North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
College of Design

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 Design.

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	2.9	18.8%	59.4%	15.6%	6.3%	32
2004
2010	3.1	23.8%	66.7%	7.1%	2.4%	42

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	3.2	6.3%	31.3%	21.9%	21.9%	18.8%	32
2004
2010	3.7	2.5%	10.0%	22.5%	45.0%	20.0%	40

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	Total (N)
Year	1.2	81.3%	15.6%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	1.4	69.0%	26.2%	4.8%	42

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	12.5%	40.6%	37.5%	9.4%	.	32
2004
2010	3.8	13.0%	65.2%	13.0%	4.3%	4.3%	23

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	12.5%	34.4%	46.9%	3.1%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	3.5	9.1%	45.5%	36.4%	.	9.1%	11

Comfort: Participating in a research project with faculty ²

Comfort: Participating in research project with faculty	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.2	37.5%	43.8%	15.6%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	4.3	43.5%	47.8%	8.7%	.	23

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	3.5	12.5%	43.8%	25.0%	15.6%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	3.8	13.8%	51.7%	31.0%	3.4%	.	29

Comfort: Meeting with advisor ²

Comfort: Meeting with advisor	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.2	37.5%	50.0%	3.1%	9.4%	32
2004
2010	4.4	61.5%	23.1%	10.3%	5.1%	39

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	4.1	35.5%	38.7%	22.6%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	4.3	44.8%	37.9%	17.2%	.	29

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	31.3%	56.3%	12.5%	.	32
2004
2010	4.1	33.3%	51.9%	11.1%	3.7%	27

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	Total (N)
Year	3.8	21.9%	40.6%	34.4%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	3.8	10.5%	68.4%	15.8%	5.3%	19

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	18.8%	46.9%	25.0%	9.4%	.	32
2004
2010	4.0	17.9%	67.9%	10.7%	.	3.6%	28

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	Total (N)
Year	4.2	37.5%	46.9%	9.4%	6.3%	32
2004
2010	4.2	35.7%	47.6%	14.3%	2.4%	42

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	Total (N)
Year	3.6	21.9%	37.5%	21.9%	18.8%	32
2004
2010	4.0	24.0%	56.0%	16.0%	4.0%	25

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	Total (N)
Year	4.2	37.5%	46.9%	9.4%	6.3%	32
2004
2010	4.3	45.2%	42.9%	7.1%	4.8%	42

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	3.8	25.0%	56.3%	6.3%	3.1%	9.4%	32
2004
2010	4.0	26.8%	51.2%	17.1%	4.9%	.	41

Ignored in class when attempting to participate ⁵

Ignored in class when attempting to participate	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	2.1	.	9.4%	12.5%	59.4%	18.8%	32
2004
2010	1.9	2.4%	4.9%	7.3%	51.2%	34.1%	41

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	22.6%	64.5%	9.7%	.	3.2%	31
2004
2010	4.2	34.1%	58.5%	4.9%	2.4%	.	41

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work ⁵

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work	Mean	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	1.7	3.1%	3.1%	56.3%	37.5%	32
2004
2010	1.9	4.9%	9.8%	51.2%	34.1%	41

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	4.0	28.1%	50.0%	12.5%	9.4%	32
2004
2010	4.0	22.0%	58.5%	14.6%	4.9%	41

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	2.4	3.1%	12.5%	28.1%	31.3%	25.0%	32
2004
2010	2.0	.	7.3%	22.0%	39.0%	31.7%	41

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	37.5%	43.8%	9.4%	9.4%	.	32
2004
2010	4.1	29.3%	61.0%	7.3%	.	2.4%	41

Comfortable among students in courses ^{5 6}

Comfortable among students in courses	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.2	28.1%	62.5%	9.4%	32
2004
2010	4.1	29.3%	56.1%	14.6%	41

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	35.3%	35.3%	17.6%	11.8%	34
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	2.8	31.8%	31.8%	18.2%	18.2%	22
2004
2010	2.7	26.9%	38.5%	11.5%	23.1%	26

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	40.0%	36.7%	13.3%	10.0%	30
2004
2010	3.3	45.0%	42.5%	12.5%	.	40

Committee responsiveness ⁷

Committee responsiveness	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.1	47.1%	23.5%	17.6%	11.8%	17
2004
2010	3.1	27.6%	55.2%	17.2%	.	29

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	36.8%	31.6%	15.8%	15.8%	19
2004
2010	3.1	28.6%	50.0%	21.4%	.	28

Ability to work effectively with lab partners/research group ⁷

Ability to work effectively with lab partners/research group	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	26.9%	61.5%	11.5%	26
2004
2010	2.9	.	93.3%	6.7%	30

Selection process for TAs/RAs ⁷

Selection process for TAs/RAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.4	15.0%	40.0%	10.0%	35.0%	20
2004
2010	2.3	6.7%	43.3%	26.7%	23.3%	30

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	2.1	12.5%	16.7%	41.7%	29.2%	24
2004
2010	2.2	3.4%	34.5%	37.9%	24.1%	29

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	Total (N)
Year	4.1	40.6%	37.5%	9.4%	12.5%	32
2004
2010	4.3	51.2%	31.7%	14.6%	2.4%	41

Interact with students who have a disability ⁸

Interact with students who have a disability	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	2.9	12.5%	12.5%	28.1%	43.8%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	2.4	8.6%	11.4%	20.0%	31.4%	28.6%	35

Interact with students with different religious belief ⁸

Interact with students with different religious belief	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	Total (N)
Year	4.2	53.3%	26.7%	10.0%	10.0%	30
2004
2010	4.3	42.9%	40.0%	17.1%	.	35

Interact with students with different sexual orientation ⁸

Interact with students with different sexual orientation	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	2.8	11.1%	14.8%	25.9%	37.0%	11.1%	27
2004
2010	3.6	16.7%	46.7%	20.0%	13.3%	3.3%	30

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	4.2	40.6%	37.5%	21.9%	.	32
2004
2010	4.2	43.2%	43.2%	8.1%	5.4%	37

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	Total (N)
Year	3.8	34.4%	31.3%	18.8%	15.6%	32
2004
2010	3.8	19.5%	51.2%	22.0%	7.3%	41

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	3.9	34.4%	40.6%	12.5%	3.1%	9.4%	32
2004
2010	3.8	26.8%	41.5%	22.0%	7.3%	2.4%	41

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	34.4%	25.0%	18.8%	9.4%	12.5%	32
2004
2010	3.5	19.5%	34.1%	29.3%	7.3%	9.8%	41

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	25.0%	21.9%	25.0%	6.3%	21.9%	32
2004
2010	2.8	10.8%	29.7%	16.2%	10.8%	32.4%	37

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*	3.1%	34.4%	25.0%	28.1%	9.4%	32
2004
2010	.	41.5%	39.0%	4.9%	14.6%	41

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	31.3%	12.5%	56.3%	32
2004
2010	39.0%	14.6%	46.3%	41

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	59.4%	18.8%	15.6%	3.1%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	56.1%	29.3%	7.3%	2.4%	4.9%	41

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	Total (N)
Year	50.0%	31.3%	9.4%	9.4%	32
2004
2010	33.3%	28.2%	30.8%	7.7%	39

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	Total (N)
Year	4.2	37.5%	43.8%	18.8%	16
2004
2010	4.0	16.0%	68.0%	16.0%	25

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events	Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Year	81.3%	3.1%	9.4%	6.3%	32
2004
2010	74.4%	5.1%	20.5%	.	39

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not aware	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	68.8%	31.3%	32
2004
2010	72.4%	27.6%	29

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

Reasons for not participating: Event has nothing to do with me	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	12.5%	87.5%	32
2004
2010	17.2%	82.8%	29

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	81.3%	18.8%	32
2004
2010	72.4%	27.6%	29

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	50.0%	50.0%	32
2004
2010	37.9%	62.1%	29

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	9.4%	90.6%	32
2004
2010	6.9%	93.1%	29

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	9.4%	90.6%	32
2004
2010	17.2%	82.8%	29

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	15.6%	84.4%	32
2004
2010	20.7%	79.3%	29

Reasons for not participating: Location ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Location	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	6.3%	93.8%	32
2004
2010	6.9%	93.1%	29

Reasons for not participating: Cost ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Cost	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	18.8%	81.3%	32
2004
2010	13.8%	86.2%	29

Reasons for not participating: Other ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Other	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	6.3%	93.8%	32
2004
2010	6.9%	93.1%	29

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*	3.5	6.3%	53.1%	25.0%	12.5%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	4.1	32.4%	45.9%	18.9%	2.7%	.	37

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	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	3.1%	34.4%	43.8%	18.8%	32
2004
2010	3.8	30.6%	27.8%	36.1%	5.6%	36

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	2.5	.	6.5%	41.9%	41.9%	9.7%	31
2004
2010	2.6	5.4%	8.1%	40.5%	37.8%	8.1%	37

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	4.7	71.0%	29.0%	.	.	.	31
2004
2010	4.2	43.2%	45.9%	5.4%	2.7%	2.7%	37

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	2.7	3.2%	19.4%	32.3%	35.5%	9.7%	31
2004
2010	2.6	5.4%	5.4%	48.6%	21.6%	18.9%	37

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	2.3	3.2%	9.7%	25.8%	38.7%	22.6%	31
2004
2010	2.5	5.6%	11.1%	33.3%	25.0%	25.0%	36

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

Enhancing ability to partic in multicultural society should be part of univ mission	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	Total (N)
Year*	4.4	51.6%	38.7%	9.7%	.	31
2004
2010	3.9	19.4%	58.3%	19.4%	2.8%	36

Fostering intellectual diversity should be goal of NCSU ¹¹

Fostering intellectual diversity should be goal of NCSU	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.5	59.4%	34.4%	6.3%	32
2004
2010	4.3	48.6%	35.1%	16.2%	37

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	Total (N)
Year*	4.5	48.4%	48.4%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	4.1	29.7%	45.9%	24.3%	37

Easy to find diversity info on NCSU website ¹¹

Easy to find diversity info on NCSU website	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.1	.	25.8%	61.3%	9.7%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	3.3	5.4%	24.3%	62.2%	8.1%	.	37

Learning about different cultures is important part of grad education ¹¹

Learning about different cultures is important part of grad education	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.1	31.3%	46.9%	21.9%	.	32
2004
2010	4.3	43.2%	43.2%	10.8%	2.7%	37

Including diversity in curriculum detracts from more important knowledge ¹¹

Including diversity in curriculum detracts from more important knowledge	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	2.5	6.3%	12.5%	28.1%	34.4%	18.8%	32
2004
2010	2.8	16.2%	10.8%	29.7%	27.0%	16.2%	37

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	Total (N)
Year	4.3	46.9%	40.6%	12.5%	32
2004
2010	4.2	43.2%	37.8%	18.9%	37

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

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me live in my community	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.3	43.8%	46.9%	9.4%	.	32
2004
2010	4.2	36.1%	50.0%	11.1%	2.8%	36

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	Total (N)
Year	4.2	48.4%	29.0%	19.4%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	4.2	40.5%	43.2%	16.2%	.	37

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	3.2	31.3%	59.4%	6.3%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	3.3	37.8%	56.8%	2.7%	2.7%	37

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	31.3%	50.0%	15.6%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	3.4	43.2%	51.4%	5.4%	.	37

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	Total (N)
Year	3.0	25.0%	50.0%	25.0%	32
2004
2010	3.2	35.1%	48.6%	16.2%	37

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.1	29.0%	54.8%	12.9%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	3.2	37.8%	45.9%	16.2%	.	37

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	29.0%	64.5%	3.2%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	3.2	35.1%	54.1%	10.8%	.	37

Grad student respect for minority faculty

Grad student respect for minority faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.1	30.0%	56.7%	10.0%	3.3%	30
2004
2010	3.3	35.1%	59.5%	5.4%	.	37

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	29.0%	58.1%	9.7%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	3.3	45.9%	40.5%	13.5%	.	37

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	32.3%	58.1%	6.5%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	3.4	45.9%	45.9%	5.4%	2.7%	37

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	3.2	32.3%	58.1%	6.5%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	3.2	37.8%	45.9%	13.5%	2.7%	37

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT grad students

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.9	19.4%	58.1%	16.1%	6.5%	31
2004
2010	3.1	36.1%	44.4%	16.7%	2.8%	36

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	18.8%	56.3%	25.0%	.	32
2004
2010	4.1	29.7%	48.6%	18.9%	2.7%	37

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	3.5	16.1%	32.3%	38.7%	12.9%	.	31
2004
2010	3.6	18.9%	32.4%	43.2%	2.7%	2.7%	37

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	22.6%	48.4%	25.8%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	4.1	37.8%	35.1%	24.3%	2.7%	37

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	16.1%	48.4%	29.0%	6.5%	.	31
2004
2010	3.7	16.2%	40.5%	40.5%	.	2.7%	37

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	34.4%	43.8%	18.8%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	4.3	45.9%	40.5%	10.8%	2.7%	37

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	18.8%	59.4%	15.6%	6.3%	32
2004
2010	4.1	37.8%	40.5%	18.9%	2.7%	37

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	19.4%	58.1%	16.1%	6.5%	.	31
2004
2010	3.9	27.0%	48.6%	18.9%	2.7%	2.7%	37

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	Total (N)
Year	4.1	25.8%	58.1%	16.1%	31
2004
2010	4.3	45.9%	35.1%	18.9%	37

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	16.1%	19.4%	48.4%	12.9%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	3.6	16.2%	29.7%	51.4%	2.7%	.	37

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

NCSU Supportiveness: Christian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Christian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	32.3%	45.2%	19.4%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	4.3	45.9%	37.8%	16.2%	.	37

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.8	19.4%	48.4%	29.0%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	3.6	18.9%	43.2%	21.6%	16.2%	37

NCSU Supportiveness: Poor/working class students

NCSU Supportiveness: Poor/working class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.5	12.9%	35.5%	45.2%	6.5%	31
2004
2010	3.6	18.9%	35.1%	35.1%	10.8%	37

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	Total (N)
Year	3.9	19.4%	48.4%	32.3%	31
2004
2010	3.9	21.6%	48.6%	29.7%	37

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	30.0%	46.7%	20.0%	3.3%	30
2004
2010	4.0	24.3%	48.6%	27.0%	.	37

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	16.1%	29.0%	38.7%	16.1%	.	31
2004
2010	3.6	24.3%	27.0%	37.8%	8.1%	2.7%	37

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	22.6%	45.2%	29.0%	.	3.2%	31
2004
2010	4.1	27.0%	54.1%	16.2%	2.7%	.	37

Grad Program Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.7	20.0%	36.7%	40.0%	3.3%	30
2004
2010	3.7	22.9%	34.3%	40.0%	2.9%	35

Grad Program Supportiveness: Asian students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	Total (N)
Year	4.0	23.3%	50.0%	26.7%	30
2004
2010	4.3	40.5%	45.9%	13.5%	37

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	Total (N)
Year	3.9	20.7%	48.3%	31.0%	29
2004
2010	4.0	21.6%	54.1%	24.3%	37

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.2	41.9%	38.7%	16.1%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	4.2	33.3%	50.0%	16.7%	.	36

Grad Program Supportiveness: International students

Grad Program Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	38.7%	38.7%	12.9%	9.7%	31
2004
2010	4.2	36.1%	47.2%	16.7%	.	36

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	26.7%	53.3%	10.0%	6.7%	3.3%	30
2004
2010	4.0	27.8%	47.2%	22.2%	2.8%	.	36

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.2	35.5%	51.6%	9.7%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	4.1	32.4%	48.6%	18.9%	.	37

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	Total (N)
Year	3.6	16.7%	36.7%	33.3%	13.3%	30
2004
2010	3.9	24.3%	40.5%	35.1%	.	37

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	Total (N)
Year	3.7	26.7%	26.7%	33.3%	13.3%	30
2004
2010	4.1	32.4%	45.9%	21.6%	.	37

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	27.6%	62.1%	6.9%	3.4%	29
2004
2010	4.0	32.4%	43.2%	16.2%	8.1%	37

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	3.4	13.3%	30.0%	40.0%	16.7%	.	30
2004
2010	3.8	27.0%	37.8%	24.3%	8.1%	2.7%	37

Grad Program Supportiveness: Middle class students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Middle class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.8	20.0%	43.3%	30.0%	6.7%	30
2004
2010	4.0	27.0%	45.9%	24.3%	2.7%	37

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	30.0%	46.7%	20.0%	3.3%	30
2004
2010	4.2	35.1%	45.9%	18.9%	.	37

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	20.0%	33.3%	33.3%	10.0%	3.3%	30
2004
2010	3.9	32.4%	35.1%	27.0%	2.7%	2.7%	37

Back to Top

Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity

Influence on thinking: Interactions with students in class ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	4.1	21.9%	65.6%	9.4%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	4.1	27.8%	55.6%	16.7%	.	36

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	3.9	12.9%	64.5%	22.6%	.	31
2004
2010	4.0	25.0%	52.8%	19.4%	2.8%	36

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	3.9	18.8%	53.1%	25.0%	3.1%	32
2004
2010	4.0	22.2%	58.3%	19.4%	.	36

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

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.8	18.8%	50.0%	25.0%	6.3%	32
2004
2010	3.8	16.7%	50.0%	33.3%	.	36

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	Total (N)
Year	3.4	12.5%	18.8%	68.8%	32
2004
2010	3.7	14.3%	42.9%	42.9%	35

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	4.2	40.6%	40.6%	18.8%	32
2004
2010	4.3	36.1%	52.8%	11.1%	36

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.4	9.7%	22.6%	67.7%	31
2004
2010	3.5	10.7%	28.6%	60.7%	28

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	Total (N)
Year	3.4	9.4%	21.9%	68.8%	32
2004
2010	3.6	7.4%	40.7%	51.9%	27

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	3.9	16.1%	61.3%	19.4%	3.2%	31
2004
2010	3.7	13.9%	50.0%	30.6%	5.6%	36

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

Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	31.3%	37.5%	18.8%	12.5%	32
2004
2010	3.9	19.4%	55.6%	19.4%	5.6%	36

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	Total (N)
Year	3.9	25.0%	40.6%	34.4%	32
2004
2010	3.8	11.1%	58.3%	30.6%	36

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	3.8	25.0%	34.4%	40.6%	.	32
2004
2010	3.8	16.7%	50.0%	30.6%	2.8%	36

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.7	25.8%	19.4%	54.8%	.	31
2004
2010	3.6	11.1%	38.9%	47.2%	2.8%	36

Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds

Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year	4.0	31.3%	40.6%	28.1%	32
2004
2010	4.0	27.8%	47.2%	25.0%	36

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	Total (N)
Year	3.9	25.8%	38.7%	35.5%	31
2004
2010	3.9	16.7%	52.8%	30.6%	36

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

Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	28.1%	37.5%	34.4%	32
2004
2010	3.9	19.4%	55.6%	25.0%	36

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

Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.9	25.0%	37.5%	37.5%	32
2004
2010	3.9	19.4%	52.8%	27.8%	36

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

Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.6	12.5%	34.4%	53.1%	.	32
2004
2010	3.8	16.7%	50.0%	30.6%	2.8%	36

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