North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences

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 Physical and Mathematical Sciences.

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	28.7%	56.7%	14.0%	0.7%	150
2004
2010	3.2	32.6%	57.4%	7.8%	2.1%	141

Feel like you have a good support network ¹

Feel like you have a good support network	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Year	3.6	3.4%	16.1%	21.5%	34.9%	24.2%	149
2004
2010	3.6	5.0%	7.9%	25.7%	45.0%	16.4%	140

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Year	1.4	72.0%	22.7%	3.3%	1.3%	0.7%	150
2004
2010	1.3	77.9%	20.0%	1.4%	.	0.7%	140

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Talley Student Center ^{2 3}

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Talley Student Center	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.7	16.1%	48.3%	28.2%	6.0%	1.3%	149
2004
2010	3.7	14.0%	55.8%	23.3%	4.7%	2.3%	86

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Witherspoon Center ^{2 3}

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Witherspoon Center	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.6	12.8%	39.2%	40.5%	5.4%	2.0%	148
2004
2010	3.6	16.0%	40.0%	34.0%	4.0%	6.0%	50

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*	4.2	41.2%	45.9%	8.1%	4.7%	.	148
2004
2010	4.2	32.0%	54.4%	12.6%	.	1.0%	103

Comfort: Participating in campus social life ²

Comfort: Participating in campus social life	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.7	19.5%	47.0%	23.5%	8.7%	1.3%	149
2004
2010	3.6	9.2%	50.6%	31.0%	6.9%	2.3%	87

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	44.7%	42.0%	8.0%	4.7%	0.7%	150
2004
2010	4.4	53.4%	33.1%	11.3%	0.8%	1.5%	133

Comfort: Meeting with graduate committee ²

Comfort: Meeting with graduate committee	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.9	26.8%	45.6%	17.4%	9.4%	0.7%	149
2004
2010	4.0	24.0%	58.7%	16.0%	.	1.3%	75

Comfort: Working with research team ²

Comfort: Working with research team	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.2	36.9%	47.7%	12.8%	2.7%	.	149
2004
2010	4.4	47.0%	47.0%	4.0%	1.0%	1.0%	100

Comfort: Participating in multicultural/ethnic activities on campus ²

Comfort: Participating in multicultural/ethnic activities on campus	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	3.6	12.7%	45.3%	34.7%	6.7%	0.7%	150
2004
2010	3.7	9.4%	62.5%	23.4%	1.6%	3.1%	64

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	3.9	19.3%	57.3%	17.3%	5.3%	0.7%	150
2004
2010	3.9	18.6%	54.7%	24.4%	1.2%	1.2%	86

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	4.3	45.6%	43.6%	6.0%	3.4%	1.3%	149
2004
2010	4.2	40.6%	47.8%	8.7%	1.4%	1.4%	138

Comfort: Interacting with top level administrators ²

Comfort: Interacting with top level administrators	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.5	14.8%	34.9%	34.9%	12.8%	2.7%	149
2004
2010	3.8	13.6%	61.0%	20.3%	1.7%	3.4%	59

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	34.5%	52.7%	10.8%	1.4%	0.7%	148
2004
2010	4.1	29.9%	51.5%	13.4%	4.5%	0.7%	134

Working hard leads to desired grade ⁵

Working hard leads to desired grade	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.0	30.2%	50.3%	11.4%	7.4%	0.7%	149
2004
2010	4.1	37.4%	41.2%	11.5%	9.2%	0.8%	131

Ignored in class when attempting to participate ⁵

Ignored in class when attempting to participate	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	1.8	.	1.3%	12.1%	51.7%	34.9%	149
2004
2010	1.8	1.5%	2.3%	7.6%	48.9%	39.7%	131

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	4.1	25.0%	60.8%	10.1%	4.1%	.	148
2004
2010	4.1	31.3%	55.0%	9.9%	1.5%	2.3%	131

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	2.0	0.7%	4.7%	14.9%	50.0%	29.7%	148
2004
2010	1.8	1.5%	3.8%	9.2%	44.3%	41.2%	131

Faculty recognize importance of ideas ⁵

Faculty recognize importance of ideas	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.9	18.4%	54.4%	23.8%	2.0%	1.4%	147
2004
2010	3.9	21.4%	53.4%	22.9%	1.5%	0.8%	131

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	2.1	2.0%	7.4%	20.9%	42.6%	27.0%	148
2004
2010	1.9	2.3%	3.8%	14.6%	37.7%	41.5%	130

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	32.4%	50.7%	12.8%	2.7%	1.4%	148
2004
2010	4.2	37.7%	47.7%	12.3%	0.8%	1.5%	130

Comfortable among students in courses ^{5 6}

Comfortable among students in courses	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.1	31.5%	55.7%	8.7%	2.0%	2.0%	149
2004
2010	4.2	38.5%	50.8%	8.5%	1.5%	0.8%	130

Faculty support for attending conferences ⁷

Faculty support for attending conferences	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	43.2%	36.8%	14.7%	5.3%	95
2010

Faculty support for presenting at conferences ⁷

Faculty support for presenting at conferences	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.0	30.8%	47.5%	16.7%	5.0%	120
2004
2010	3.3	48.9%	35.6%	11.1%	4.4%	90

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair ⁷

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	40.4%	40.4%	13.2%	5.9%	136
2004
2010	3.5	52.6%	41.2%	6.1%	.	114

Committee responsiveness ⁷

Committee responsiveness	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	32.4%	44.8%	18.1%	4.8%	105
2004
2010	3.3	34.2%	60.8%	3.8%	1.3%	79

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*	3.0	29.9%	43.9%	19.6%	6.5%	107
2004
2010	3.3	39.5%	53.5%	7.0%	.	86

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	32.5%	55.3%	10.6%	1.6%	123
2004
2010	3.3	45.9%	43.9%	9.2%	1.0%	98

Selection process for TAs/RAs ⁷

Selection process for TAs/RAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.8	21.2%	49.6%	16.1%	13.1%	137
2004
2010	2.9	28.0%	43.2%	22.0%	6.8%	118

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	2.7	17.3%	46.5%	22.8%	13.4%	127
2004
2010	2.8	24.0%	37.5%	30.2%	8.3%	96

Back to Top

Section B: Interacting with Others

Interact with students from different race/ethnicity ⁸

Interact with students from different race/ethnicity	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	4.3	51.4%	29.2%	13.9%	4.9%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	4.3	53.5%	24.4%	17.3%	4.7%	.	127

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	2.5	3.0%	7.5%	38.3%	37.6%	13.5%	133
2004
2010	2.4	7.1%	6.1%	23.5%	42.9%	20.4%	98

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	4.3	52.9%	31.2%	13.0%	2.9%	138
2004
2010	4.4	58.8%	22.8%	14.0%	4.4%	114

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*	2.9	14.7%	11.0%	34.9%	30.3%	9.2%	109
2004
2010	3.7	36.5%	22.9%	16.7%	18.8%	5.2%	96

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	43.7%	33.3%	20.7%	2.2%	135
2004
2010	4.4	55.8%	24.0%	20.2%	.	104

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	40.0%	25.5%	24.8%	8.3%	1.4%	145
2004
2010	3.8	32.0%	27.2%	30.4%	6.4%	4.0%	125

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	3.5	29.7%	26.2%	21.4%	10.3%	12.4%	145
2004
2010	3.3	26.0%	20.3%	24.4%	12.2%	17.1%	123

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	3.5	29.7%	25.5%	19.3%	13.1%	12.4%	145
2004
2010	3.1	23.8%	20.5%	21.3%	15.6%	18.9%	122

Worked on a research team with student of different race/ethnicity within past year ⁸

Worked on a research team with student of different race/ethnicity within past year	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	3.3	30.8%	23.8%	14.7%	7.7%	23.1%	143
2004
2010	3.0	25.6%	17.9%	17.1%	8.5%	30.8%	117

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	6.9%	19.4%	34.7%	28.5%	10.4%	144
2004
2010	6.2%	27.9%	25.6%	21.7%	18.6%	129

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*	52.1%	15.3%	32.6%	144
2004
2010	40.3%	11.6%	48.1%	129

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	37.9%	37.2%	17.2%	4.8%	2.8%	145
2004
2010	39.5%	44.2%	10.1%	3.1%	3.1%	129

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	88.9%	6.3%	3.5%	1.4%	.	144
2004
2010	77.3%	10.9%	10.2%	0.8%	0.8%	128

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	3.8	13.3%	53.3%	33.3%	.	15
2004
2010	3.6	10.3%	44.8%	37.9%	6.9%	29

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events	Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Year	62.8%	13.8%	13.1%	10.3%	145
2004
2010	68.8%	11.2%	16.0%	4.0%	125

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not aware	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	63.3%	36.7%	150
2004
2010	61.6%	38.4%	86

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	26.7%	73.3%	150
2004
2010	29.1%	70.9%	86

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	65.3%	34.7%	150
2004
2010	62.8%	37.2%	86

Reasons for not participating: Not convenient for schedule ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not convenient for schedule	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	48.0%	52.0%	150
2004
2010	39.5%	60.5%	86

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	8.0%	92.0%	150
2004
2010	3.5%	96.5%	86

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	16.7%	83.3%	150
2004
2010	15.1%	84.9%	86

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	38.0%	62.0%	150
2004
2010	30.2%	69.8%	86

Reasons for not participating: Location ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Location	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	4.7%	95.3%	150
2004
2010	5.8%	94.2%	86

Reasons for not participating: Cost ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Cost	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year*	10.7%	89.3%	150
2004
2010	2.3%	97.7%	86

Reasons for not participating: Other ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Other	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	6.7%	93.3%	150
2004
2010	9.3%	90.7%	86

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	3.7	14.7%	52.7%	25.3%	6.0%	1.3%	150
2004
2010	3.9	18.9%	59.0%	17.2%	4.1%	0.8%	122

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	3.3%	44.7%	33.3%	14.0%	4.7%	150
2004
2010	3.6	9.8%	44.3%	39.3%	4.9%	1.6%	122

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	2.9	6.7%	17.3%	40.7%	28.7%	6.7%	150
2004
2010	2.8	8.3%	13.2%	38.0%	30.6%	9.9%	121

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	36.9%	47.7%	14.8%	0.7%	149
2004
2010	4.4	45.9%	45.9%	7.4%	0.8%	122

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	2.8	6.7%	22.7%	30.0%	30.0%	10.7%	150
2004
2010	2.8	5.8%	14.9%	43.0%	24.0%	12.4%	121

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	2.6	5.3%	14.0%	33.3%	34.7%	12.7%	150
2004
2010	2.7	3.3%	14.8%	45.9%	23.0%	13.1%	122

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*	3.9	28.4%	48.6%	12.8%	8.1%	2.0%	148
2004
2010	3.8	18.0%	46.7%	29.5%	4.1%	1.6%	122

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	Total (N)
Year	4.1	31.5%	51.7%	9.4%	7.4%	149
2004
2010	4.0	30.3%	45.9%	18.9%	4.9%	122

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	20.0%	46.7%	23.3%	9.3%	0.7%	150
2004
2010	3.9	22.3%	49.6%	22.3%	5.8%	.	121

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*	3.0	1.3%	12.1%	71.1%	14.1%	1.3%	149
2004
2010	3.3	6.6%	27.0%	59.0%	4.1%	3.3%	122

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	3.4	17.3%	38.0%	21.3%	18.0%	5.3%	150
2004
2010	3.6	24.6%	30.3%	27.9%	11.5%	5.7%	122

Including diversity in curriculum detracts from more important knowledge ¹¹

Including diversity in curriculum detracts from more important knowledge	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.0	10.0%	16.0%	42.0%	26.0%	6.0%	150
2004
2010	3.3	20.5%	20.5%	32.8%	20.5%	5.7%	122

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me to work in chosen field ¹¹

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me to work in chosen field	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.8	24.7%	43.3%	20.0%	8.0%	4.0%	150
2004
2010	3.9	25.0%	50.0%	15.0%	7.5%	2.5%	120

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

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me live in my community	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.9	25.3%	54.7%	12.0%	5.3%	2.7%	150
2004
2010	4.0	27.0%	54.1%	12.3%	5.7%	0.8%	122

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	3.6	20.7%	44.7%	15.3%	14.7%	4.7%	150
2004
2010	3.6	16.4%	45.1%	23.8%	9.0%	5.7%	122

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*	3.0	20.7%	65.5%	9.0%	4.8%	145
2004
2010	3.4	46.7%	48.3%	5.0%	.	120

Faculty respect for minority grad students

Faculty respect for minority grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	21.5%	63.2%	9.7%	5.6%	144
2004
2010	3.3	40.3%	47.9%	8.4%	3.4%	119

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.6	7.1%	54.6%	31.9%	6.4%	141
2004
2010	2.8	23.1%	38.5%	29.1%	9.4%	117

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.8	7.8%	66.7%	20.6%	5.0%	141
2004
2010	3.1	29.3%	48.3%	20.7%	1.7%	116

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	21.4%	71.0%	4.8%	2.8%	145
2004
2010	3.4	45.4%	50.4%	3.4%	0.8%	119

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	19.6%	68.5%	11.9%	.	143
2004
2010	3.4	46.2%	47.1%	5.9%	0.8%	119

Faculty respect for female grad students

Faculty respect for female grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	18.2%	69.2%	9.8%	2.8%	143
2004
2010	3.4	43.2%	49.2%	7.6%	.	118

Grad student respect for female faculty

Grad student respect for female faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	25.9%	64.3%	7.7%	2.1%	143
2004
2010	3.4	47.9%	42.9%	9.2%	.	119

Friendships between grad students of different racial/ethnic groups

Friendships between grad students of different racial/ethnic groups	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.9	20.8%	56.3%	18.8%	4.2%	144
2004
2010	3.2	36.1%	47.9%	10.9%	5.0%	119

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*	2.7	10.6%	56.7%	27.7%	5.0%	141
2004
2010	3.2	39.1%	46.1%	11.3%	3.5%	115

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.8	20.7%	49.7%	24.1%	4.1%	1.4%	145
2004
2010	4.1	31.6%	47.9%	17.9%	2.6%	.	117

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	3.6	15.3%	34.7%	45.1%	3.5%	1.4%	144
2004
2010	3.8	23.1%	39.3%	35.0%	2.6%	.	117

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	21.9%	47.3%	29.5%	1.4%	146
2004
2010	4.0	27.4%	50.4%	20.5%	1.7%	117

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	3.6	14.6%	38.9%	40.3%	5.6%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	3.9	23.1%	44.4%	28.2%	3.4%	0.9%	117

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	33.6%	43.2%	21.9%	1.4%	.	146
2004
2010	4.1	36.4%	44.1%	16.1%	2.5%	0.8%	118

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	24.7%	47.9%	26.0%	1.4%	.	146
2004
2010	4.0	27.4%	49.6%	21.4%	0.9%	0.9%	117

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	20.5%	52.1%	26.0%	0.7%	0.7%	146
2004
2010	4.1	28.2%	54.7%	16.2%	0.9%	.	117

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	22.6%	44.5%	32.9%	.	.	146
2004
2010	3.9	25.9%	45.7%	25.0%	2.6%	0.9%	116

NCSU Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students

NCSU Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.3	6.2%	33.6%	50.0%	8.9%	1.4%	146
2004
2010	3.7	17.6%	40.3%	37.8%	2.5%	1.7%	119

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

NCSU Supportiveness: Christian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Christian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.8	19.9%	43.2%	34.9%	2.1%	146
2004
2010	4.0	29.9%	40.2%	26.5%	3.4%	117

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.7	15.1%	48.6%	30.8%	4.1%	1.4%	146
2004
2010	3.7	17.2%	40.5%	34.5%	6.9%	0.9%	116

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	12.4%	35.9%	47.6%	4.1%	.	145
2004
2010	3.7	18.3%	43.5%	33.0%	3.5%	1.7%	115

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students

NCSU Supportiveness: Middle class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.7	14.6%	45.8%	37.5%	2.1%	144
2004
2010	3.8	17.2%	49.1%	32.8%	0.9%	116

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	3.8	20.7%	42.1%	36.6%	0.7%	145
2004
2010	3.8	22.4%	42.2%	32.8%	2.6%	116

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	10.0%	37.1%	45.0%	6.4%	1.4%	140
2004
2010	3.6	17.4%	36.5%	34.8%	9.6%	1.7%	115

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	26.9%	43.4%	24.1%	4.8%	0.7%	145
2004
2010	4.1	34.2%	42.7%	17.9%	5.1%	.	117

Grad Program Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	18.9%	32.9%	45.5%	2.1%	0.7%	143
2004
2010	3.9	28.2%	40.2%	28.2%	3.4%	.	117

Grad Program Supportiveness: Asian students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	37.0%	41.8%	19.2%	2.1%	146
2004
2010	4.1	34.2%	46.2%	17.1%	2.6%	117

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.7	19.0%	34.5%	40.8%	4.9%	0.7%	142
2004
2010	4.0	29.1%	41.9%	25.6%	3.4%	.	117

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	34.9%	45.2%	19.2%	0.7%	146
2004
2010	4.2	38.5%	42.7%	17.9%	0.9%	117

Grad Program Supportiveness: International students

Grad Program Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.2	38.9%	42.4%	18.1%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	4.1	33.3%	46.2%	16.2%	4.3%	117

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	4.0	26.9%	47.6%	21.4%	3.4%	0.7%	145
2004
2010	4.2	37.8%	46.2%	15.1%	0.8%	.	119

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	Total (N)
Year	4.0	26.9%	49.7%	23.4%	145
2004
2010	4.1	35.9%	42.7%	21.4%	117

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*	3.5	10.4%	30.6%	55.6%	2.8%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	4.0	29.7%	42.4%	26.3%	0.8%	0.8%	118

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	3.6	17.8%	31.5%	47.9%	2.1%	0.7%	146
2004
2010	3.9	29.9%	34.2%	34.2%	1.7%	.	117

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	21.4%	51.7%	22.8%	4.1%	145
2004
2010	4.0	31.6%	39.3%	28.2%	0.9%	117

Grad Program Supportiveness: Poor/working class students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Poor/working class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.7	16.6%	37.9%	42.8%	2.1%	0.7%	145
2004
2010	3.9	28.2%	35.9%	33.3%	1.7%	0.9%	117

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	17.1%	45.2%	34.9%	2.7%	146
2004
2010	4.0	29.1%	38.5%	32.5%	.	117

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	3.8	19.6%	43.4%	36.4%	0.7%	143
2004
2010	4.0	29.9%	36.8%	32.5%	0.9%	117

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	14.8%	42.3%	33.8%	7.0%	2.1%	142
2004
2010	3.9	29.1%	39.3%	29.1%	2.6%	.	117

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	3.8	13.9%	54.2%	29.9%	1.4%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	4.0	27.2%	48.2%	21.9%	0.9%	1.8%	114

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

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	15.3%	55.6%	25.0%	3.5%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	4.1	30.4%	51.3%	15.7%	0.9%	1.7%	115

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

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.6	9.7%	48.6%	36.1%	4.9%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	3.9	23.0%	45.1%	29.2%	2.7%	.	113

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

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.6	11.1%	45.1%	39.6%	3.5%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	3.9	23.0%	46.0%	30.1%	0.9%	.	113

Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	5.6%	10.4%	81.3%	2.8%	144
2004
2010	3.5	12.9%	28.7%	58.4%	.	101

Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	4.1	31.9%	51.4%	15.3%	1.4%	144
2004
2010	4.3	40.0%	46.1%	13.0%	0.9%	115

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	Total (N)
Year*	3.4	4.2%	28.5%	67.4%	.	144
2004
2010	3.7	17.6%	39.6%	41.8%	1.1%	91

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*	3.4	2.8%	37.5%	59.7%	.	.	144
2004
2010	3.6	12.0%	35.9%	50.0%	1.1%	1.1%	92

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.5	5.6%	46.2%	45.5%	2.1%	0.7%	143
2004
2010	3.8	19.8%	45.9%	33.3%	0.9%	.	111

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	25.7%	38.9%	30.6%	3.5%	1.4%	144
2004
2010	3.9	27.2%	43.9%	21.1%	7.0%	0.9%	114

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	3.7	10.4%	47.2%	40.3%	2.1%	144
2004
2010	3.7	16.1%	39.8%	43.2%	0.8%	118

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.5	7.0%	42.0%	49.7%	0.7%	0.7%	143
2004
2010	3.7	17.8%	36.4%	44.1%	1.7%	.	118

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	5.6%	38.9%	54.9%	.	0.7%	144
2004
2010	3.6	16.1%	33.9%	47.5%	2.5%	.	118

Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds

Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.8	12.5%	54.9%	31.3%	1.4%	.	144
2004
2010	3.8	17.8%	47.5%	32.2%	1.7%	0.8%	118

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	3.6	9.0%	47.2%	43.1%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	3.8	15.3%	45.8%	39.0%	.	118

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

Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.8	11.1%	55.6%	33.3%	.	144
2004
2010	3.9	21.2%	48.3%	29.7%	0.8%	118

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

Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	9.0%	55.6%	34.7%	0.7%	.	144
2004
2010	3.8	21.4%	42.7%	34.2%	0.9%	0.9%	117

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*	3.4	5.6%	34.0%	59.7%	0.7%	144
2004
2010	3.7	20.3%	34.7%	43.2%	1.7%	118

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