North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
College of Veterinary Medicine

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 Veterinary Medicine.

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	3.1	27.5%	61.3%	8.8%	2.5%	80
2004
2010	3.4	47.1%	45.7%	7.1%	.	70

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	1.2%	12.3%	21.0%	39.5%	25.9%	81
2004
2010	3.8	2.9%	10.0%	12.9%	51.4%	22.9%	70

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	Total (N)
Year	1.3	71.3%	25.0%	3.8%	80
2004
2010	1.2	80.0%	15.7%	4.3%	70

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*	3.6	16.3%	35.0%	38.8%	7.5%	2.5%	80
2004
2010	3.9	43.3%	30.0%	10.0%	3.3%	13.3%	30

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	14.8%	32.1%	40.7%	9.9%	2.5%	81
2004
2010	3.9	52.4%	14.3%	19.0%	.	14.3%	21

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	55.6%	38.3%	2.5%	3.7%	.	81
2004
2010	4.3	47.1%	43.1%	7.8%	.	2.0%	51

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	3.9	24.7%	45.7%	21.0%	7.4%	1.2%	81
2004
2010	3.9	26.1%	47.8%	19.6%	2.2%	4.3%	46

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	4.3	45.7%	38.3%	12.3%	3.7%	.	81
2004
2010	4.4	57.1%	32.9%	4.3%	4.3%	1.4%	70

Comfort: Meeting with graduate committee ²

Comfort: Meeting with graduate committee	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.9	33.3%	30.9%	29.6%	6.2%	81
2004
2010	4.4	52.2%	39.1%	8.7%	.	23

Comfort: Working with research team ²

Comfort: Working with research team	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.2	39.5%	45.7%	12.3%	2.5%	81
2004
2010	4.5	62.5%	27.5%	10.0%	.	40

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	22.2%	40.7%	32.1%	4.9%	.	81
2004
2010	3.7	32.6%	25.6%	23.3%	11.6%	7.0%	43

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	4.1	38.3%	40.7%	14.8%	4.9%	1.2%	81
2004
2010	4.3	44.6%	42.9%	8.9%	.	3.6%	56

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	37.0%	48.1%	7.4%	6.2%	1.2%	81
2004
2010	4.2	45.6%	35.3%	14.7%	2.9%	1.5%	68

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	23.5%	44.4%	14.8%	13.6%	3.7%	81
2004
2010	3.7	25.0%	36.4%	27.3%	6.8%	4.5%	44

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	40.0%	47.5%	10.0%	1.3%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	4.2	44.1%	38.2%	13.2%	1.5%	2.9%	68

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	3.7	19.8%	54.3%	6.2%	16.0%	3.7%	81
2004
2010	3.5	20.3%	42.0%	7.2%	24.6%	5.8%	69

Ignored in class when attempting to participate ⁵

Ignored in class when attempting to participate	Mean	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	1.9	2.5%	11.1%	56.8%	29.6%	81
2004
2010	1.8	2.9%	8.7%	50.7%	37.7%	69

Comments taken seriously by instructor ⁵

Comments taken seriously by instructor	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.1	22.2%	70.4%	7.4%	.	81
2004
2010	4.1	29.0%	58.0%	11.6%	1.4%	69

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	1.3%	2.5%	12.5%	50.0%	33.8%	80
2004
2010	1.7	1.4%	4.3%	7.2%	36.2%	50.7%	69

Faculty recognize importance of ideas ⁵

Faculty recognize importance of ideas	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.9	21.0%	56.8%	17.3%	4.9%	81
2004
2010	4.0	26.1%	53.6%	17.4%	2.9%	69

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	1.2%	11.1%	14.8%	53.1%	19.8%	81
2004
2010	1.8	.	11.6%	5.8%	30.4%	52.2%	69

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	4.1	33.3%	49.4%	12.3%	3.7%	1.2%	81
2004
2010	4.3	40.6%	46.4%	13.0%	.	.	69

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	4.2	31.3%	60.0%	6.3%	1.3%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	4.3	39.7%	51.5%	4.4%	2.9%	1.5%	68

Faculty support for attending conferences ⁷

Faculty support for attending conferences	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	38.9%	38.9%	11.1%	11.1%	54
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	42.6%	41.2%	13.2%	2.9%	68
2004
2010	3.2	46.9%	36.7%	10.2%	6.1%	49

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair ⁷

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.1	36.7%	41.7%	20.0%	1.7%	60
2004
2010	3.4	57.4%	29.5%	9.8%	3.3%	61

Committee responsiveness ⁷

Committee responsiveness	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.0	31.1%	48.9%	13.3%	6.7%	45
2004
2010	3.2	36.7%	53.3%	3.3%	6.7%	30

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	3.1	32.5%	47.5%	15.0%	5.0%	40
2004
2010	3.3	38.2%	58.8%	.	2.9%	34

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	34.2%	56.2%	8.2%	1.4%	73
2004
2010	3.5	50.0%	46.3%	3.7%	.	54

Selection process for TAs/RAs ⁷

Selection process for TAs/RAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.7	20.0%	47.5%	17.5%	15.0%	40
2004
2010	3.3	43.8%	46.9%	3.1%	6.3%	32

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	2.6	14.0%	43.9%	28.1%	14.0%	57
2004
2010	2.9	27.9%	46.5%	11.6%	14.0%	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*	3.7	30.0%	30.0%	23.8%	15.0%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	4.3	51.6%	29.7%	14.1%	4.7%	.	64

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	5.5%	13.7%	38.4%	37.0%	5.5%	73
2004
2010	2.9	19.2%	15.4%	21.2%	28.8%	15.4%	52

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	4.4	56.6%	30.3%	9.2%	2.6%	1.3%	76
2004
2010	4.5	69.5%	15.3%	13.6%	1.7%	.	59

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	3.9	35.2%	23.9%	33.8%	5.6%	1.4%	71
2004
2010	4.1	50.8%	20.3%	22.0%	5.1%	1.7%	59

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	4.4	58.9%	23.3%	16.4%	1.4%	73
2004
2010	4.4	59.3%	24.1%	16.7%	.	54

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	3.9	33.8%	35.0%	16.3%	12.5%	2.5%	80
2004
2010	3.9	40.6%	23.4%	25.0%	4.7%	6.3%	64

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	36.3%	27.5%	16.3%	16.3%	3.8%	80
2004
2010	3.9	39.1%	32.8%	15.6%	3.1%	9.4%	64

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	27.5%	27.5%	25.0%	15.0%	5.0%	80
2004
2010	3.6	33.3%	28.6%	14.3%	11.1%	12.7%	63

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	3.2	27.5%	23.8%	11.3%	11.3%	26.3%	80
2004
2010	3.0	25.4%	20.3%	15.3%	6.8%	32.2%	59

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*	8.8%	30.0%	48.8%	8.8%	3.8%	80
2004
2010	7.8%	51.6%	21.9%	9.4%	9.4%	64

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	17.5%	15.0%	67.5%	80
2004
2010	21.5%	9.2%	69.2%	65

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	50.0%	28.8%	12.5%	3.8%	5.0%	80
2004
2010	45.3%	35.9%	6.3%	7.8%	4.7%	64

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	60.0%	32.5%	6.3%	1.3%	.	80
2004
2010	59.0%	24.6%	9.8%	4.9%	1.6%	61

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	3.3	6.3%	31.3%	53.1%	9.4%	32
2004
2010	3.6	12.0%	40.0%	40.0%	8.0%	25

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events	Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Year	55.0%	17.5%	20.0%	7.5%	80
2004
2010	39.3%	11.5%	36.1%	13.1%	61

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not aware	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	37.0%	63.0%	81
2004
2010	25.0%	75.0%	24

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	19.8%	80.2%	81
2004
2010	29.2%	70.8%	24

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*	86.4%	13.6%	81
2004
2010	58.3%	41.7%	24

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	60.5%	39.5%	81
2004
2010	54.2%	45.8%	24

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	3.7%	96.3%	81
2004
2010	8.3%	91.7%	24

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	8.6%	91.4%	81
2004
2010	4.2%	95.8%	24

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	33.3%	66.7%	81
2004
2010	25.0%	75.0%	24

Reasons for not participating: Location ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Location	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	25.9%	74.1%	81
2004
2010	33.3%	66.7%	24

Reasons for not participating: Cost ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Cost	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	12.3%	87.7%	81
2004
2010	8.3%	91.7%	24

Reasons for not participating: Other ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Other	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	4.9%	95.1%	81
2004
2010	4.2%	95.8%	24

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*	3.6	7.4%	61.7%	18.5%	9.9%	2.5%	81
2004
2010	4.0	32.2%	44.1%	15.3%	6.8%	1.7%	59

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*	3.3	3.7%	42.0%	33.3%	19.8%	1.2%	81
2004
2010	3.6	15.8%	40.4%	33.3%	7.0%	3.5%	57

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	2.8	7.4%	17.3%	37.0%	28.4%	9.9%	81
2004
2010	3.1	20.3%	22.0%	18.6%	25.4%	13.6%	59

Diversity is good for NCSU ¹¹

Diversity is good for NCSU	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.2	37.0%	51.9%	9.9%	1.2%	81
2004
2010	4.3	39.0%	49.2%	11.9%	.	59

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	3.0	9.9%	30.9%	23.5%	25.9%	9.9%	81
2004
2010	3.1	18.6%	23.7%	22.0%	20.3%	15.3%	59

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*	2.9	7.5%	25.0%	26.3%	35.0%	6.3%	80
2004
2010	2.8	14.0%	12.3%	31.6%	24.6%	17.5%	57

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	27.5%	50.0%	12.5%	10.0%	.	80
2004
2010	4.0	30.5%	50.8%	10.2%	6.8%	1.7%	59

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	44.4%	44.4%	9.9%	1.2%	.	81
2004
2010	4.3	39.7%	55.2%	3.4%	.	1.7%	58

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	3.8	21.3%	46.3%	21.3%	10.0%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	4.0	32.2%	39.0%	25.4%	1.7%	1.7%	59

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	Total (N)
Year	3.3	1.3%	28.8%	65.0%	5.0%	80
2004
2010	3.4	11.9%	23.7%	61.0%	3.4%	59

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	3.5	21.0%	30.9%	29.6%	14.8%	3.7%	81
2004
2010	3.7	31.0%	27.6%	25.9%	6.9%	8.6%	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*	2.9	3.7%	24.7%	35.8%	29.6%	6.2%	81
2004
2010	3.1	18.6%	18.6%	23.7%	30.5%	8.5%	59

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	4.0	25.9%	53.1%	12.3%	8.6%	.	81
2004
2010	4.0	30.5%	49.2%	8.5%	10.2%	1.7%	59

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	4.0	27.2%	55.6%	9.9%	7.4%	.	81
2004
2010	4.1	34.5%	50.0%	5.2%	8.6%	1.7%	58

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	3.5	18.8%	33.8%	22.5%	23.8%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	3.7	28.8%	33.9%	20.3%	10.2%	6.8%	59

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	23.8%	62.5%	12.5%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	3.4	44.1%	50.8%	5.1%	.	59

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	27.5%	58.8%	10.0%	3.8%	80
2004
2010	3.4	46.6%	51.7%	1.7%	.	58

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.7	7.0%	57.7%	31.0%	4.2%	71
2004
2010	3.1	25.9%	59.3%	13.0%	1.9%	54

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.7	5.6%	64.8%	25.4%	4.2%	71
2004
2010	3.2	29.6%	64.8%	5.6%	.	54

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	Total (N)
Year	3.2	25.0%	67.5%	7.5%	80
2004
2010	3.4	43.1%	53.4%	3.4%	58

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	27.5%	65.0%	7.5%	.	80
2004
2010	3.3	41.4%	53.4%	3.4%	1.7%	58

Faculty respect for female grad students

Faculty respect for female grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	26.6%	59.5%	12.7%	1.3%	79
2004
2010	3.5	47.5%	50.8%	1.7%	.	59

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	31.3%	61.3%	6.3%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	3.4	42.4%	55.9%	1.7%	.	59

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	22.5%	61.3%	11.3%	5.0%	80
2004
2010	3.3	42.4%	44.1%	13.6%	.	59

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*	3.0	21.8%	55.1%	21.8%	1.3%	78
2004
2010	3.3	39.0%	52.5%	6.8%	1.7%	59

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.1	21.8%	62.8%	14.1%	1.3%	78
2004
2010	4.3	46.6%	41.4%	10.3%	1.7%	58

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	3.8	17.1%	51.3%	28.9%	2.6%	76
2004
2010	4.0	31.0%	43.1%	24.1%	1.7%	58

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	21.8%	56.4%	21.8%	.	78
2004
2010	4.2	39.7%	41.4%	17.2%	1.7%	58

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	14.1%	55.1%	26.9%	2.6%	1.3%	78
2004
2010	4.2	36.2%	48.3%	13.8%	1.7%	.	58

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	24.4%	52.6%	21.8%	1.3%	78
2004
2010	4.1	44.8%	29.3%	20.7%	5.2%	58

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	19.5%	62.3%	18.2%	.	77
2004
2010	4.2	41.4%	36.2%	20.7%	1.7%	58

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	20.3%	58.2%	20.3%	1.3%	79
2004
2010	4.2	39.7%	43.1%	17.2%	.	58

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	21.8%	56.4%	21.8%	.	78
2004
2010	4.2	43.1%	34.5%	20.7%	1.7%	58

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%	35.9%	41.0%	11.5%	2.6%	78
2004
2010	4.0	32.8%	39.7%	24.1%	1.7%	1.7%	58

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	20.3%	51.9%	22.8%	3.8%	1.3%	79
2004
2010	4.2	44.8%	34.5%	20.7%	.	.	58

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.8	16.7%	55.1%	21.8%	5.1%	1.3%	78
2004
2010	4.0	27.6%	44.8%	24.1%	3.4%	.	58

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	14.1%	41.0%	39.7%	3.8%	1.3%	78
2004
2010	4.0	29.3%	39.7%	29.3%	1.7%	.	58

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	3.8	16.9%	50.6%	28.6%	2.6%	1.3%	77
2004
2010	4.0	29.3%	43.1%	27.6%	.	.	58

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	3.9	24.4%	43.6%	32.1%	.	78
2004
2010	4.1	36.2%	41.4%	19.0%	3.4%	58

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%	41.3%	41.3%	8.0%	.	75
2004
2010	3.8	27.6%	37.9%	27.6%	5.2%	1.7%	58

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*	3.9	21.5%	50.6%	22.8%	3.8%	1.3%	79
2004
2010	4.4	57.6%	28.8%	13.6%	.	.	59

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*	3.6	14.5%	39.5%	42.1%	3.9%	76
2004
2010	4.3	46.6%	34.5%	19.0%	.	58

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*	3.8	20.5%	48.7%	25.6%	3.8%	1.3%	78
2004
2010	4.4	51.7%	37.9%	10.3%	.	.	58

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	14.3%	42.9%	39.0%	3.9%	77
2004
2010	4.3	49.2%	35.6%	15.3%	.	59

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	23.4%	46.8%	28.6%	1.3%	77
2004
2010	4.2	45.8%	33.9%	18.6%	1.7%	59

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*	3.9	22.1%	48.1%	26.0%	2.6%	1.3%	77
2004
2010	4.2	45.8%	32.2%	18.6%	3.4%	.	59

Grad Program Supportiveness: Female students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Female students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	24.4%	50.0%	23.1%	2.6%	78
2004
2010	4.3	46.6%	34.5%	19.0%	.	58

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	19.0%	54.4%	25.3%	1.3%	79
2004
2010	4.4	54.2%	28.8%	16.9%	.	59

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*	3.7	15.6%	42.9%	35.1%	5.2%	1.3%	77
2004
2010	4.1	39.0%	32.2%	27.1%	1.7%	.	59

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	16.5%	46.8%	30.4%	5.1%	1.3%	79
2004
2010	4.2	45.8%	32.2%	22.0%	.	.	59

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	4.1	29.9%	51.9%	15.6%	1.3%	1.3%	77
2004
2010	4.3	44.1%	40.7%	11.9%	3.4%	.	59

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	13.2%	43.4%	39.5%	1.3%	2.6%	76
2004
2010	4.0	33.9%	35.6%	28.8%	1.7%	.	59

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	3.8	17.3%	52.0%	26.7%	1.3%	2.7%	75
2004
2010	4.1	37.3%	33.9%	27.1%	1.7%	.	59

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	3.9	22.1%	50.6%	27.3%	77
2004
2010	4.1	39.0%	35.6%	25.4%	59

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	13.2%	51.3%	27.6%	5.3%	2.6%	76
2004
2010	4.1	37.3%	40.7%	18.6%	1.7%	1.7%	59

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	3.7	15.0%	47.5%	35.0%	1.3%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	4.0	25.4%	49.2%	23.7%	.	1.7%	59

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	3.8	16.3%	48.8%	30.0%	5.0%	80
2004
2010	4.0	25.9%	48.3%	24.1%	1.7%	58

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*	3.7	8.8%	48.8%	41.3%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	4.0	24.1%	50.0%	25.9%	.	58

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	3.7	10.0%	45.0%	45.0%	80
2004
2010	3.9	22.6%	41.5%	35.8%	53

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*	3.2	1.3%	18.8%	78.8%	.	1.3%	80
2004
2010	3.5	13.7%	27.5%	54.9%	3.9%	.	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	4.1	32.5%	48.8%	18.8%	80
2004
2010	4.2	32.2%	54.2%	13.6%	59

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*	3.4	3.8%	36.3%	58.8%	.	1.3%	80
2004
2010	3.9	24.1%	44.4%	25.9%	5.6%	.	54

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*	3.3	2.5%	28.8%	66.3%	1.3%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	3.8	21.7%	45.7%	26.1%	4.3%	2.2%	46

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	3.6	8.8%	48.8%	40.0%	2.5%	80
2004
2010	3.9	22.4%	48.3%	29.3%	.	58

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	3.8	26.3%	38.8%	25.0%	8.8%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	4.0	36.8%	40.4%	12.3%	7.0%	3.5%	57

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	3.6	11.3%	33.8%	53.8%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	3.6	11.9%	42.4%	40.7%	5.1%	59

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	Total (N)
Year	3.6	12.7%	34.2%	51.9%	1.3%	79
2004
2010	3.7	22.0%	33.9%	40.7%	3.4%	59

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	8.8%	33.8%	56.3%	.	1.3%	80
2004
2010	3.6	8.5%	47.5%	42.4%	1.7%	.	59

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	Total (N)
Year	3.6	10.0%	43.8%	46.3%	.	80
2004
2010	3.7	13.6%	44.1%	40.7%	1.7%	59

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	3.7	12.5%	46.3%	41.3%	.	80
2004
2010	3.7	13.6%	45.8%	39.0%	1.7%	59

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	3.7	11.4%	46.8%	41.8%	79
2004
2010	3.8	17.2%	50.0%	32.8%	58

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	Total (N)
Year	3.6	12.5%	40.0%	46.3%	1.3%	80
2004
2010	3.8	19.0%	43.1%	37.9%	.	58

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	16.3%	38.8%	45.0%	.	80
2004
2010	3.7	19.0%	36.2%	43.1%	1.7%	58

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