North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
by Age

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, broken down by student age.

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)
Age		3.2	28.6%	60.1%	10.1%	1.3%	1,082
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.2	31.6%	58.4%	9.0%	1.0%	1,218
Non-Traditional	2004	3.2	33.9%	53.3%	10.1%	2.6%	227
	2010	3.2	35.5%	52.1%	10.7%	1.8%	169

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)
Age		3.7	2.7%	11.5%	22.5%	40.1%	23.2%	1,078
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.6	4.6%	9.9%	23.0%	46.3%	16.2%	1,207
Non-Traditional	2004	3.5	3.5%	12.8%	30.1%	35.0%	18.6%	226
	2010	3.5	2.4%	14.9%	28.6%	41.7%	12.5%	168

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened		Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Age		1.4	68.7%	24.7%	5.8%	0.6%	0.2%	1,078
Traditional	2004
	2010	1.3	77.0%	18.9%	3.1%	0.8%	0.2%	1,213
Non-Traditional	2004	1.3	75.8%	19.8%	2.2%	1.8%	0.4%	227
	2010	1.2	85.2%	11.8%	2.4%	0.6%	.	169

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)
Age*		3.7	19.1%	43.7%	29.8%	6.6%	0.8%	1,081
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	24.7%	53.0%	15.3%	4.3%	2.7%	789
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	18.9%	42.1%	28.1%	10.5%	0.4%	228
	2010	3.9	23.3%	50.0%	19.8%	3.5%	3.5%	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)
Age		3.6	16.9%	36.5%	37.4%	7.6%	1.6%	1,081
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	27.8%	44.0%	20.4%	3.4%	4.4%	504
Non-Traditional	2004	3.6	15.4%	41.2%	31.6%	10.5%	1.3%	228
	2010	3.8	26.5%	38.8%	28.6%	4.1%	2.0%	49

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)
Age		4.3	47.3%	43.2%	6.8%	2.1%	0.6%	1,081
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.2	38.5%	47.0%	11.4%	1.6%	1.6%	836
Non-Traditional	2004	4.4	50.0%	41.7%	4.4%	3.5%	0.4%	228
	2010	4.2	41.5%	42.6%	10.6%	3.2%	2.1%	94

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)
Age		3.8	21.9%	44.8%	24.3%	7.8%	1.1%	1,076
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.7	16.6%	51.3%	23.5%	5.4%	3.2%	854
Non-Traditional	2004	3.6	17.0%	42.8%	26.2%	12.2%	1.7%	229
	2010	3.7	15.7%	45.8%	33.7%	4.8%	.	83

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)
Age		4.3	47.5%	41.6%	6.8%	3.6%	0.6%	1,081
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.3	49.8%	36.1%	8.9%	3.0%	2.3%	1,141
Non-Traditional	2004	4.4	54.3%	34.3%	6.1%	3.9%	1.3%	230
	2010	4.2	53.1%	28.4%	8.0%	5.6%	4.9%	162

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)
Age		4.0	30.4%	44.1%	18.0%	6.9%	0.6%	1,078
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	32.8%	47.5%	14.8%	3.0%	1.8%	728
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	37.1%	45.0%	13.5%	3.9%	0.4%	229
	2010	4.1	41.0%	41.9%	10.5%	3.8%	2.9%	105

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)
Age		4.3	42.5%	43.5%	12.3%	1.2%	0.5%	1,078
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.2	43.9%	41.7%	10.6%	2.4%	1.4%	834
Non-Traditional	2004	4.2	41.9%	41.0%	14.0%	2.2%	0.9%	229
	2010	4.3	44.3%	42.0%	13.6%	.	.	88

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)
Age		3.7	16.7%	43.4%	32.0%	7.3%	0.7%	1,074
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	21.9%	49.6%	20.1%	5.2%	3.3%	672
Non-Traditional	2004	3.8	21.8%	45.4%	28.4%	2.6%	1.7%	229
	2010	3.8	15.3%	55.6%	23.6%	4.2%	1.4%	72

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)
Age		3.9	24.5%	49.6%	19.1%	5.8%	1.1%	1,075
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	25.9%	52.2%	16.6%	3.0%	2.2%	860
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	18.6%	40.7%	30.1%	8.4%	2.2%	226
	2010	3.7	18.7%	48.4%	23.1%	7.7%	2.2%	91

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)
Age*		4.2	39.1%	48.9%	7.7%	3.7%	0.6%	1,075
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.2	41.8%	45.0%	9.4%	2.0%	1.9%	1,178
Non-Traditional	2004	4.4	48.9%	43.7%	3.1%	3.9%	0.4%	229
	2010	4.2	47.3%	38.8%	7.9%	1.8%	4.2%	165

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)
Age		3.5	16.6%	38.4%	28.8%	14.3%	2.0%	1,071
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.7	17.4%	49.7%	23.8%	4.7%	4.4%	596
Non-Traditional	2004	3.8	25.2%	45.7%	15.7%	10.9%	2.6%	230
	2010	3.8	20.2%	55.1%	13.5%	7.9%	3.4%	89

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)
Age*		4.2	38.7%	50.5%	7.3%	2.8%	0.7%	1,070
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.2	37.1%	48.0%	10.5%	2.6%	1.8%	1,177
Non-Traditional	2004	4.4	47.2%	45.0%	4.8%	3.1%	.	229
	2010	4.0	33.5%	47.0%	8.5%	4.9%	6.1%	164

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)
Age		4.1	34.3%	52.5%	6.1%	5.7%	1.5%	1,077
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	36.0%	47.0%	9.3%	6.6%	1.1%	1,159
Non-Traditional	2004	4.2	40.0%	47.8%	3.9%	7.4%	0.9%	230
	2010	4.2	39.8%	45.8%	8.4%	4.2%	1.8%	166

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)
Age		1.9	0.8%	2.8%	10.8%	54.6%	31.0%	1,076
Traditional	2004
	2010	1.7	0.9%	2.5%	7.6%	47.0%	42.0%	1,158
Non-Traditional	2004	1.7	1.7%	0.9%	6.1%	52.4%	38.9%	229
	2010	1.7	0.6%	1.8%	9.6%	43.4%	44.6%	166

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)
Age		4.1	28.3%	60.0%	7.5%	3.2%	0.9%	1,073
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	31.8%	53.1%	10.0%	3.5%	1.6%	1,155
Non-Traditional	2004	4.2	31.4%	60.7%	5.7%	2.2%	.	229
	2010	4.3	42.2%	48.8%	6.6%	1.2%	1.2%	166

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)
Age		1.9	1.0%	4.2%	9.2%	52.6%	33.0%	1,074
Traditional	2004
	2010	1.8	1.1%	3.5%	8.3%	45.6%	41.5%	1,157
Non-Traditional	2004	1.7	1.3%	0.9%	8.7%	46.7%	42.4%	229
	2010	1.7	1.2%	3.0%	9.1%	40.0%	46.7%	165

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)
Age		4.0	23.5%	55.3%	16.8%	3.9%	0.5%	1,075
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	25.6%	51.0%	20.3%	2.3%	0.8%	1,150
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	27.9%	58.1%	10.9%	3.1%	.	229
	2010	4.1	30.7%	50.6%	13.9%	3.6%	1.2%	166

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)
Age*		2.2	1.9%	9.3%	20.3%	43.7%	24.9%	1,076
Traditional	2004
	2010	1.9	2.1%	7.5%	15.2%	32.5%	42.8%	1,155
Non-Traditional	2004	2.4	2.6%	15.3%	24.9%	34.1%	23.1%	229
	2010	2.1	3.0%	5.5%	20.0%	38.2%	33.3%	165

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)
Age		4.1	33.1%	52.5%	10.8%	2.6%	1.0%	1,076
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.2	38.7%	47.5%	12.0%	1.4%	0.4%	1,152
Non-Traditional	2004	4.2	41.5%	46.3%	8.7%	2.6%	0.9%	229
	2010	4.3	47.0%	42.8%	7.2%	3.0%	.	166

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)
Age		4.2	32.9%	56.5%	6.9%	2.9%	0.8%	1,073
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.2	36.3%	52.3%	7.7%	3.1%	0.6%	1,154
Non-Traditional	2004	4.2	37.7%	50.9%	8.8%	2.2%	0.4%	228
	2010	4.2	38.6%	48.8%	7.8%	3.6%	1.2%	166

Faculty support for attending conferences ⁷

Faculty support for attending conferences		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age*		3.0	36.9%	39.0%	15.8%	8.4%	857
Traditional	2010
Non-Traditional	2010	3.0	35.8%	40.7%	12.2%	11.4%	123

Faculty support for presenting at conferences ⁷

Faculty support for presenting at conferences		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		3.1	33.4%	44.2%	17.5%	4.9%	857
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.1	38.7%	39.2%	14.7%	7.5%	802
Non-Traditional	2004	3.0	34.7%	42.9%	15.0%	7.5%	147
	2010	3.2	44.6%	34.8%	12.5%	8.0%	112

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair ⁷

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		3.2	41.7%	40.3%	13.9%	4.1%	957
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.3	48.0%	37.1%	11.6%	3.3%	993
Non-Traditional	2004	3.2	45.5%	35.5%	14.0%	5.0%	200
	2010	3.3	48.6%	33.1%	14.9%	3.4%	148

Committee responsiveness ⁷

Committee responsiveness		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		3.0	29.7%	48.7%	18.1%	3.5%	768
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.2	34.0%	49.7%	14.0%	2.2%	714
Non-Traditional	2004	3.0	32.6%	46.1%	13.5%	7.8%	141
	2010	3.2	42.5%	36.8%	17.9%	2.8%	106

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)
Age		3.0	29.8%	46.4%	18.8%	5.1%	789
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.2	35.7%	47.4%	13.7%	3.1%	742
Non-Traditional	2004	3.0	36.4%	35.1%	20.5%	7.9%	151
	2010	3.1	37.2%	39.8%	15.9%	7.1%	113

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)
Age		3.2	34.1%	53.9%	10.6%	1.3%	914
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.3	38.3%	50.9%	9.2%	1.5%	844
Non-Traditional	2004	3.2	35.2%	55.2%	7.9%	1.8%	165
	2010	3.2	31.4%	54.7%	11.6%	2.3%	86

Selection process for TAs/RAs ⁷

Selection process for TAs/RAs		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		2.7	21.0%	42.4%	21.9%	14.7%	857
Traditional	2004
	2010	2.7	25.0%	39.2%	19.1%	16.7%	875
Non-Traditional	2004	2.7	19.2%	44.0%	21.6%	15.2%	125
	2010	2.6	21.3%	40.4%	16.9%	21.3%	89

Selection process for other funding opportunities ⁷

Selection process for other funding opportunities		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		2.6	18.2%	38.1%	24.8%	18.9%	809
Traditional	2004
	2010	2.6	21.1%	33.9%	24.7%	20.2%	805
Non-Traditional	2004	2.6	14.8%	41.7%	27.8%	15.7%	115
	2010	2.4	13.6%	37.0%	21.0%	28.4%	81

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)
Age*		4.2	47.4%	30.1%	16.3%	5.6%	0.7%	1,062
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.3	54.2%	25.6%	15.9%	3.8%	0.5%	1,135
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	41.3%	36.3%	16.6%	5.8%	.	223
	2010	4.4	57.4%	28.4%	11.7%	2.5%	.	162

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)
Age*		2.5	3.8%	8.9%	32.9%	43.6%	10.8%	989
Traditional	2004
	2010	2.4	6.6%	10.0%	26.6%	32.8%	24.0%	850
Non-Traditional	2004	2.8	5.0%	18.5%	35.5%	33.5%	7.5%	200
	2010	2.6	7.6%	15.9%	28.8%	28.8%	18.9%	132

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)
Age*		4.2	46.5%	34.3%	15.0%	3.9%	0.3%	978
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.3	53.0%	31.5%	12.4%	2.7%	0.5%	1,014
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	35.7%	34.6%	23.8%	5.9%	.	185
	2010	4.3	57.1%	25.6%	12.8%	3.8%	0.8%	133

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)
Age*		3.1	16.0%	18.0%	30.3%	27.1%	8.5%	844
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.4	28.2%	22.2%	25.4%	14.4%	9.8%	794
Non-Traditional	2004	3.3	15.3%	23.6%	43.9%	14.6%	2.5%	157
	2010	3.9	34.7%	28.8%	27.1%	6.8%	2.5%	118

Interact with students from different social/economic background ⁸

Interact with students from different social/economic background		Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Age*		4.2	40.1%	39.3%	18.3%	2.3%	0.1%	991
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.3	47.2%	33.8%	16.6%	2.2%	0.1%	978
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	36.0%	40.8%	20.9%	2.4%	.	211
	2010	4.3	47.7%	32.6%	16.7%	3.0%	.	132

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)
Age		3.8	34.0%	31.4%	22.2%	9.6%	2.8%	1,067
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.7	33.5%	27.2%	25.3%	7.5%	6.4%	1,113
Non-Traditional	2004	3.3	16.2%	35.1%	26.3%	11.4%	11.0%	228
	2010	3.2	18.9%	27.0%	25.8%	11.3%	17.0%	159

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)
Age*		3.8	35.4%	31.5%	19.0%	8.1%	6.0%	1,068
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.7	35.1%	27.4%	19.3%	7.1%	11.1%	1,102
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	23.7%	41.2%	25.4%	4.8%	4.8%	228
	2010	3.4	28.8%	23.1%	23.8%	10.0%	14.4%	160

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)
Age*		3.6	31.7%	28.1%	20.2%	9.9%	10.2%	1,062
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.5	30.7%	23.9%	19.9%	11.2%	14.4%	1,094
Non-Traditional	2004	3.3	16.7%	28.5%	30.3%	12.3%	12.3%	228
	2010	3.0	22.5%	18.1%	21.3%	12.5%	25.6%	160

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)
Age		3.3	30.6%	21.6%	18.4%	7.9%	21.6%	1,062
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.0	28.5%	18.7%	13.5%	7.6%	31.7%	1,042
Non-Traditional	2004	2.6	14.7%	18.2%	20.0%	6.7%	40.4%	225
	2010	2.4	18.0%	12.7%	14.0%	6.7%	48.7%	150

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)
Age*		11.2%	24.8%	31.1%	19.5%	13.4%	1,068
Traditional	2004
	2010	14.6%	28.5%	17.8%	19.6%	19.6%	1,138
Non-Traditional	2004	19.7%	30.7%	29.4%	12.7%	7.5%	228
	2010	25.9%	25.3%	17.9%	17.3%	13.6%	162

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)
Age		43.5%	19.1%	37.4%	1,067
Traditional	2004
	2010	39.2%	17.9%	42.9%	1,135
Non-Traditional	2004	35.2%	24.2%	40.5%	227
	2010	36.3%	27.5%	36.3%	160

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)
Age		42.4%	35.2%	12.3%	4.8%	5.3%	1,068
Traditional	2004
	2010	37.7%	42.9%	10.5%	4.1%	4.7%	1,137
Non-Traditional	2004	78.4%	12.8%	6.2%	1.3%	1.3%	227
	2010	81.4%	11.8%	3.7%	1.2%	1.9%	161

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)
Age*		59.3%	23.3%	8.1%	6.6%	2.7%	1,067
Traditional	2004
	2010	48.6%	20.0%	16.0%	10.9%	4.6%	1,114
Non-Traditional	2004	39.9%	27.6%	18.0%	9.6%	4.8%	228
	2010	34.0%	26.4%	13.2%	19.5%	6.9%	159

Impact of courses on thinking about/understanding of diversity

Impact of courses on thinking about/understanding of diversity		Mean	5: Very positive impact	4: Positive impact	3: Neither positive nor negative impact	2: Negative impact	1: Very negative impact	Total (N)
Age*		3.8	21.5%	46.3%	28.0%	3.9%	0.2%	432
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	20.5%	47.7%	29.8%	1.6%	0.4%	570
Non-Traditional	2004	3.9	25.7%	46.3%	25.0%	2.9%	.	136
	2010	4.2	36.5%	45.2%	16.3%	1.9%	.	104

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events		Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Age		66.1%	9.2%	15.2%	9.4%	1,060
Traditional	2004
	2010	60.6%	11.4%	19.3%	8.7%	1,105
Non-Traditional	2004	61.6%	12.9%	14.7%	10.7%	224
	2010	65.4%	7.5%	17.0%	10.1%	159

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not aware		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Age		57.7%	42.3%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	61.6%	38.4%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	49.6%	50.4%	230
	2010	45.2%	54.8%	104

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)
Age		21.3%	78.7%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	29.0%	71.0%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	20.0%	80.0%	230
	2010	12.5%	87.5%	104

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Age		70.7%	29.3%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	64.9%	35.1%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	63.0%	37.0%	230
	2010	60.6%	39.4%	104

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)
Age		52.6%	47.4%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	55.2%	44.8%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	61.3%	38.7%	230
	2010	51.9%	48.1%	104

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Age		8.5%	91.5%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.8%	95.2%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	4.8%	95.2%	230
	2010	1.9%	98.1%	104

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)
Age		15.7%	84.3%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	17.6%	82.4%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	5.2%	94.8%	230
	2010	1.9%	98.1%	104

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Age		31.4%	68.6%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	30.3%	69.7%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	27.0%	73.0%	230
	2010	17.3%	82.7%	104

Reasons for not participating: Location ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Location		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Age		10.0%	90.0%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	12.4%	87.6%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	12.6%	87.4%	230
	2010	12.5%	87.5%	104

Reasons for not participating: Cost ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Cost		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Age*		12.2%	87.8%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	8.8%	91.2%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	13.0%	87.0%	230
	2010	5.8%	94.2%	104

Reasons for not participating: Other ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Other		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Age		6.2%	93.8%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	6.0%	94.0%	670
Non-Traditional	2004	14.3%	85.7%	230
	2010	10.6%	89.4%	104

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)
Age*		3.8	13.8%	58.0%	20.0%	7.1%	1.1%	1,082
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	24.2%	56.5%	14.4%	3.4%	1.5%	1,070
Non-Traditional	2004	3.6	14.8%	47.0%	25.7%	8.7%	3.9%	230
	2010	3.9	23.7%	53.2%	14.1%	9.0%	.	156

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)
Age*		3.4	6.1%	45.3%	35.8%	11.1%	1.8%	1,082
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.6	13.5%	46.2%	31.5%	7.0%	1.8%	1,059
Non-Traditional	2004	3.4	6.6%	45.0%	32.8%	14.4%	1.3%	229
	2010	3.6	14.8%	46.5%	25.8%	10.3%	2.6%	155

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)
Age		2.8	6.5%	14.6%	40.9%	28.8%	9.1%	1,082
Traditional	2004
	2010	2.8	9.1%	15.8%	34.4%	28.3%	12.4%	1,069
Non-Traditional	2004	2.7	6.6%	13.5%	30.6%	37.1%	12.2%	229
	2010	2.5	8.3%	12.2%	23.1%	35.3%	21.2%	156

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)
Age		4.3	41.5%	49.4%	8.4%	0.6%	0.2%	1,082
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.3	40.0%	47.6%	10.8%	1.2%	0.4%	1,070
Non-Traditional	2004	4.4	48.9%	41.0%	7.9%	2.2%	.	227
	2010	4.4	50.6%	41.7%	4.5%	2.6%	0.6%	156

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)
Age		2.8	7.2%	20.4%	30.8%	29.8%	11.9%	1,085
Traditional	2004
	2010	2.8	8.9%	18.2%	34.1%	23.5%	15.2%	1,066
Non-Traditional	2004	2.6	6.1%	17.0%	27.1%	32.8%	17.0%	229
	2010	2.5	6.5%	14.8%	25.8%	27.7%	25.2%	155

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)
Age		2.7	5.9%	15.6%	31.1%	34.0%	13.3%	1,082
Traditional	2004
	2010	2.7	7.1%	15.8%	34.8%	26.0%	16.3%	1,057
Non-Traditional	2004	2.6	8.3%	11.4%	27.9%	34.1%	18.3%	229
	2010	2.4	5.8%	12.3%	27.7%	27.1%	27.1%	155

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)
Age*		4.1	34.0%	48.8%	11.1%	4.9%	1.1%	1,079
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	22.7%	50.3%	19.8%	5.6%	1.5%	1,065
Non-Traditional	2004	4.3	45.8%	41.0%	6.6%	5.7%	0.9%	227
	2010	4.1	30.1%	50.0%	16.0%	3.2%	0.6%	156

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)
Age		4.2	40.2%	47.1%	9.3%	3.2%	0.2%	1,081
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.2	35.9%	47.8%	14.0%	1.9%	0.4%	1,066
Non-Traditional	2004	4.3	42.7%	47.1%	6.2%	3.5%	0.4%	227
	2010	4.4	52.3%	36.8%	9.0%	1.9%	.	155

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)
Age		3.9	26.0%	47.3%	19.0%	6.9%	0.8%	1,081
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	28.0%	48.7%	19.2%	3.5%	0.7%	1,066
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	41.0%	34.4%	12.8%	11.0%	0.9%	227
	2010	4.2	42.2%	40.9%	13.0%	3.9%	.	154

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)
Age*		3.1	3.5%	20.6%	62.4%	11.6%	1.9%	1,077
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.4	8.9%	28.9%	55.8%	5.2%	1.3%	1,067
Non-Traditional	2004	3.0	2.2%	21.0%	57.2%	17.0%	2.6%	229
	2010	3.4	9.6%	28.8%	53.8%	5.8%	1.9%	156

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)
Age		3.8	25.6%	41.3%	19.0%	12.2%	1.9%	1,080
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	32.5%	39.2%	16.7%	8.2%	3.5%	1,067
Non-Traditional	2004	3.9	33.5%	38.7%	13.9%	10.9%	3.0%	230
	2010	4.2	44.2%	37.8%	9.6%	7.7%	0.6%	156

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)
Age		2.8	8.1%	20.5%	28.0%	32.2%	11.2%	1,080
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.0	13.9%	21.9%	26.3%	24.5%	13.5%	1,066
Non-Traditional	2004	2.5	8.3%	13.5%	23.5%	30.9%	23.9%	230
	2010	2.5	7.7%	15.4%	19.9%	32.7%	24.4%	156

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)
Age		4.1	34.1%	47.3%	12.9%	4.4%	1.2%	1,082
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	34.6%	44.8%	14.7%	4.3%	1.6%	1,068
Non-Traditional	2004	4.2	44.3%	36.1%	13.0%	5.7%	0.9%	230
	2010	4.2	45.2%	38.7%	11.0%	5.2%	.	155

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)
Age		4.1	33.3%	47.8%	14.2%	3.6%	1.0%	1,081
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	33.3%	46.4%	14.9%	3.8%	1.5%	1,065
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	38.9%	39.7%	13.5%	6.1%	1.7%	229
	2010	4.2	44.2%	39.6%	12.3%	2.6%	1.3%	154

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)
Age		3.8	30.0%	39.9%	16.4%	10.8%	2.9%	1,083
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	29.8%	38.9%	19.7%	8.0%	3.6%	1,066
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	38.9%	36.2%	11.8%	10.9%	2.2%	229
	2010	4.0	37.8%	35.3%	17.3%	6.4%	3.2%	156

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)
Age		3.2	30.7%	58.5%	8.7%	2.1%	1,068
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.3	42.9%	49.2%	6.4%	1.4%	1,042
Non-Traditional	2004	3.2	32.3%	58.0%	8.0%	1.8%	226
	2010	3.3	39.1%	47.7%	12.6%	0.7%	151

Faculty respect for minority grad students

Faculty respect for minority grad students		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		3.1	28.2%	57.9%	10.8%	3.0%	1,063
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.3	41.0%	49.3%	7.6%	2.0%	1,036
Non-Traditional	2004	3.2	30.5%	56.2%	11.1%	2.2%	226
	2010	3.1	32.7%	52.7%	10.0%	4.7%	150

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		2.6	9.0%	52.0%	30.7%	8.3%	1,040
Traditional	2004
	2010	2.9	23.0%	51.1%	21.0%	4.9%	1,004
Non-Traditional	2004	2.8	15.5%	52.9%	23.8%	7.8%	206
	2010	2.9	19.3%	60.0%	17.0%	3.7%	135

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age*		2.8	11.3%	59.4%	25.0%	4.3%	1,040
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.1	27.8%	56.6%	13.7%	1.9%	1,007
Non-Traditional	2004	2.8	15.6%	54.6%	26.3%	3.4%	205
	2010	3.1	21.5%	63.7%	14.1%	0.7%	135

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		3.2	30.5%	62.2%	6.2%	1.1%	1,064
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.3	40.2%	53.4%	5.7%	0.7%	1,041
Non-Traditional	2004	3.2	33.0%	58.0%	8.0%	0.9%	224
	2010	3.3	32.7%	62.7%	4.0%	0.7%	150

Grad student respect for minority faculty

Grad student respect for minority faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		3.2	29.8%	60.4%	8.7%	1.1%	1,057
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.3	39.0%	52.9%	6.9%	1.2%	1,036
Non-Traditional	2004	3.2	29.0%	58.5%	11.5%	0.9%	217
	2010	3.2	31.8%	58.8%	6.8%	2.7%	148

Faculty respect for female grad students

Faculty respect for female grad students		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		3.2	28.9%	60.4%	9.0%	1.7%	1,055
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.3	43.2%	48.0%	7.3%	1.5%	1,042
Non-Traditional	2004	3.2	30.8%	57.5%	11.3%	0.5%	221
	2010	3.2	36.0%	48.7%	13.3%	2.0%	150

Grad student respect for female faculty

Grad student respect for female faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Age		3.2	32.0%	59.8%	6.8%	1.3%	1,056
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.3	41.8%	51.6%	5.8%	0.9%	1,037
Non-Traditional	2004	3.2	33.3%	55.9%	10.4%	0.5%	222
	2010	3.3	36.9%	57.7%	4.7%	0.7%	149

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)
Age		3.0	25.3%	53.5%	16.7%	4.4%	1,059
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.2	34.1%	52.1%	11.1%	2.6%	1,034
Non-Traditional	2004	3.0	24.1%	56.5%	13.9%	5.6%	216
	2010	3.1	29.1%	58.8%	10.1%	2.0%	148

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)
Age*		2.8	17.7%	48.8%	26.8%	6.8%	1,046
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.1	30.1%	50.0%	16.1%	3.7%	1,022
Non-Traditional	2004	2.7	15.3%	50.2%	26.6%	7.9%	203
	2010	3.0	19.9%	61.0%	14.2%	5.0%	141

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)
Age		3.9	21.5%	51.0%	23.6%	3.2%	0.8%	1,061
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	27.6%	52.1%	17.4%	2.1%	0.7%	1,032
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	24.6%	51.8%	18.3%	5.4%	.	224
	2010	4.0	26.2%	51.7%	18.8%	2.7%	0.7%	149

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)
Age*		3.6	14.4%	40.7%	40.6%	3.2%	1.1%	1,052
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	20.0%	45.2%	31.4%	2.4%	1.0%	1,025
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	16.6%	42.9%	35.0%	5.5%	.	217
	2010	3.8	16.1%	48.3%	32.2%	3.4%	.	149

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age*		3.9	21.9%	46.2%	28.1%	3.1%	0.8%	1,061
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	27.0%	49.5%	21.5%	1.4%	0.6%	1,035
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	26.2%	51.6%	18.6%	3.6%	.	221
	2010	4.0	27.5%	50.3%	18.1%	4.0%	.	149

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)
Age		3.7	15.2%	42.5%	36.1%	5.4%	0.9%	1,054
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	19.5%	49.5%	27.4%	2.7%	0.9%	1,031
Non-Traditional	2004	3.8	17.4%	47.9%	27.4%	7.3%	.	219
	2010	3.8	16.8%	50.3%	27.5%	4.7%	0.7%	149

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age		4.1	35.7%	43.9%	18.7%	1.3%	0.4%	1,059
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	36.6%	41.7%	18.3%	2.5%	1.0%	1,030
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	30.9%	51.8%	15.5%	1.4%	0.5%	220
	2010	4.2	39.6%	45.0%	14.8%	0.7%	.	149

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age		3.9	22.4%	49.3%	24.1%	3.4%	0.8%	1,057
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	27.9%	50.6%	19.0%	1.7%	0.7%	1,029
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	26.0%	53.0%	17.8%	2.7%	0.5%	219
	2010	4.1	26.2%	56.4%	14.8%	2.7%	.	149

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age		4.0	22.2%	54.8%	21.1%	1.7%	0.2%	1,056
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	27.5%	53.1%	17.9%	0.9%	0.6%	1,031
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	25.3%	54.8%	16.3%	3.6%	.	221
	2010	4.0	24.7%	56.0%	18.0%	0.7%	0.7%	150

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age*		4.0	28.0%	46.5%	24.7%	0.7%	0.2%	1,057
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	29.8%	46.6%	21.0%	1.9%	0.6%	1,027
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	26.9%	56.6%	15.1%	1.4%	.	219
	2010	4.1	32.9%	47.7%	19.5%	.	.	149

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)
Age		3.3	8.4%	32.1%	45.0%	11.5%	3.0%	1,048
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.6	16.7%	40.2%	34.0%	7.5%	1.7%	1,025
Non-Traditional	2004	3.4	7.8%	38.5%	40.4%	11.9%	1.4%	218
	2010	3.6	13.0%	46.6%	32.2%	6.2%	2.1%	146

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)
Age*		3.8	22.3%	43.0%	32.0%	2.5%	0.3%	1,057
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	36.1%	42.8%	19.8%	1.1%	0.3%	1,029
Non-Traditional	2004	3.8	17.7%	48.4%	31.6%	1.9%	0.5%	215
	2010	4.0	30.0%	46.7%	20.7%	0.7%	2.0%	150

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age		3.7	14.2%	48.6%	30.2%	6.0%	1.0%	1,050
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	19.0%	46.3%	27.9%	5.6%	1.2%	1,027
Non-Traditional	2004	3.6	18.3%	44.0%	23.4%	11.5%	2.8%	218
	2010	3.6	18.5%	45.7%	19.9%	13.9%	2.0%	151

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)
Age		3.6	12.5%	40.0%	40.6%	5.7%	1.1%	1,047
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	20.5%	45.5%	29.5%	3.5%	1.0%	1,027
Non-Traditional	2004	3.6	12.5%	45.4%	32.9%	6.9%	2.3%	216
	2010	3.8	17.3%	48.0%	28.0%	6.7%	.	150

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)
Age		3.8	16.1%	48.1%	33.2%	2.3%	0.2%	1,047
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	21.1%	48.7%	28.3%	1.5%	0.4%	1,028
Non-Traditional	2004	3.9	15.9%	56.5%	26.2%	0.9%	0.5%	214
	2010	3.9	16.7%	58.7%	24.7%	.	.	150

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age*		3.9	23.0%	44.3%	31.8%	0.9%	0.1%	1,044
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	27.6%	44.2%	26.5%	1.4%	0.3%	1,026
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	22.9%	50.9%	26.2%	.	.	214
	2010	3.9	20.9%	54.7%	22.3%	2.0%	.	148

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)
Age		3.4	10.7%	36.4%	41.6%	9.4%	1.8%	1,038
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.7	17.8%	42.7%	30.7%	7.4%	1.5%	1,030
Non-Traditional	2004	3.5	12.8%	40.8%	29.9%	14.2%	2.4%	211
	2010	3.5	17.4%	34.9%	27.5%	16.1%	4.0%	149

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)
Age		3.9	23.0%	47.6%	25.3%	3.7%	0.6%	1,041
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	33.3%	44.4%	18.5%	2.8%	1.0%	1,031
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	30.4%	49.8%	16.1%	3.2%	0.5%	217
	2010	4.1	33.3%	47.3%	14.7%	3.3%	1.3%	150

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)
Age		3.7	18.6%	38.3%	39.9%	2.6%	0.6%	1,026
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	29.2%	42.0%	26.0%	2.0%	0.9%	1,021
Non-Traditional	2004	3.8	19.9%	42.7%	33.6%	3.3%	0.5%	211
	2010	3.9	26.2%	43.0%	30.2%	0.7%	.	149

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)
Age		4.0	29.0%	44.3%	23.9%	2.1%	0.7%	1,035
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	35.8%	45.4%	16.9%	1.3%	0.7%	1,031
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	28.8%	48.6%	17.5%	4.7%	0.5%	212
	2010	4.1	32.4%	50.0%	16.2%	1.4%	.	148

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)
Age		3.8	19.7%	41.7%	34.7%	3.3%	0.6%	1,022
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	29.7%	44.4%	23.2%	1.9%	0.8%	1,027
Non-Traditional	2004	3.9	21.5%	48.3%	26.3%	3.3%	0.5%	209
	2010	4.0	26.7%	47.3%	25.3%	0.7%	.	150

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students

Grad Program Supportiveness: White students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age		4.1	34.3%	45.7%	19.0%	0.8%	0.2%	1,037
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.2	38.2%	43.9%	16.1%	1.4%	0.5%	1,030
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	32.6%	51.2%	14.4%	1.4%	0.5%	215
	2010	4.2	38.9%	47.7%	12.8%	0.7%	.	149

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)
Age		4.0	30.0%	46.3%	20.2%	2.8%	0.7%	1,035
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	36.5%	44.4%	16.7%	1.6%	0.8%	1,029
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	31.8%	46.7%	17.8%	3.3%	0.5%	214
	2010	4.2	34.7%	49.3%	13.3%	2.7%	.	150

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)
Age*		4.0	27.6%	50.6%	19.3%	2.1%	0.4%	1,037
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	35.2%	46.0%	17.1%	1.3%	0.5%	1,029
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	30.7%	53.0%	14.9%	1.4%	.	215
	2010	4.2	33.6%	50.7%	13.8%	2.0%	.	152

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Male students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age*		4.0	29.2%	47.0%	22.9%	0.8%	.	1,033
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	35.7%	44.6%	18.6%	0.9%	0.3%	1,028
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	28.8%	55.3%	14.0%	1.9%	.	215
	2010	4.2	36.9%	45.0%	17.4%	0.7%	.	149

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)
Age*		3.5	12.5%	33.9%	47.1%	4.8%	1.7%	1,028
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	27.0%	41.8%	28.0%	2.2%	1.0%	1,023
Non-Traditional	2004	3.6	13.0%	43.3%	37.0%	5.8%	1.0%	208
	2010	3.9	25.2%	43.5%	28.6%	2.0%	0.7%	147

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)
Age		3.7	19.4%	38.3%	39.4%	2.4%	0.5%	1,035
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	30.8%	41.6%	25.9%	1.4%	0.3%	1,028
Non-Traditional	2004	3.8	19.5%	41.9%	35.2%	2.9%	0.5%	210
	2010	4.0	26.5%	48.3%	23.8%	0.7%	0.7%	151

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)
Age		4.0	24.8%	49.8%	22.5%	2.2%	0.7%	1,032
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	31.0%	43.5%	23.0%	2.0%	0.5%	1,027
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	30.2%	47.2%	14.6%	6.6%	1.4%	212
	2010	3.9	27.8%	43.7%	17.9%	10.6%	.	151

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)
Age*		3.7	16.1%	41.5%	37.6%	4.0%	0.9%	1,034
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	28.7%	41.9%	26.3%	2.1%	1.0%	1,024
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	15.0%	46.4%	30.9%	6.3%	1.4%	207
	2010	3.9	28.2%	40.3%	24.8%	6.0%	0.7%	149

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)
Age		3.8	18.3%	47.0%	32.6%	1.8%	0.3%	1,033
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	29.8%	42.5%	26.6%	0.8%	0.3%	1,026
Non-Traditional	2004	3.9	17.7%	55.5%	24.4%	1.4%	1.0%	209
	2010	4.0	27.0%	48.6%	24.3%	.	.	148

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Age*		3.9	21.8%	45.2%	32.5%	0.5%	0.1%	1,029
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	31.6%	41.6%	25.9%	0.6%	0.3%	1,023
Non-Traditional	2004	3.9	20.8%	51.7%	27.5%	.	.	207
	2010	4.1	30.4%	45.3%	23.6%	0.7%	.	148

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)
Age		3.7	16.0%	43.0%	34.0%	5.0%	2.0%	1,028
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	29.7%	43.3%	23.2%	2.8%	1.0%	1,028
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	19.6%	46.4%	23.9%	7.2%	2.9%	209
	2010	3.8	26.8%	36.9%	24.8%	9.4%	2.0%	149

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)
Age		4.0	20.6%	59.7%	17.3%	1.9%	0.6%	1,059
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	28.1%	48.3%	20.9%	1.8%	0.9%	1,016
Non-Traditional	2004	4.0	25.6%	50.7%	21.6%	1.8%	0.4%	227
	2010	4.1	34.2%	44.7%	19.1%	2.0%	.	152

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)
Age		3.9	21.5%	55.5%	19.7%	2.8%	0.5%	1,057
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	29.1%	49.0%	19.0%	2.0%	0.9%	1,004
Non-Traditional	2004	3.9	23.0%	47.8%	26.1%	1.3%	1.8%	226
	2010	4.1	30.1%	47.3%	21.2%	1.4%	.	146

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)
Age*		3.8	17.0%	52.6%	27.9%	2.1%	0.4%	1,056
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	26.1%	47.5%	24.8%	1.5%	0.2%	1,001
Non-Traditional	2004	3.9	23.0%	44.2%	28.8%	4.0%	.	226
	2010	4.1	30.2%	49.0%	20.1%	0.7%	.	149

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)
Age*		3.8	16.1%	48.3%	33.3%	1.7%	0.6%	1,059
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	25.4%	45.7%	27.8%	0.9%	0.2%	970
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	18.6%	35.8%	42.0%	2.7%	0.9%	226
	2010	4.0	27.7%	44.7%	27.7%	.	.	141

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)
Age*		3.4	7.4%	30.3%	60.3%	1.5%	0.5%	1,058
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.7	17.9%	38.4%	42.7%	0.9%	0.1%	926
Non-Traditional	2004	3.5	9.7%	37.0%	51.1%	2.2%	.	227
	2010	3.8	20.5%	38.4%	40.4%	0.7%	.	146

Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances		Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age*		4.2	33.7%	53.5%	12.0%	0.7%	0.1%	1,058
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.1	33.4%	49.2%	16.4%	0.9%	0.2%	1,007
Non-Traditional	2004	4.1	31.7%	50.2%	17.6%	0.4%	.	227
	2010	4.2	35.1%	47.3%	17.6%	.	.	148

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)
Age*		3.5	8.5%	31.4%	59.1%	0.8%	0.2%	1,057
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	20.4%	44.3%	33.3%	1.6%	0.4%	796
Non-Traditional	2004	3.3	8.0%	14.2%	76.0%	1.3%	0.4%	225
	2010	3.6	18.3%	28.8%	51.9%	1.0%	.	104

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)
Age*		3.4	6.0%	32.3%	60.6%	0.9%	0.3%	1,053
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	18.9%	43.6%	35.5%	1.4%	0.6%	778
Non-Traditional	2004	3.3	6.3%	22.9%	69.5%	1.3%	.	223
	2010	3.6	16.4%	26.4%	56.4%	0.9%	.	110

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)
Age		3.7	11.0%	51.5%	34.8%	2.5%	0.3%	1,055
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	20.6%	46.9%	31.1%	1.0%	0.3%	980
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	13.9%	44.4%	39.9%	1.3%	0.4%	223
	2010	3.8	19.9%	45.2%	33.6%	1.4%	.	146

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)
Age		3.8	23.2%	44.5%	23.0%	8.3%	1.0%	1,058
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	29.1%	43.7%	18.7%	6.8%	1.7%	987
Non-Traditional	2004	3.9	32.2%	40.5%	18.5%	7.0%	1.8%	227
	2010	3.9	28.6%	40.8%	21.8%	8.2%	0.7%	147

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends		Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age*		3.8	16.6%	48.7%	33.0%	1.6%	0.1%	1,060
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	21.6%	40.0%	36.3%	1.9%	0.3%	1,026
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	14.6%	42.9%	41.6%	0.4%	0.4%	226
	2010	3.9	25.7%	42.1%	30.9%	1.3%	.	152

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)
Age*		3.7	15.0%	44.9%	38.8%	1.0%	0.2%	1,057
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	22.5%	41.0%	34.5%	1.7%	0.3%	1,020
Non-Traditional	2004	3.6	14.2%	33.8%	50.7%	0.9%	0.4%	225
	2010	3.9	27.8%	36.4%	33.8%	2.0%	.	151

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)
Age		3.6	11.8%	41.6%	45.1%	1.3%	0.2%	1,056
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.7	18.0%	40.2%	39.4%	2.1%	0.3%	1,024
Non-Traditional	2004	3.6	12.1%	36.6%	49.6%	0.9%	0.9%	224
	2010	3.8	19.7%	40.1%	39.5%	0.7%	.	152

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)
Age*		3.9	17.6%	54.0%	27.5%	0.9%	0.1%	1,058
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	23.9%	45.7%	29.8%	0.5%	0.2%	1,025
Non-Traditional	2004	3.8	17.4%	42.4%	38.8%	0.9%	0.4%	224
	2010	4.1	30.9%	46.1%	21.7%	1.3%	.	152

Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity

Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity		Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age*		3.8	15.5%	51.7%	31.5%	0.9%	0.4%	1,060
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	24.0%	43.9%	31.2%	0.7%	0.2%	1,024
Non-Traditional	2004	3.8	17.6%	46.4%	34.2%	1.8%	.	222
	2010	4.0	26.5%	47.7%	24.5%	1.3%	.	151

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

Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds		Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age*		3.9	17.4%	55.8%	26.2%	0.4%	0.2%	1,057
Traditional	2004
	2010	4.0	25.3%	46.3%	27.5%	0.6%	0.3%	1,023
Non-Traditional	2004	3.8	17.0%	42.2%	40.4%	.	0.4%	223
	2010	4.1	30.3%	46.1%	23.7%	.	.	152

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)
Age*		3.9	17.0%	53.1%	29.0%	0.9%	0.1%	1,056
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.9	24.0%	46.8%	28.6%	0.4%	0.3%	1,022
Non-Traditional	2004	3.7	17.4%	40.6%	41.1%	0.4%	0.4%	224
	2010	4.1	30.3%	44.7%	25.0%	.	.	152

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

Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation		Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Age*		3.6	12.8%	37.3%	48.3%	1.1%	0.4%	1,059
Traditional	2004
	2010	3.8	21.8%	37.8%	39.0%	0.7%	0.7%	1,022
Non-Traditional	2004	3.6	13.5%	28.7%	57.8%	.	.	223
	2010	3.8	23.7%	39.5%	35.5%	0.7%	0.7%	152

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