NC State logo

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