NC State logo

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2010 2.6 23.8% 34.1% 21.1% 20.9% 478
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)
Gender 4.2 44.2% 34.5% 15.5% 5.2% 0.6% 618
Male 2004
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2010 43.0% 15.9% 41.1% 598
Female 2004 36.8% 22.0% 41.2% 673
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
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
2010 51.0% 32.2% 9.6% 3.7% 3.4% 698
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)
Gender* 63.5% 23.5% 8.0% 3.5% 1.4% 622
Male 2004
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
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
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
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
2010 60.4% 11.3% 20.2% 8.1% 583
Female 2004 63.2% 11.1% 16.2% 9.6% 668
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
2010 58.0% 42.0% 352
Female 2004 56.5% 43.5% 682
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
2010 34.1% 65.9% 352
Female 2004 15.1% 84.9% 682
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
2010 60.2% 39.8% 352
Female 2004 70.1% 29.9% 682
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
2010 52.0% 48.0% 352
Female 2004 57.6% 42.4% 682
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
2010 6.0% 94.0% 352
Female 2004 7.2% 92.8% 682
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
2010 17.6% 82.4% 352
Female 2004 11.7% 88.3% 682
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
2010 35.5% 64.5% 352
Female 2004 24.2% 75.8% 682
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
2010 11.6% 88.4% 352
Female 2004 11.4% 88.6% 682
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
2010 9.1% 90.9% 352
Female 2004 13.6% 86.4% 682
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
2010 8.0% 92.0% 352
Female 2004 8.8% 91.2% 682
2010 5.5% 94.5% 422
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)
Gender* 3.8 16.3% 55.3% 21.7% 5.4% 1.3% 631
Male 2004
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2010 4.0 33.9% 39.1% 17.9% 7.0% 2.0% 654
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)
Gender* 3.2 30.8% 58.5% 8.9% 1.9% 621
Male 2004
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2010 4.0 30.8% 40.7% 22.5% 4.5% 1.4% 626
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)
Gender* 4.0 21.3% 59.3% 17.6% 1.1% 0.6% 619
Male 2004
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2010 3.9 24.6% 38.1% 36.8% 0.3% 0.2% 622

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