North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
by Gender

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 gender.

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)
Gender*		3.2	32.2%	56.6%	10.4%	0.8%	633
Male	2004	3.2	32.2%	56.6%	10.4%	0.8%	633
Male	2010	3.2	30.3%	61.1%	7.1%	1.4%	646
Female	2004	3.1	26.9%	61.1%	9.8%	2.2%	676
Female	2010	3.2	33.6%	54.5%	11.1%	0.8%	741

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)
Gender*		3.6	3.5%	11.8%	24.4%	39.5%	20.9%	628
Male	2004	3.6	3.5%	11.8%	24.4%	39.5%	20.9%	628
Male	2010	3.6	4.2%	9.2%	25.0%	45.6%	15.9%	640
Female	2004	3.7	2.2%	11.7%	23.4%	38.9%	23.8%	676
Female	2010	3.6	4.4%	11.7%	22.6%	45.9%	15.5%	735

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened		Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Gender*		1.3	73.9%	20.8%	3.5%	1.3%	0.5%	629
Male	2004	1.3	73.9%	20.8%	3.5%	1.3%	0.5%	629
Male	2010	1.3	79.5%	16.3%	2.8%	0.9%	0.5%	644
Female	2004	1.4	66.3%	26.6%	6.7%	0.4%	.	676
Female	2010	1.3	76.7%	19.5%	3.1%	0.7%	.	738

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)
Gender*		3.8	21.3%	44.1%	30.0%	4.3%	0.3%	630
Male	2004	3.8	21.3%	44.1%	30.0%	4.3%	0.3%	630
Male	2010	4.0	25.7%	53.9%	13.8%	3.9%	2.8%	436
Female	2004	3.6	17.1%	42.7%	29.0%	10.0%	1.2%	679
Female	2010	3.9	23.5%	51.5%	17.8%	4.6%	2.7%	439

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)
Gender*		3.7	18.4%	37.7%	37.0%	5.4%	1.4%	629
Male	2004	3.7	18.4%	37.7%	37.0%	5.4%	1.4%	629
Male	2010	3.9	28.7%	44.3%	19.0%	3.1%	4.8%	289
Female	2004	3.5	15.0%	37.1%	35.7%	10.6%	1.6%	680
Female	2010	3.9	26.5%	42.8%	23.5%	3.8%	3.4%	264

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)
Gender*		4.4	50.5%	41.9%	5.9%	1.3%	0.5%	630
Male	2004	4.4	50.5%	41.9%	5.9%	1.3%	0.5%	630
Male	2010	4.2	39.9%	46.3%	10.9%	0.9%	2.0%	451
Female	2004	4.3	45.2%	43.9%	6.9%	3.4%	0.6%	679
Female	2010	4.2	37.8%	46.8%	11.7%	2.5%	1.3%	479

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)
Gender*		3.8	23.1%	45.7%	23.6%	6.8%	0.8%	628
Male	2004	3.8	23.1%	45.7%	23.6%	6.8%	0.8%	628
Male	2010	3.8	19.3%	50.1%	22.5%	4.9%	3.2%	467
Female	2004	3.7	19.2%	43.3%	25.7%	10.2%	1.6%	677
Female	2010	3.7	13.8%	51.5%	26.4%	5.7%	2.6%	470

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)
Gender*		4.3	47.4%	41.4%	7.8%	3.0%	0.5%	631
Male	2004	4.3	47.4%	41.4%	7.8%	3.0%	0.5%	631
Male	2010	4.3	51.3%	35.0%	8.9%	2.4%	2.5%	595
Female	2004	4.3	49.9%	39.4%	5.6%	4.3%	0.9%	680
Female	2010	4.2	49.3%	35.3%	8.6%	4.1%	2.7%	708

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)
Gender*		4.0	31.1%	44.6%	18.3%	5.4%	0.6%	628
Male	2004	4.0	31.1%	44.6%	18.3%	5.4%	0.6%	628
Male	2010	4.0	31.6%	48.1%	15.0%	3.4%	1.9%	412
Female	2004	4.0	32.1%	43.9%	16.2%	7.2%	0.6%	679
Female	2010	4.1	36.1%	45.6%	13.5%	2.9%	1.9%	421

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)
Gender		4.3	44.3%	43.5%	11.0%	0.8%	0.5%	630
Male	2004	4.3	44.3%	43.5%	11.0%	0.8%	0.5%	630
Male	2010	4.2	45.0%	40.3%	10.7%	2.6%	1.5%	469
Female	2004	4.2	40.6%	42.7%	14.2%	1.9%	0.6%	677
Female	2010	4.2	42.8%	43.3%	11.0%	1.8%	1.1%	453

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)
Gender*		3.6	14.7%	42.2%	35.8%	6.5%	0.8%	626
Male	2004	3.6	14.7%	42.2%	35.8%	6.5%	0.8%	626
Male	2010	3.8	22.6%	48.7%	20.0%	5.5%	3.2%	380
Female	2004	3.8	20.2%	45.2%	27.3%	6.4%	0.9%	677
Female	2010	3.8	19.8%	51.6%	20.9%	4.7%	3.0%	364

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)
Gender*		3.9	22.3%	48.0%	24.0%	4.6%	1.1%	629
Male	2004	3.9	22.3%	48.0%	24.0%	4.6%	1.1%	629
Male	2010	3.9	27.5%	48.6%	17.9%	3.7%	2.4%	459
Female	2004	3.9	24.6%	48.1%	18.2%	7.7%	1.5%	672
Female	2010	3.9	23.2%	54.9%	16.7%	3.3%	2.0%	492

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)
Gender*		4.2	39.2%	48.4%	9.1%	2.7%	0.6%	628
Male	2004	4.2	39.2%	48.4%	9.1%	2.7%	0.6%	628
Male	2010	4.2	43.0%	43.7%	9.5%	1.9%	1.9%	623
Female	2004	4.3	42.3%	47.6%	4.9%	4.7%	0.4%	676
Female	2010	4.2	41.9%	44.7%	9.0%	1.9%	2.4%	720

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)
Gender*		3.6	19.3%	38.0%	29.2%	11.5%	2.1%	627
Male	2004	3.6	19.3%	38.0%	29.2%	11.5%	2.1%	627
Male	2010	3.7	19.5%	44.4%	25.9%	5.4%	4.8%	313
Female	2004	3.6	17.1%	41.2%	23.9%	15.7%	2.1%	674
Female	2010	3.8	16.4%	55.4%	19.6%	4.8%	3.8%	372

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)
Gender*		4.3	39.0%	51.1%	7.5%	1.9%	0.5%	626
Male	2004	4.3	39.0%	51.1%	7.5%	1.9%	0.5%	626
Male	2010	4.2	38.2%	47.2%	10.7%	2.1%	1.8%	625
Female	2004	4.3	41.3%	48.0%	6.2%	3.7%	0.7%	673
Female	2010	4.1	35.3%	48.5%	9.8%	3.6%	2.8%	716

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)
Gender		4.2	35.8%	51.8%	6.1%	5.4%	1.0%	628
Male	2004	4.2	35.8%	51.8%	6.1%	5.4%	1.0%	628
Male	2010	4.1	37.1%	47.0%	10.2%	4.8%	1.0%	609
Female	2004	4.1	34.8%	51.5%	5.4%	6.5%	1.8%	679
Female	2010	4.1	35.9%	46.8%	8.4%	7.5%	1.4%	716

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)
Gender*		1.8	0.6%	2.7%	10.5%	52.4%	33.8%	628
Male	2004	1.8	0.6%	2.7%	10.5%	52.4%	33.8%	628
Male	2010	1.8	1.3%	3.3%	8.1%	44.4%	42.9%	608
Female	2004	1.9	1.3%	2.2%	9.5%	55.8%	31.2%	677
Female	2010	1.7	0.6%	1.7%	7.7%	48.3%	41.8%	716

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)
Gender*		4.1	30.8%	57.4%	7.4%	3.8%	0.6%	624
Male	2004	4.1	30.8%	57.4%	7.4%	3.8%	0.6%	624
Male	2010	4.1	32.2%	52.6%	9.0%	4.8%	1.3%	608
Female	2004	4.1	27.1%	62.7%	7.1%	2.2%	0.9%	678
Female	2010	4.1	33.8%	52.5%	10.1%	2.0%	1.7%	713

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)
Gender*		1.9	1.0%	4.2%	10.7%	49.1%	35.0%	625
Male	2004	1.9	1.0%	4.2%	10.7%	49.1%	35.0%	625
Male	2010	1.8	0.8%	3.6%	7.9%	45.5%	42.2%	607
Female	2004	1.8	1.2%	3.1%	7.7%	53.8%	34.2%	678
Female	2010	1.8	1.4%	3.2%	8.8%	44.5%	42.1%	715

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)
Gender		4.0	24.0%	54.0%	18.4%	3.7%	.	626
Male	2004	4.0	24.0%	54.0%	18.4%	3.7%	.	626
Male	2010	4.0	25.2%	50.7%	21.9%	1.7%	0.7%	604
Female	2004	4.0	24.6%	57.4%	13.4%	3.8%	0.7%	678
Female	2010	4.0	27.1%	51.1%	17.6%	3.2%	1.0%	712

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)
Gender*		2.2	1.6%	10.4%	22.7%	38.8%	26.5%	626
Male	2004	2.2	1.6%	10.4%	22.7%	38.8%	26.5%	626
Male	2010	1.9	1.6%	7.7%	17.4%	30.1%	43.1%	608
Female	2004	2.2	2.4%	10.3%	19.6%	44.9%	22.8%	679
Female	2010	2.0	2.7%	6.9%	14.3%	35.8%	40.3%	712

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)
Gender		4.1	33.5%	52.1%	10.5%	2.7%	1.1%	626
Male	2004	4.1	33.5%	52.1%	10.5%	2.7%	1.1%	626
Male	2010	4.2	37.1%	47.7%	12.9%	2.0%	0.3%	604
Female	2004	4.2	35.5%	50.8%	10.3%	2.5%	0.9%	679
Female	2010	4.3	42.0%	46.2%	10.1%	1.3%	0.4%	714

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)
Gender		4.2	35.1%	53.4%	7.5%	3.4%	0.6%	626
Male	2004	4.2	35.1%	53.4%	7.5%	3.4%	0.6%	626
Male	2010	4.2	38.4%	51.2%	6.9%	2.8%	0.7%	606
Female	2004	4.2	32.4%	57.5%	7.0%	2.2%	0.9%	675
Female	2010	4.2	35.0%	52.4%	8.4%	3.5%	0.7%	714

Faculty support for attending conferences ⁷

Faculty support for attending conferences		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender*		3.1	37.9%	38.3%	15.5%	8.3%	433
Male	2010	3.1	37.9%	38.3%	15.5%	8.3%	433
Female	2010	3.0	35.8%	39.9%	15.2%	9.1%	547

Faculty support for presenting at conferences ⁷

Faculty support for presenting at conferences		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender*		3.0	31.9%	45.0%	16.9%	6.3%	480
Male	2004	3.0	31.9%	45.0%	16.9%	6.3%	480
Male	2010	3.1	38.6%	39.1%	14.5%	7.9%	407
Female	2004	3.1	35.1%	43.1%	17.4%	4.4%	524
Female	2010	3.1	40.0%	38.3%	14.4%	7.3%	507

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair ⁷

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender		3.2	43.2%	39.0%	13.8%	4.0%	549
Male	2004	3.2	43.2%	39.0%	13.8%	4.0%	549
Male	2010	3.3	48.0%	38.8%	10.0%	3.2%	500
Female	2004	3.2	41.6%	40.0%	14.0%	4.4%	608
Female	2010	3.3	48.2%	34.8%	13.6%	3.4%	641

Committee responsiveness ⁷

Committee responsiveness		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender		3.0	28.4%	48.3%	19.4%	3.9%	458
Male	2004	3.0	28.4%	48.3%	19.4%	3.9%	458
Male	2010	3.1	32.8%	50.4%	15.0%	1.8%	387
Female	2004	3.1	31.9%	48.3%	15.3%	4.4%	451
Female	2010	3.2	37.2%	46.0%	14.1%	2.8%	433

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)
Gender*		3.0	33.2%	42.1%	18.9%	5.7%	470
Male	2004	3.0	33.2%	42.1%	18.9%	5.7%	470
Male	2010	3.1	35.1%	47.0%	15.7%	2.3%	396
Female	2004	3.0	28.5%	47.0%	19.1%	5.3%	470
Female	2010	3.1	36.6%	46.0%	12.6%	4.8%	459

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)
Gender		3.2	34.1%	53.6%	11.0%	1.3%	534
Male	2004	3.2	34.1%	53.6%	11.0%	1.3%	534
Male	2010	3.2	37.3%	50.3%	10.6%	1.8%	451
Female	2004	3.2	34.5%	54.7%	9.4%	1.5%	545
Female	2010	3.3	38.0%	52.2%	8.4%	1.5%	479

Selection process for TAs/RAs ⁷

Selection process for TAs/RAs		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender		2.7	19.8%	41.9%	21.7%	16.6%	489
Male	2004	2.7	19.8%	41.9%	21.7%	16.6%	489
Male	2010	2.7	22.8%	40.3%	18.1%	18.8%	447
Female	2004	2.7	21.7%	43.2%	22.1%	13.0%	493
Female	2010	2.8	26.3%	38.5%	19.5%	15.7%	517

Selection process for other funding opportunities ⁷

Selection process for other funding opportunities		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender		2.5	15.1%	38.2%	26.4%	20.3%	458
Male	2004	2.5	15.1%	38.2%	26.4%	20.3%	458
Male	2010	2.5	16.4%	34.3%	28.2%	21.1%	408
Female	2004	2.6	20.4%	38.8%	24.0%	16.7%	466
Female	2010	2.6	23.8%	34.1%	21.1%	20.9%	478

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)
Gender		4.2	44.2%	34.5%	15.5%	5.2%	0.6%	618
Male	2004	4.2	44.2%	34.5%	15.5%	5.2%	0.6%	618
Male	2010	4.4	56.5%	25.7%	14.7%	2.7%	0.5%	600
Female	2004	4.2	48.3%	28.2%	17.1%	6.0%	0.4%	667
Female	2010	4.3	52.9%	26.3%	15.9%	4.4%	0.4%	697

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)
Gender*		2.6	2.2%	10.9%	36.3%	41.3%	9.3%	579
Male	2004	2.6	2.2%	10.9%	36.3%	41.3%	9.3%	579
Male	2010	2.4	5.6%	10.7%	27.4%	30.1%	26.2%	478
Female	2004	2.6	5.7%	10.2%	30.5%	42.5%	11.1%	610
Female	2010	2.5	7.7%	10.9%	26.4%	34.3%	20.6%	504

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)
Gender		4.2	44.3%	34.5%	16.2%	4.6%	0.4%	562
Male	2004	4.2	44.3%	34.5%	16.2%	4.6%	0.4%	562
Male	2010	4.4	56.0%	29.1%	11.7%	2.2%	0.9%	546
Female	2004	4.2	45.3%	34.1%	16.6%	3.8%	0.2%	601
Female	2010	4.3	51.1%	32.3%	13.1%	3.3%	0.2%	601

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)
Gender*		2.9	12.8%	17.2%	30.9%	30.3%	8.8%	476
Male	2004	2.9	12.8%	17.2%	30.9%	30.3%	8.8%	476
Male	2010	3.4	29.6%	19.1%	25.1%	13.8%	12.3%	398
Female	2004	3.2	18.7%	20.4%	33.9%	20.6%	6.5%	525
Female	2010	3.6	28.6%	26.1%	26.1%	13.0%	6.2%	514

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)
Gender*		4.2	40.0%	39.9%	17.9%	2.1%	0.2%	577
Male	2004	4.2	40.0%	39.9%	17.9%	2.1%	0.2%	577
Male	2010	4.3	49.5%	33.3%	14.7%	2.3%	0.2%	531
Female	2004	4.1	38.7%	39.2%	19.5%	2.6%	.	625
Female	2010	4.2	45.3%	34.0%	18.3%	2.4%	.	579

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)
Gender*		3.7	26.2%	35.3%	26.2%	9.0%	3.4%	623
Male	2004	3.7	26.2%	35.3%	26.2%	9.0%	3.4%	623
Male	2010	3.7	31.7%	29.8%	25.4%	7.1%	5.9%	590
Female	2004	3.8	35.3%	29.0%	19.9%	10.7%	5.1%	672
Female	2010	3.6	31.7%	24.9%	25.4%	8.8%	9.2%	682

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)
Gender*		3.8	29.7%	36.4%	20.7%	6.7%	6.4%	623
Male	2004	3.8	29.7%	36.4%	20.7%	6.7%	6.4%	623
Male	2010	3.6	32.0%	28.1%	20.7%	8.0%	11.1%	584
Female	2004	3.8	36.7%	30.2%	19.6%	8.3%	5.2%	673
Female	2010	3.7	36.3%	25.8%	19.2%	6.9%	11.8%	678

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)
Gender*		3.6	26.3%	31.5%	22.7%	10.2%	9.4%	620
Male	2004	3.6	26.3%	31.5%	22.7%	10.2%	9.4%	620
Male	2010	3.4	28.9%	25.1%	22.0%	8.8%	15.3%	582
Female	2004	3.5	31.6%	25.1%	21.2%	10.4%	11.6%	670
Female	2010	3.4	30.4%	21.4%	18.5%	13.5%	16.2%	672

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)
Gender*		3.3	28.7%	23.0%	21.4%	7.3%	19.6%	617
Male	2004	3.3	28.7%	23.0%	21.4%	7.3%	19.6%	617
Male	2010	3.2	28.9%	21.6%	14.4%	6.1%	29.1%	561
Female	2004	3.1	27.0%	19.1%	16.1%	8.1%	29.7%	670
Female	2010	2.8	25.7%	14.7%	12.8%	8.7%	38.0%	631

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)
Gender*		8.3%	20.4%	35.0%	23.9%	12.4%	623
Male	2004	8.3%	20.4%	35.0%	23.9%	12.4%	623
Male	2010	11.3%	21.0%	21.6%	23.8%	22.3%	601
Female	2004	16.8%	30.9%	26.9%	13.1%	12.3%	673
Female	2010	20.0%	34.2%	14.4%	15.5%	15.9%	699

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)
Gender		47.7%	17.9%	34.5%	621
Male	2004	47.7%	17.9%	34.5%	621
Male	2010	43.0%	15.9%	41.1%	598
Female	2004	36.8%	22.0%	41.2%	673
Female	2010	35.3%	21.8%	42.9%	697

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)
Gender		43.1%	34.9%	11.9%	4.3%	5.8%	622
Male	2004	43.1%	34.9%	11.9%	4.3%	5.8%	622
Male	2010	34.0%	47.0%	9.7%	3.8%	5.5%	600
Female	2004	53.9%	27.9%	10.5%	4.0%	3.6%	673
Female	2010	51.0%	32.2%	9.6%	3.7%	3.4%	698

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)
Gender*		63.5%	23.5%	8.0%	3.5%	1.4%	622
Male	2004	63.5%	23.5%	8.0%	3.5%	1.4%	622
Male	2010	55.7%	17.2%	16.4%	7.5%	3.2%	587
Female	2004	48.9%	24.7%	11.4%	10.4%	4.6%	673
Female	2010	39.1%	23.9%	15.0%	15.7%	6.3%	686

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)
Gender*		3.8	17.7%	44.2%	34.1%	3.5%	0.4%	226
Male	2004	3.8	17.7%	44.2%	34.1%	3.5%	0.4%	226
Male	2010	3.8	13.2%	53.1%	30.6%	2.7%	0.4%	258
Female	2004	4.0	25.7%	47.7%	22.8%	3.8%	.	342
Female	2010	4.0	29.1%	43.8%	26.0%	1.0%	0.2%	416

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events		Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Gender		67.7%	8.6%	14.0%	9.7%	616
Male	2004	67.7%	8.6%	14.0%	9.7%	616
Male	2010	60.4%	11.3%	20.2%	8.1%	583
Female	2004	63.2%	11.1%	16.2%	9.6%	668
Female	2010	62.0%	10.6%	17.9%	9.5%	681

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not aware		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Gender		56.1%	43.9%	633
Male	2004	56.1%	43.9%	633
Male	2010	58.0%	42.0%	352
Female	2004	56.5%	43.5%	682
Female	2010	60.7%	39.3%	422

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)
Gender*		27.5%	72.5%	633
Male	2004	27.5%	72.5%	633
Male	2010	34.1%	65.9%	352
Female	2004	15.1%	84.9%	682
Female	2010	20.6%	79.4%	422

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Gender		68.6%	31.4%	633
Male	2004	68.6%	31.4%	633
Male	2010	60.2%	39.8%	352
Female	2004	70.1%	29.9%	682
Female	2010	67.8%	32.2%	422

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)
Gender		50.4%	49.6%	633
Male	2004	50.4%	49.6%	633
Male	2010	52.0%	48.0%	352
Female	2004	57.6%	42.4%	682
Female	2010	57.1%	42.9%	422

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Gender*		8.5%	91.5%	633
Male	2004	8.5%	91.5%	633
Male	2010	6.0%	94.0%	352
Female	2004	7.2%	92.8%	682
Female	2010	3.1%	96.9%	422

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)
Gender		16.1%	83.9%	633
Male	2004	16.1%	83.9%	633
Male	2010	17.6%	82.4%	352
Female	2004	11.7%	88.3%	682
Female	2010	13.7%	86.3%	422

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Gender		37.6%	62.4%	633
Male	2004	37.6%	62.4%	633
Male	2010	35.5%	64.5%	352
Female	2004	24.2%	75.8%	682
Female	2010	22.7%	77.3%	422

Reasons for not participating: Location ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Location		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Gender		9.3%	90.7%	633
Male	2004	9.3%	90.7%	633
Male	2010	11.6%	88.4%	352
Female	2004	11.4%	88.6%	682
Female	2010	13.0%	87.0%	422

Reasons for not participating: Cost ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Cost		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Gender*		10.9%	89.1%	633
Male	2004	10.9%	89.1%	633
Male	2010	9.1%	90.9%	352
Female	2004	13.6%	86.4%	682
Female	2010	7.8%	92.2%	422

Reasons for not participating: Other ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Other		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Gender*		6.3%	93.7%	633
Male	2004	6.3%	93.7%	633
Male	2010	8.0%	92.0%	352
Female	2004	8.8%	91.2%	682
Female	2010	5.5%	94.5%	422

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)
Gender*		3.8	16.3%	55.3%	21.7%	5.4%	1.3%	631
Male	2004	3.8	16.3%	55.3%	21.7%	5.4%	1.3%	631
Male	2010	4.0	25.8%	54.0%	14.6%	3.9%	1.8%	570
Female	2004	3.7	11.7%	56.8%	20.3%	9.3%	1.9%	681
Female	2010	4.0	22.7%	57.9%	14.2%	4.3%	0.9%	656

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)
Gender*		3.5	7.3%	47.5%	34.6%	8.9%	1.7%	630
Male	2004	3.5	7.3%	47.5%	34.6%	8.9%	1.7%	630
Male	2010	3.7	14.5%	46.6%	31.9%	5.8%	1.2%	567
Female	2004	3.4	5.1%	43.2%	35.8%	14.2%	1.6%	681
Female	2010	3.6	13.0%	45.9%	29.8%	8.8%	2.5%	647

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)
Gender*		2.9	8.9%	17.4%	39.9%	26.8%	7.0%	631
Male	2004	2.9	8.9%	17.4%	39.9%	26.8%	7.0%	631
Male	2010	3.0	13.3%	18.4%	35.4%	24.2%	8.6%	570
Female	2004	2.6	4.3%	11.6%	38.4%	33.5%	12.2%	680
Female	2010	2.5	5.2%	12.7%	30.8%	33.4%	17.9%	655

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)
Gender		4.3	39.3%	49.6%	10.0%	1.0%	0.2%	631
Male	2004	4.3	39.3%	49.6%	10.0%	1.0%	0.2%	631
Male	2010	4.2	36.9%	47.5%	13.0%	1.9%	0.7%	569
Female	2004	4.4	46.0%	46.3%	6.8%	0.7%	0.1%	678
Female	2010	4.4	45.2%	46.3%	7.5%	0.9%	0.2%	657

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)
Gender		3.0	8.4%	24.5%	30.4%	27.2%	9.5%	632
Male	2004	3.0	8.4%	24.5%	30.4%	27.2%	9.5%	632
Male	2010	3.0	11.5%	21.2%	34.2%	20.1%	13.1%	567
Female	2004	2.6	5.7%	15.4%	29.9%	33.1%	15.8%	682
Female	2010	2.6	6.1%	14.8%	32.1%	27.5%	19.4%	654

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)
Gender*		2.8	7.1%	17.6%	33.5%	29.8%	11.9%	630
Male	2004	2.8	7.1%	17.6%	33.5%	29.8%	11.9%	630
Male	2010	2.9	9.2%	19.3%	35.9%	21.4%	14.2%	565
Female	2004	2.5	5.6%	12.3%	27.9%	37.9%	16.3%	681
Female	2010	2.5	4.9%	11.9%	32.1%	30.3%	20.7%	647

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)
Gender*		4.1	34.0%	46.7%	11.5%	6.1%	1.8%	627
Male	2004	4.1	34.0%	46.7%	11.5%	6.1%	1.8%	627
Male	2010	3.8	21.0%	50.1%	19.9%	7.1%	1.9%	567
Female	2004	4.2	38.0%	48.2%	9.3%	4.1%	0.4%	679
Female	2010	4.0	26.0%	50.5%	18.8%	3.8%	0.9%	654

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)
Gender		4.2	39.9%	46.4%	9.2%	4.1%	0.3%	629
Male	2004	4.2	39.9%	46.4%	9.2%	4.1%	0.3%	629
Male	2010	4.2	36.3%	45.6%	15.6%	2.1%	0.4%	570
Female	2004	4.3	41.4%	47.7%	8.2%	2.5%	0.1%	679
Female	2010	4.2	39.5%	47.2%	11.4%	1.7%	0.3%	651

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)
Gender*		3.9	25.9%	44.8%	20.5%	7.8%	1.1%	630
Male	2004	3.9	25.9%	44.8%	20.5%	7.8%	1.1%	630
Male	2010	3.9	26.0%	47.8%	20.2%	5.1%	0.9%	569
Female	2004	4.0	31.1%	45.3%	15.5%	7.5%	0.6%	678
Female	2010	4.1	33.0%	47.6%	16.9%	2.2%	0.3%	651

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)
Gender*		3.1	4.1%	20.2%	61.0%	12.4%	2.2%	629
Male	2004	3.1	4.1%	20.2%	61.0%	12.4%	2.2%	629
Male	2010	3.4	8.2%	31.1%	55.3%	4.2%	1.2%	570
Female	2004	3.1	2.5%	21.1%	61.9%	12.7%	1.8%	677
Female	2010	3.4	9.6%	27.0%	55.7%	6.1%	1.5%	653

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)
Gender*		3.7	23.2%	40.8%	18.9%	14.0%	3.0%	628
Male	2004	3.7	23.2%	40.8%	18.9%	14.0%	3.0%	628
Male	2010	3.8	29.2%	38.5%	18.0%	9.3%	4.9%	571
Female	2004	3.9	30.4%	40.9%	17.3%	10.1%	1.3%	682
Female	2010	4.1	38.2%	39.4%	13.8%	7.1%	1.5%	652

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)
Gender*		3.0	10.8%	24.7%	28.3%	26.8%	9.4%	628
Male	2004	3.0	10.8%	24.7%	28.3%	26.8%	9.4%	628
Male	2010	3.2	15.5%	26.7%	27.4%	21.1%	9.3%	569
Female	2004	2.5	5.7%	14.2%	26.1%	36.8%	17.2%	682
Female	2010	2.7	11.0%	16.1%	23.7%	29.4%	19.8%	653

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)
Gender		4.0	30.9%	45.3%	15.1%	6.8%	1.9%	631
Male	2004	4.0	30.9%	45.3%	15.1%	6.8%	1.9%	631
Male	2010	4.0	31.2%	43.3%	17.2%	5.8%	2.5%	570
Female	2004	4.2	40.5%	45.4%	11.0%	2.6%	0.4%	681
Female	2010	4.2	40.1%	44.6%	11.6%	3.2%	0.5%	653

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)
Gender		4.0	32.1%	44.9%	15.4%	6.0%	1.6%	630
Male	2004	4.0	32.1%	44.9%	15.4%	6.0%	1.6%	630
Male	2010	4.0	29.8%	46.4%	17.1%	4.4%	2.3%	567
Female	2004	4.2	36.3%	47.8%	12.9%	2.2%	0.7%	680
Female	2010	4.2	39.0%	44.8%	12.4%	3.1%	0.8%	652

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)
Gender		3.8	28.1%	40.3%	15.8%	12.2%	3.6%	631
Male	2004	3.8	28.1%	40.3%	15.8%	12.2%	3.6%	631
Male	2010	3.7	27.3%	37.7%	21.1%	8.6%	5.3%	568
Female	2004	3.9	34.8%	38.3%	15.4%	9.5%	1.9%	681
Female	2010	4.0	33.9%	39.1%	17.9%	7.0%	2.0%	654

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)
Gender*		3.2	30.8%	58.5%	8.9%	1.9%	621
Male	2004	3.2	30.8%	58.5%	8.9%	1.9%	621
Male	2010	3.3	42.6%	49.4%	6.3%	1.8%	559
Female	2004	3.2	31.2%	58.4%	8.3%	2.1%	673
Female	2010	3.3	42.3%	48.7%	8.0%	0.9%	634

Faculty respect for minority grad students

Faculty respect for minority grad students		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender*		3.1	29.3%	57.4%	11.2%	2.1%	617
Male	2004	3.1	29.3%	57.4%	11.2%	2.1%	617
Male	2010	3.3	41.2%	50.0%	6.8%	2.0%	558
Female	2004	3.1	28.0%	57.9%	10.6%	3.6%	672
Female	2010	3.2	38.9%	49.5%	8.9%	2.7%	628

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender*		2.6	11.2%	49.9%	29.7%	9.2%	607
Male	2004	2.6	11.2%	49.9%	29.7%	9.2%	607
Male	2010	3.0	23.6%	52.3%	20.4%	3.7%	539
Female	2004	2.7	9.1%	54.3%	29.4%	7.2%	639
Female	2010	2.9	21.7%	52.0%	20.7%	5.7%	600

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender*		2.8	12.9%	58.9%	24.9%	3.3%	606
Male	2004	2.8	12.9%	58.9%	24.9%	3.3%	606
Male	2010	3.1	28.4%	57.7%	12.7%	1.1%	542
Female	2004	2.8	11.1%	58.4%	25.5%	5.0%	639
Female	2010	3.1	25.8%	57.2%	14.7%	2.3%	600

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender*		3.2	32.6%	59.0%	7.1%	1.3%	617
Male	2004	3.2	32.6%	59.0%	7.1%	1.3%	617
Male	2010	3.3	39.8%	54.3%	4.7%	1.3%	558
Female	2004	3.2	29.4%	63.8%	6.0%	0.9%	671
Female	2010	3.3	38.9%	54.8%	6.2%	0.2%	633

Grad student respect for minority faculty

Grad student respect for minority faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender*		3.2	30.6%	58.7%	10.0%	0.8%	612
Male	2004	3.2	30.6%	58.7%	10.0%	0.8%	612
Male	2010	3.3	38.1%	55.2%	5.6%	1.1%	554
Female	2004	3.2	28.9%	61.3%	8.5%	1.4%	662
Female	2010	3.3	38.1%	52.2%	8.1%	1.6%	630

Faculty respect for female grad students

Faculty respect for female grad students		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender*		3.2	31.1%	59.5%	8.9%	0.5%	610
Male	2004	3.2	31.1%	59.5%	8.9%	0.5%	610
Male	2010	3.4	45.2%	48.1%	5.4%	1.3%	557
Female	2004	3.1	27.5%	60.2%	9.9%	2.4%	666
Female	2010	3.3	39.7%	48.0%	10.4%	1.9%	635

Grad student respect for female faculty

Grad student respect for female faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Gender*		3.3	33.9%	58.1%	7.5%	0.5%	614
Male	2004	3.3	33.9%	58.1%	7.5%	0.5%	614
Male	2010	3.4	42.6%	51.8%	4.9%	0.7%	556
Female	2004	3.2	30.7%	60.1%	7.4%	1.8%	664
Female	2010	3.3	39.8%	52.9%	6.3%	1.0%	630

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)
Gender*		3.0	26.4%	53.3%	15.5%	4.7%	613
Male	2004	3.0	26.4%	53.3%	15.5%	4.7%	613
Male	2010	3.2	32.7%	54.7%	10.3%	2.3%	556
Female	2004	3.0	23.9%	54.7%	16.9%	4.5%	662
Female	2010	3.2	34.2%	51.4%	11.7%	2.7%	626

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)
Gender*		2.7	17.6%	45.1%	28.9%	8.4%	596
Male	2004	2.7	17.6%	45.1%	28.9%	8.4%	596
Male	2010	3.0	26.8%	51.5%	16.2%	5.5%	544
Female	2004	2.8	17.0%	52.5%	24.8%	5.7%	653
Female	2010	3.1	30.7%	51.2%	15.7%	2.4%	619

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)
Gender*		3.9	23.4%	50.1%	22.9%	2.9%	0.6%	619
Male	2004	3.9	23.4%	50.1%	22.9%	2.9%	0.6%	619
Male	2010	4.0	25.9%	54.4%	17.7%	1.4%	0.5%	555
Female	2004	3.9	20.7%	52.1%	22.4%	4.2%	0.6%	666
Female	2010	4.0	28.8%	50.0%	17.6%	2.9%	0.8%	626

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)
Gender*		3.7	15.2%	41.9%	39.3%	2.8%	0.8%	613
Male	2004	3.7	15.2%	41.9%	39.3%	2.8%	0.8%	613
Male	2010	3.8	18.8%	47.9%	29.7%	2.7%	0.9%	553
Female	2004	3.6	14.3%	40.2%	39.9%	4.4%	1.1%	656
Female	2010	3.8	20.1%	43.5%	33.2%	2.4%	0.8%	621

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Gender*		3.9	23.2%	47.4%	26.0%	2.9%	0.5%	620
Male	2004	3.9	23.2%	47.4%	26.0%	2.9%	0.5%	620
Male	2010	4.0	25.3%	51.2%	20.1%	2.9%	0.5%	557
Female	2004	3.9	22.1%	46.8%	26.9%	3.5%	0.8%	662
Female	2010	4.0	28.5%	48.2%	22.0%	0.8%	0.5%	627

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)
Gender*		3.7	15.6%	43.4%	36.4%	4.1%	0.5%	615
Male	2004	3.7	15.6%	43.4%	36.4%	4.1%	0.5%	615
Male	2010	3.8	18.4%	50.6%	27.4%	2.7%	0.9%	555
Female	2004	3.7	15.5%	43.5%	32.8%	7.3%	0.9%	658
Female	2010	3.8	19.8%	48.6%	27.5%	3.2%	0.8%	625

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Gender*		4.0	32.7%	42.9%	21.6%	1.9%	0.8%	617
Male	2004	4.0	32.7%	42.9%	21.6%	1.9%	0.8%	617
Male	2010	4.0	29.3%	45.5%	20.1%	3.2%	1.8%	556
Female	2004	4.2	36.9%	47.4%	15.0%	0.8%	.	662
Female	2010	4.3	43.8%	39.0%	15.7%	1.4%	.	623

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Gender*		3.9	22.0%	49.9%	23.7%	3.4%	1.0%	617
Male	2004	3.9	22.0%	49.9%	23.7%	3.4%	1.0%	617
Male	2010	4.0	25.9%	51.2%	19.2%	3.1%	0.7%	557
Female	2004	3.9	24.0%	49.9%	22.5%	3.2%	0.5%	659
Female	2010	4.1	29.3%	51.5%	17.9%	0.8%	0.5%	621

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Gender*		4.0	24.3%	52.2%	22.2%	1.1%	0.2%	613
Male	2004	4.0	24.3%	52.2%	22.2%	1.1%	0.2%	613
Male	2010	4.1	27.7%	52.6%	18.7%	0.4%	0.5%	555
Female	2004	4.0	21.2%	57.2%	18.5%	2.9%	0.2%	664
Female	2010	4.0	26.7%	54.2%	17.3%	1.3%	0.6%	626

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Gender*		3.9	23.3%	47.5%	27.5%	1.5%	0.3%	615
Male	2004	3.9	23.3%	47.5%	27.5%	1.5%	0.3%	615
Male	2010	3.9	24.5%	47.6%	24.1%	2.7%	1.1%	555
Female	2004	4.1	32.1%	48.9%	18.9%	0.2%	.	661
Female	2010	4.2	35.3%	46.1%	17.9%	0.8%	.	621

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)
Gender*		3.3	9.7%	29.7%	47.9%	10.3%	2.3%	609
Male	2004	3.3	9.7%	29.7%	47.9%	10.3%	2.3%	609
Male	2010	3.6	16.0%	42.5%	33.2%	6.5%	1.8%	555
Female	2004	3.3	7.0%	36.4%	40.8%	12.8%	3.0%	657
Female	2010	3.6	16.4%	39.6%	34.3%	8.1%	1.6%	616

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)
Gender*		3.8	20.6%	43.6%	33.0%	2.6%	0.3%	613
Male	2004	3.8	20.6%	43.6%	33.0%	2.6%	0.3%	613
Male	2010	4.1	32.4%	46.6%	19.2%	0.7%	1.1%	556
Female	2004	3.9	22.5%	44.2%	31.0%	2.1%	0.3%	659
Female	2010	4.1	37.9%	40.3%	20.5%	1.3%	.	623

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Gender		3.7	15.5%	46.0%	31.1%	5.7%	1.6%	611
Male	2004	3.7	15.5%	46.0%	31.1%	5.7%	1.6%	611
Male	2010	3.8	19.6%	46.1%	27.9%	5.0%	1.3%	555
Female	2004	3.7	14.3%	49.5%	27.1%	8.1%	1.1%	657
Female	2010	3.7	18.3%	46.2%	26.0%	8.2%	1.3%	623

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)
Gender*		3.6	12.7%	40.8%	39.6%	5.6%	1.3%	608
Male	2004	3.6	12.7%	40.8%	39.6%	5.6%	1.3%	608
Male	2010	3.9	20.5%	48.5%	27.7%	2.2%	1.1%	555
Female	2004	3.6	12.4%	41.1%	38.9%	6.3%	1.4%	655
Female	2010	3.8	19.8%	43.4%	30.7%	5.5%	0.6%	622

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)
Gender		3.7	15.0%	46.6%	35.7%	2.3%	0.3%	607
Male	2004	3.7	15.0%	46.6%	35.7%	2.3%	0.3%	607
Male	2010	3.9	19.1%	49.5%	29.7%	0.9%	0.7%	555
Female	2004	3.8	17.1%	52.3%	28.6%	1.8%	0.2%	654
Female	2010	3.9	21.8%	50.4%	26.2%	1.6%	.	623

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)
Gender		3.9	21.1%	44.2%	33.9%	0.8%	.	607
Male	2004	3.9	21.1%	44.2%	33.9%	0.8%	.	607
Male	2010	3.9	23.4%	45.4%	28.5%	2.2%	0.5%	555
Female	2004	4.0	24.7%	46.5%	28.0%	0.6%	0.2%	651
Female	2010	4.0	29.7%	45.7%	23.7%	0.8%	.	619

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)
Gender*		3.5	11.6%	37.8%	42.3%	6.8%	1.5%	603
Male	2004	3.5	11.6%	37.8%	42.3%	6.8%	1.5%	603
Male	2010	3.7	18.9%	44.9%	28.5%	5.6%	2.2%	555
Female	2004	3.4	10.5%	36.5%	37.2%	13.5%	2.3%	646
Female	2010	3.6	16.7%	38.9%	31.9%	11.1%	1.4%	624

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)
Gender*		3.9	23.4%	47.8%	25.7%	3.0%	0.2%	603
Male	2004	3.9	23.4%	47.8%	25.7%	3.0%	0.2%	603
Male	2010	4.0	29.8%	47.3%	20.2%	2.2%	0.5%	554
Female	2004	3.9	25.0%	48.1%	21.8%	4.1%	0.9%	655
Female	2010	4.1	36.4%	42.6%	16.1%	3.5%	1.4%	627

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)
Gender*		3.7	17.9%	39.5%	40.0%	2.0%	0.5%	597
Male	2004	3.7	17.9%	39.5%	40.0%	2.0%	0.5%	597
Male	2010	3.9	26.2%	45.3%	26.0%	1.6%	0.9%	550
Female	2004	3.7	19.7%	38.6%	37.7%	3.4%	0.6%	640
Female	2010	4.0	31.1%	39.4%	26.9%	1.9%	0.6%	620

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)
Gender*		4.0	29.5%	44.0%	24.3%	1.7%	0.5%	600
Male	2004	4.0	29.5%	44.0%	24.3%	1.7%	0.5%	600
Male	2010	4.1	32.5%	48.2%	17.5%	1.1%	0.7%	554
Female	2004	4.0	28.4%	46.1%	21.3%	3.4%	0.8%	647
Female	2010	4.2	37.9%	44.0%	16.2%	1.4%	0.5%	625

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)
Gender*		3.8	18.9%	41.8%	36.7%	2.4%	0.3%	594
Male	2004	3.8	18.9%	41.8%	36.7%	2.4%	0.3%	594
Male	2010	4.0	26.3%	46.5%	25.0%	1.6%	0.5%	551
Female	2004	3.8	21.0%	43.8%	30.1%	4.2%	0.8%	637
Female	2010	4.0	31.9%	43.3%	22.0%	1.9%	0.8%	626

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)
Gender*		4.1	31.7%	44.2%	22.3%	1.3%	0.5%	602
Male	2004	4.1	31.7%	44.2%	22.3%	1.3%	0.5%	602
Male	2010	4.1	30.9%	47.5%	19.3%	1.4%	0.9%	554
Female	2004	4.2	36.2%	48.9%	14.5%	0.5%	.	650
Female	2010	4.3	44.8%	41.6%	12.5%	1.1%	.	625

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)
Gender		4.0	29.8%	45.9%	20.6%	3.0%	0.7%	601
Male	2004	4.0	29.8%	45.9%	20.6%	3.0%	0.7%	601
Male	2010	4.1	34.0%	47.7%	16.1%	1.4%	0.7%	553
Female	2004	4.0	30.9%	46.8%	19.0%	2.8%	0.6%	648
Female	2010	4.2	38.3%	42.7%	16.5%	1.9%	0.6%	626

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)
Gender*		4.0	28.0%	48.5%	21.8%	1.7%	.	600
Male	2004	4.0	28.0%	48.5%	21.8%	1.7%	.	600
Male	2010	4.1	31.9%	48.4%	18.4%	0.5%	0.7%	554
Female	2004	4.1	28.2%	53.4%	15.5%	2.3%	0.6%	652
Female	2010	4.2	37.6%	45.0%	15.2%	2.1%	0.2%	627

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)
Gender*		4.0	25.5%	46.8%	25.8%	1.8%	.	600
Male	2004	4.0	25.5%	46.8%	25.8%	1.8%	.	600
Male	2010	4.0	28.7%	47.5%	22.0%	1.3%	0.5%	550
Female	2004	4.1	32.6%	50.0%	17.3%	0.2%	.	648
Female	2010	4.3	42.1%	42.1%	15.3%	0.5%	.	627

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)
Gender*		3.5	12.1%	30.6%	50.9%	4.8%	1.7%	588
Male	2004	3.5	12.1%	30.6%	50.9%	4.8%	1.7%	588
Male	2010	3.9	23.6%	44.0%	28.9%	2.4%	1.1%	550
Female	2004	3.6	13.1%	40.0%	40.4%	5.1%	1.4%	648
Female	2010	4.0	29.5%	40.3%	27.3%	2.1%	0.8%	620

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)
Gender*		3.7	19.4%	38.0%	40.0%	1.8%	0.7%	597
Male	2004	3.7	19.4%	38.0%	40.0%	1.8%	0.7%	597
Male	2010	4.0	28.0%	45.7%	25.1%	0.5%	0.7%	554
Female	2004	3.7	19.4%	39.7%	37.5%	3.1%	0.3%	648
Female	2010	4.0	32.3%	39.7%	26.1%	1.9%	.	625

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)
Gender*		3.9	23.4%	46.8%	26.4%	2.5%	0.8%	594
Male	2004	3.9	23.4%	46.8%	26.4%	2.5%	0.8%	594
Male	2010	4.0	27.7%	45.3%	24.6%	1.8%	0.5%	552
Female	2004	4.0	27.8%	51.7%	16.3%	3.4%	0.8%	650
Female	2010	4.0	33.1%	42.0%	20.3%	4.3%	0.3%	626

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)
Gender*		3.7	16.1%	40.2%	38.7%	4.0%	1.0%	595
Male	2004	3.7	16.1%	40.2%	38.7%	4.0%	1.0%	595
Male	2010	4.0	26.9%	45.5%	25.5%	1.1%	1.1%	550
Female	2004	3.7	15.6%	44.3%	34.5%	4.6%	0.9%	646
Female	2010	3.9	30.2%	38.4%	26.6%	4.0%	0.8%	623

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)
Gender*		3.8	17.0%	45.3%	35.4%	1.9%	0.5%	594
Male	2004	3.8	17.0%	45.3%	35.4%	1.9%	0.5%	594
Male	2010	4.0	26.9%	45.0%	26.9%	0.7%	0.5%	551
Female	2004	3.9	19.3%	51.2%	27.5%	1.7%	0.3%	648
Female	2010	4.0	31.8%	41.7%	25.8%	0.6%	.	623

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)
Gender*		3.9	20.9%	43.7%	35.2%	0.2%	.	593
Male	2004	3.9	20.9%	43.7%	35.2%	0.2%	.	593
Male	2010	4.0	27.9%	44.0%	26.8%	0.7%	0.5%	548
Female	2004	3.9	22.2%	48.7%	28.3%	0.6%	0.2%	643
Female	2010	4.1	34.5%	40.4%	24.6%	0.5%	.	623

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)
Gender*		3.7	16.2%	41.5%	36.1%	4.4%	1.9%	593
Male	2004	3.7	16.2%	41.5%	36.1%	4.4%	1.9%	593
Male	2010	4.0	27.6%	44.5%	24.5%	2.7%	0.7%	551
Female	2004	3.7	16.9%	45.5%	28.9%	6.2%	2.5%	644
Female	2010	4.0	30.8%	40.7%	22.5%	4.5%	1.4%	626

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)
Gender*		4.0	21.3%	59.3%	17.6%	1.1%	0.6%	619
Male	2004	4.0	21.3%	59.3%	17.6%	1.1%	0.6%	619
Male	2010	4.0	28.6%	47.3%	21.7%	1.6%	0.7%	548
Female	2004	4.0	21.6%	57.0%	18.4%	2.5%	0.4%	667
Female	2010	4.0	29.2%	48.4%	19.7%	1.9%	0.8%	620

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)
Gender*		4.0	21.9%	57.1%	18.0%	2.3%	0.8%	617
Male	2004	4.0	21.9%	57.1%	18.0%	2.3%	0.8%	617
Male	2010	4.0	28.4%	49.8%	19.6%	1.7%	0.6%	542
Female	2004	3.9	21.6%	51.5%	23.4%	2.9%	0.6%	666
Female	2010	4.0	29.9%	47.9%	19.1%	2.1%	1.0%	608

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)
Gender*		3.9	18.0%	51.5%	28.5%	1.5%	0.5%	617
Male	2004	3.9	18.0%	51.5%	28.5%	1.5%	0.5%	617
Male	2010	4.0	26.1%	47.1%	26.1%	0.6%	0.2%	541
Female	2004	3.8	18.2%	50.7%	27.7%	3.3%	0.2%	665
Female	2010	4.0	27.1%	48.1%	22.5%	2.1%	0.2%	609

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)
Gender*		3.8	15.2%	49.8%	33.0%	1.0%	1.0%	618
Male	2004	3.8	15.2%	49.8%	33.0%	1.0%	1.0%	618
Male	2010	4.0	25.4%	46.2%	27.8%	0.4%	0.2%	528
Female	2004	3.7	17.8%	42.6%	36.6%	2.7%	0.3%	667
Female	2010	4.0	25.9%	44.9%	27.8%	1.2%	0.2%	583

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)
Gender*		3.4	6.6%	27.3%	63.4%	2.1%	0.5%	618
Male	2004	3.4	6.6%	27.3%	63.4%	2.1%	0.5%	618
Male	2010	3.7	17.1%	36.0%	45.9%	0.8%	0.2%	492
Female	2004	3.5	8.8%	35.4%	54.3%	1.2%	0.3%	667
Female	2010	3.8	19.3%	40.5%	39.3%	0.9%	.	580

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)
Gender		4.2	32.8%	52.4%	13.8%	0.8%	0.2%	618
Male	2004	4.2	32.8%	52.4%	13.8%	0.8%	0.2%	618
Male	2010	4.1	31.4%	50.0%	17.3%	1.1%	0.2%	544
Female	2004	4.2	33.9%	53.4%	12.3%	0.4%	.	667
Female	2010	4.2	35.5%	48.0%	15.9%	0.5%	0.2%	611

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)
Gender*		3.5	9.3%	31.5%	58.4%	0.5%	0.3%	615
Male	2004	3.5	9.3%	31.5%	58.4%	0.5%	0.3%	615
Male	2010	3.8	19.2%	42.5%	34.9%	2.7%	0.7%	438
Female	2004	3.4	7.6%	25.5%	65.5%	1.2%	0.1%	667
Female	2010	3.8	21.0%	42.6%	35.9%	0.4%	.	462

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)
Gender*		3.4	6.0%	33.1%	59.4%	1.1%	0.3%	613
Male	2004	3.4	6.0%	33.1%	59.4%	1.1%	0.3%	613
Male	2010	3.8	19.0%	41.0%	37.1%	2.3%	0.7%	437
Female	2004	3.4	6.0%	28.4%	64.7%	0.8%	0.2%	663
Female	2010	3.8	18.2%	41.9%	39.0%	0.4%	0.4%	451

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)
Gender*		3.7	10.6%	51.9%	34.7%	2.1%	0.6%	616
Male	2004	3.7	10.6%	51.9%	34.7%	2.1%	0.6%	616
Male	2010	3.9	19.9%	47.2%	31.3%	1.1%	0.4%	527
Female	2004	3.7	12.4%	48.6%	36.6%	2.4%	.	662
Female	2010	3.9	21.0%	46.2%	31.6%	1.0%	0.2%	599

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)
Gender*		3.8	24.0%	43.8%	24.0%	6.6%	1.6%	617
Male	2004	3.8	24.0%	43.8%	24.0%	6.6%	1.6%	617
Male	2010	3.9	26.4%	44.8%	21.8%	5.6%	1.3%	522
Female	2004	3.8	25.4%	43.9%	20.5%	9.4%	0.7%	668
Female	2010	3.9	31.2%	42.0%	16.8%	8.2%	1.8%	612

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)
Gender		3.8	14.3%	48.5%	35.7%	1.3%	0.3%	617
Male	2004	3.8	14.3%	48.5%	35.7%	1.3%	0.3%	617
Male	2010	3.8	20.8%	40.1%	36.8%	2.0%	0.4%	554
Female	2004	3.8	18.1%	46.9%	33.5%	1.5%	.	669
Female	2010	3.9	23.4%	40.4%	34.5%	1.6%	0.2%	624

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)
Gender*		3.7	12.4%	43.6%	42.3%	1.3%	0.5%	615
Male	2004	3.7	12.4%	43.6%	42.3%	1.3%	0.5%	615
Male	2010	3.8	20.9%	42.5%	33.5%	2.5%	0.5%	550
Female	2004	3.8	17.2%	42.4%	39.6%	0.7%	.	667
Female	2010	3.9	25.3%	38.5%	35.3%	1.0%	.	621

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)
Gender		3.6	10.2%	36.9%	51.7%	0.8%	0.3%	615
Male	2004	3.6	10.2%	36.9%	51.7%	0.8%	0.3%	615
Male	2010	3.7	18.1%	38.4%	40.4%	2.7%	0.4%	554
Female	2004	3.7	13.4%	44.2%	40.5%	1.7%	0.3%	665
Female	2010	3.8	18.3%	41.8%	38.4%	1.3%	0.2%	622

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)
Gender*		3.9	16.6%	53.9%	28.4%	0.8%	0.3%	616
Male	2004	3.9	16.6%	53.9%	28.4%	0.8%	0.3%	616
Male	2010	3.9	24.4%	46.6%	28.5%	0.4%	0.2%	554
Female	2004	3.9	18.5%	50.2%	30.5%	0.9%	.	666
Female	2010	3.9	25.2%	44.9%	28.9%	0.8%	0.2%	623

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)
Gender*		3.8	13.7%	51.8%	32.2%	1.6%	0.7%	614
Male	2004	3.8	13.7%	51.8%	32.2%	1.6%	0.7%	614
Male	2010	3.9	23.7%	42.9%	31.6%	1.4%	0.4%	553
Female	2004	3.8	17.8%	49.9%	31.7%	0.6%	.	668
Female	2010	4.0	24.9%	45.8%	29.1%	0.2%	.	622

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)
Gender*		3.8	16.3%	53.5%	29.6%	0.2%	0.5%	615
Male	2004	3.8	16.3%	53.5%	29.6%	0.2%	0.5%	615
Male	2010	3.9	23.9%	48.6%	26.3%	0.7%	0.5%	552
Female	2004	3.9	18.3%	53.4%	27.8%	0.5%	.	665
Female	2010	4.0	27.8%	44.3%	27.6%	0.3%	.	623

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)
Gender*		3.8	16.6%	51.5%	31.0%	0.6%	0.3%	616
Male	2004	3.8	16.6%	51.5%	31.0%	0.6%	0.3%	616
Male	2010	3.9	22.5%	49.8%	27.2%	0.2%	0.4%	552
Female	2004	3.8	17.5%	50.5%	31.2%	0.9%	.	664
Female	2010	4.0	26.8%	43.6%	28.9%	0.5%	0.2%	622

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)
Gender*		3.5	10.2%	35.0%	53.2%	1.1%	0.5%	615
Male	2004	3.5	10.2%	35.0%	53.2%	1.1%	0.5%	615
Male	2010	3.7	19.2%	37.9%	40.6%	1.1%	1.3%	552
Female	2004	3.7	15.4%	36.6%	47.1%	0.7%	0.1%	667
Female	2010	3.9	24.6%	38.1%	36.8%	0.3%	0.2%	622

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

North Carolina State University Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Resultsby Gender

To skip directly to a particular section, select the section below.

Section A: Your NC State Experience

Overall experience at NC State

Feel like you have a good support network 1

Feel physically threatened 1

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

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

Comfort: Participating in a research project with faculty 2

Comfort: Participating in campus social life 2

Comfort: Meeting with advisor 2

Comfort: Meeting with graduate committee 2

Comfort: Working with research team 2

Comfort: Participating in multicultural/ethnic activities on campus 2

Comfort: Participating in student organizations 2

Comfort: Interacting with department/program support staff 2 4

Comfort: Interacting with top level administrators 2

Comfort: Interacting with faculty during office hrs/outside classroom 2

Working hard leads to desired grade 5

Ignored in class when attempting to participate 5

Comments taken seriously by instructor 5

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work 5

Faculty recognize importance of ideas 5

Singled out to speak on behalf of specific group 5

Professors communicate welcomeness in course 5

Comfortable among students in courses 5 6

Faculty support for attending conferences 7

Faculty support for presenting at conferences 7

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair 7

Committee responsiveness 7

Ability to select committee you are comfortable working with 7

Ability to work effectively with lab partners/research group 7

Selection process for TAs/RAs 7

Selection process for other funding opportunities 7