	346

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	17.6%	54.8%	25.4%	1.9%	0.3%	323
2004
2010	4.0	26.2%	50.1%	22.4%	0.9%	0.3%	343

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	16.0%	54.6%	26.5%	1.9%	0.9%	324
2004
2010	4.0	27.7%	49.7%	21.7%	0.6%	0.3%	336

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.3	3.7%	22.8%	71.6%	1.5%	0.3%	324
2004
2010	3.7	18.6%	33.0%	47.4%	0.7%	0.3%	306

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	4.1	27.5%	58.0%	13.6%	0.6%	0.3%	324
2004
2010	4.1	30.4%	50.4%	17.4%	1.4%	0.3%	345

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	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.5	8.7%	35.3%	54.2%	1.5%	0.3%	323
2004
2010	3.9	22.9%	49.1%	24.6%	2.7%	0.7%	293

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.5	7.1%	34.9%	55.6%	1.9%	0.6%	324
2004
2010	3.9	22.0%	48.6%	26.7%	2.0%	0.7%	296

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	11.7%	50.9%	33.0%	3.7%	0.6%	324
2004
2010	3.9	19.8%	49.9%	29.2%	0.9%	0.3%	339

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*	3.7	18.0%	45.2%	29.1%	6.8%	0.9%	323
2004
2010	4.0	28.5%	48.0%	18.9%	3.9%	0.6%	333

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	12.7%	53.1%	31.8%	1.9%	0.6%	324
2004
2010	3.9	23.9%	41.3%	32.5%	1.7%	0.6%	351

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	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	12.3%	51.2%	34.3%	1.5%	0.6%	324
2004
2010	3.9	24.9%	45.6%	26.1%	2.6%	0.9%	349

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*	3.6	9.9%	44.9%	43.0%	1.9%	0.3%	323
2004
2010	3.7	18.8%	40.3%	38.4%	2.0%	0.6%	352

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	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	18.9%	57.6%	21.4%	1.5%	0.6%	323
2004
2010	4.0	26.2%	50.4%	22.5%	0.6%	0.3%	351

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	15.1%	54.8%	28.0%	1.5%	0.6%	325
2004
2010	4.0	26.2%	47.6%	24.5%	1.1%	0.6%	351

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	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	16.7%	60.2%	21.6%	0.6%	0.9%	324
2004
2010	4.0	26.2%	50.7%	21.4%	0.9%	0.9%	351

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	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	17.0%	57.9%	23.2%	1.2%	0.6%	323
2004
2010	4.0	25.1%	54.1%	19.9%	0.3%	0.6%	351

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.5	9.0%	36.4%	52.5%	1.2%	0.9%	324
2004
2010	3.8	21.1%	41.3%	35.6%	0.9%	1.1%	351

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