North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
Overall

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.

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

Section A: Your NC State Experience	Section C: Multicultural Activities on Campus	Section E: Campus Climate
Section B: Interacting with Others	Section D: Role of Diversity in Higher Education	Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity

Section A: Your NC State Experience

Overall experience at NC State

Overall experience at NC State	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	29.5%	58.9%	10.1%	1.5%	1,309
2004
2010	3.2	32.1%	57.6%	9.2%	1.1%	1,387

Feel like you have a good support network ¹

Feel like you have a good support network	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	2.8%	11.7%	23.8%	39.2%	22.4%	1,304
2004
2010	3.6	4.3%	10.5%	23.7%	45.7%	15.7%	1,375

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Year*	1.4	70.0%	23.8%	5.1%	0.8%	0.2%	1,305
2004
2010	1.3	78.0%	18.0%	3.0%	0.8%	0.2%	1,382

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

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Talley Student Center	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	19.1%	43.4%	29.5%	7.3%	0.8%	1,309
2004
2010	3.9	24.6%	52.7%	15.8%	4.2%	2.7%	875

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

Comfort: Attending events/hanging out at Witherspoon Center	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.6	16.7%	37.4%	36.4%	8.1%	1.5%	1,309
2004
2010	3.9	27.7%	43.6%	21.2%	3.4%	4.2%	553

Comfort: Participating in a research project with faculty ²

Comfort: Participating in research project with faculty	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	4.3	47.7%	42.9%	6.4%	2.4%	0.5%	1,309
2004
2010	4.2	38.8%	46.6%	11.3%	1.7%	1.6%	930

Comfort: Participating in campus social life ²

Comfort: Participating in campus social life	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	21.1%	44.4%	24.7%	8.6%	1.2%	1,305
2004
2010	3.7	16.5%	50.8%	24.4%	5.3%	2.9%	937

Comfort: Meeting with advisor ²

Comfort: Meeting with advisor	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	4.3	48.7%	40.4%	6.6%	3.7%	0.7%	1,311
2004
2010	4.3	50.2%	35.1%	8.7%	3.3%	2.6%	1,303

Comfort: Meeting with graduate committee ²

Comfort: Meeting with graduate committee	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	31.6%	44.2%	17.2%	6.4%	0.6%	1,307
2004
2010	4.1	33.9%	46.8%	14.3%	3.1%	1.9%	833

Comfort: Working with research team ²

Comfort: Working with research team	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.3	42.4%	43.1%	12.6%	1.4%	0.5%	1,307
2004
2010	4.2	43.9%	41.8%	10.8%	2.2%	1.3%	922

Comfort: Participating in multicultural/ethnic activities on campus ²

Comfort: Participating in multicultural/ethnic activities on campus	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	17.6%	43.7%	31.4%	6.4%	0.8%	1,303
2004
2010	3.8	21.2%	50.1%	20.4%	5.1%	3.1%	744

Comfort: Participating in student organizations ²

Comfort: Participating in student organizations	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	23.4%	48.0%	21.0%	6.2%	1.3%	1,301
2004
2010	3.9	25.2%	51.8%	17.2%	3.5%	2.2%	951

Comfort: Interacting with department/program support staff ^{2 4}

Comfort: Interacting with department/program support staff	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	4.2	40.8%	48.0%	6.9%	3.8%	0.5%	1,304
2004
2010	4.2	42.4%	44.2%	9.2%	1.9%	2.2%	1,343

Comfort: Interacting with top level administrators ²

Comfort: Interacting with top level administrators	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.6	18.1%	39.7%	26.4%	13.7%	2.1%	1,301
2004
2010	3.7	17.8%	50.4%	22.5%	5.1%	4.2%	685

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

Comfort: Interacting with faculty during office hrs/outside classroom	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	4.3	40.2%	49.5%	6.9%	2.8%	0.6%	1,299
2004
2010	4.1	36.7%	47.9%	10.2%	2.9%	2.3%	1,341

Working hard leads to desired grade ⁵

Working hard leads to desired grade	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	4.1	35.3%	51.6%	5.7%	6.0%	1.4%	1,307
2004
2010	4.1	36.5%	46.9%	9.2%	6.3%	1.2%	1,325

Ignored in class when attempting to participate ⁵

Ignored in class when attempting to participate	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	1.9	1.0%	2.5%	10.0%	54.2%	32.4%	1,305
2004
2010	1.7	0.9%	2.4%	7.9%	46.5%	42.3%	1,324

Comments taken seriously by instructor ⁵

Comments taken seriously by instructor	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	4.1	28.9%	60.1%	7.2%	3.0%	0.8%	1,302
2004
2010	4.1	33.1%	52.5%	9.6%	3.3%	1.5%	1,321

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work ⁵

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	1.8	1.1%	3.6%	9.1%	51.6%	34.6%	1,303
2004
2010	1.8	1.1%	3.4%	8.4%	44.9%	42.1%	1,322

Faculty recognize importance of ideas ⁵

Faculty recognize importance of ideas	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	24.3%	55.8%	15.8%	3.8%	0.4%	1,304
2004
2010	4.0	26.2%	50.9%	19.5%	2.5%	0.8%	1,316

Singled out to speak on behalf of specific group ⁵

Singled out to speak on behalf of specific group	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	2.2	2.0%	10.3%	21.1%	42.0%	24.6%	1,305
2004
2010	2.0	2.2%	7.3%	15.8%	33.2%	41.6%	1,320

Professors communicate welcomeness in course ⁵

Professors communicate welcomeness in course	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	4.2	34.6%	51.4%	10.4%	2.6%	1.0%	1,305
2004
2010	4.2	39.8%	46.9%	11.4%	1.6%	0.4%	1,318

Comfortable among students in courses ^{5 6}

Comfortable among students in courses	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.2	33.7%	55.5%	7.2%	2.8%	0.8%	1,301
2004
2010	4.2	36.6%	51.8%	7.7%	3.2%	0.7%	1,320

Faculty support for attending conferences ⁷

Faculty support for attending conferences	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	36.7%	39.2%	15.3%	8.8%	980
2010

Faculty support for presenting at conferences ⁷

Faculty support for presenting at conferences	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	33.6%	44.0%	17.1%	5.3%	1,004
2004
2010	3.1	39.4%	38.6%	14.4%	7.5%	914

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair ⁷

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	42.4%	39.5%	13.9%	4.2%	1,157
2004
2010	3.3	48.1%	36.5%	12.0%	3.3%	1,141

Committee responsiveness ⁷

Committee responsiveness	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	30.1%	48.3%	17.4%	4.2%	909
2004
2010	3.2	35.1%	48.0%	14.5%	2.3%	820

Ability to select committee you are comfortable working with ⁷

Ability to select committee you are comfortable working with	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	30.9%	44.6%	19.0%	5.5%	940
2004
2010	3.1	35.9%	46.4%	14.0%	3.6%	855

Ability to work effectively with lab partners/research group ⁷

Ability to work effectively with lab partners/research group	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.2	34.3%	54.1%	10.2%	1.4%	1,079
2004
2010	3.2	37.6%	51.3%	9.5%	1.6%	930

Selection process for TAs/RAs ⁷

Selection process for TAs/RAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.7	20.8%	42.6%	21.9%	14.8%	982
2004
2010	2.7	24.7%	39.3%	18.9%	17.1%	964

Selection process for other funding opportunities ⁷

Selection process for other funding opportunities	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.6	17.7%	38.5%	25.2%	18.5%	924
2004
2010	2.5	20.4%	34.2%	24.4%	21.0%	886

Back to Top

Section B: Interacting with Others

Interact with students from different race/ethnicity ⁸

Interact with students from different race/ethnicity	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	4.2	46.3%	31.2%	16.3%	5.6%	0.5%	1,285
2004
2010	4.3	54.6%	26.0%	15.3%	3.6%	0.5%	1,297

Interact with students who have a disability ⁸

Interact with students who have a disability	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	2.6	4.0%	10.5%	33.3%	41.9%	10.3%	1,189
2004
2010	2.5	6.7%	10.8%	26.9%	32.3%	23.3%	982

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)
Year*	4.2	44.8%	34.3%	16.4%	4.2%	0.3%	1,163
2004
2010	4.3	53.4%	30.8%	12.5%	2.8%	0.5%	1,147

Interact with students with different sexual orientation ⁸

Interact with students with different sexual orientation	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	15.9%	18.9%	32.5%	25.2%	7.6%	1,001
2004
2010	3.5	29.1%	23.0%	25.7%	13.4%	8.9%	912

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)
Year*	4.2	39.4%	39.5%	18.7%	2.3%	0.1%	1,202
2004
2010	4.3	47.3%	33.7%	16.6%	2.3%	0.1%	1,110

Socialized with student of different race/ethnicity than own within past year ⁸

Socialized with student of different race/ethnicity than own within past year	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	30.9%	32.0%	22.9%	9.9%	4.2%	1,295
2004
2010	3.7	31.7%	27.2%	25.4%	8.0%	7.7%	1,272

Worked in class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year ⁸

Worked in class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	33.3%	33.2%	20.1%	7.6%	5.8%	1,296
2004
2010	3.7	34.3%	26.9%	19.9%	7.4%	11.5%	1,262

Worked outside class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year ⁸

Worked outside class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	3.5	29.1%	28.1%	21.9%	10.3%	10.5%	1,290
2004
2010	3.4	29.7%	23.1%	20.1%	11.3%	15.8%	1,254

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

Worked on a research team with student of different race/ethnicity within past year	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	27.8%	21.0%	18.6%	7.7%	24.9%	1,287
2004
2010	3.0	27.2%	18.0%	13.6%	7.5%	33.8%	1,192

Number of classes taught by instructor of different race/ethnicity

Number of classes taught by instructor of different race/ethnicity	None	A few	Some	Most	All	Total (N)
Year*	12.7%	25.8%	30.8%	18.3%	12.3%	1,296
2004
2010	16.0%	28.1%	17.8%	19.3%	18.8%	1,300

Committee members of a different racial/ethnic/cultural background ⁹

Committee members of a different racial/ethnic/cultural background	Yes	No	Not Applicable	Total (N)
Year	42.0%	20.0%	37.9%	1,294
2004
2010	38.8%	19.1%	42.1%	1,295

Number of roommates of different race/ethnicity

Number of roommates of different race/ethnicity	Never had a roommate	Never	Once	Twice	Three or more times	Total (N)
Year*	48.7%	31.3%	11.2%	4.2%	4.6%	1,295
2004
2010	43.1%	39.1%	9.6%	3.8%	4.4%	1,298

Back to Top

Section C: Multicultural Activities on Campus

Number of grad courses with diversity issues clearly integrated

Number of grad courses with diversity issues clearly integrated	None	A few	Some	Most	All	Total (N)
Year*	55.9%	24.1%	9.8%	7.1%	3.1%	1,295
2004
2010	46.7%	20.8%	15.6%	11.9%	4.9%	1,273

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)
Year	3.9	22.5%	46.3%	27.3%	3.7%	0.2%	568
2004
2010	3.9	23.0%	47.3%	27.7%	1.6%	0.3%	674

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events	Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Year*	65.3%	9.9%	15.1%	9.7%	1,284
2004
2010	61.2%	10.9%	19.0%	8.9%	1,264

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not aware	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	56.3%	43.7%	1,315
2004
2010	59.4%	40.6%	774

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

Reasons for not participating: Event has nothing to do with me	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year*	21.1%	78.9%	1,315
2004
2010	26.7%	73.3%	774

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year*	69.4%	30.6%	1,315
2004
2010	64.3%	35.7%	774

Reasons for not participating: Not convenient for schedule ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not convenient for schedule	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	54.1%	45.9%	1,315
2004
2010	54.8%	45.2%	774

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year*	7.8%	92.2%	1,315
2004
2010	4.4%	95.6%	774

Reasons for not participating: Friends do not participate ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Friends do not participate	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	13.8%	86.2%	1,315
2004
2010	15.5%	84.5%	774

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	30.6%	69.4%	1,315
2004
2010	28.6%	71.4%	774

Reasons for not participating: Location ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Location	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	10.4%	89.6%	1,315
2004
2010	12.4%	87.6%	774

Reasons for not participating: Cost ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Cost	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year*	12.3%	87.7%	1,315
2004
2010	8.4%	91.6%	774

Reasons for not participating: Other ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Other	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	7.6%	92.4%	1,315
2004
2010	6.6%	93.4%	774

Back to Top

Section D: The Role of Diversity in Higher Education

NCSU provides environment for free expression of ideas/opinions/beliefs ¹¹

NCSU provides environment for free expression of ideas/opinions/beliefs	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	13.9%	56.1%	21.0%	7.4%	1.6%	1,312
2004
2010	4.0	24.1%	56.1%	14.4%	4.1%	1.3%	1,226

NCSU is good place to learn about multicultural issues/perspectives ¹¹

NCSU is good place to learn about multicultural issues/perspectives	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	3.4	6.2%	45.2%	35.2%	11.7%	1.7%	1,311
2004
2010	3.6	13.7%	46.2%	30.8%	7.4%	1.9%	1,214

NCSU places too much emphasis on diversity ¹¹

NCSU places too much emphasis on diversity	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	2.8	6.5%	14.4%	39.1%	30.3%	9.7%	1,311
2004
2010	2.8	9.0%	15.3%	33.0%	29.1%	13.6%	1,225

Diversity is good for NCSU ¹¹

Diversity is good for NCSU	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.3	42.8%	47.9%	8.3%	0.8%	0.2%	1,309
2004
2010	4.3	41.4%	46.8%	10.0%	1.4%	0.4%	1,226

Efforts to increase diversity lead to admission of less qualified students ¹¹

Efforts to increase diversity lead to admission of less qualified students	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	2.8	7.0%	19.8%	30.1%	30.3%	12.8%	1,314
2004
2010	2.8	8.6%	17.8%	33.1%	24.1%	16.5%	1,221

Efforts to increase diversity lead to less qualified faculty/staff/admin ¹¹

Efforts to increase diversity lead to less qualified faculty/staff/admin	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	2.7	6.3%	14.9%	30.6%	34.0%	14.2%	1,311
2004
2010	2.7	6.9%	15.3%	33.9%	26.2%	17.7%	1,212

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

Enhancing ability to partic in multicultural society should be part of univ mission	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	4.1	36.1%	47.5%	10.3%	5.1%	1.1%	1,306
2004
2010	3.9	23.7%	50.3%	19.3%	5.3%	1.4%	1,221

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)
Year*	4.2	40.7%	47.1%	8.7%	3.3%	0.2%	1,308
2004
2010	4.2	38.0%	46.4%	13.3%	1.9%	0.3%	1,221

Building diverse/inclusive community should be key goal of NCSU ¹¹

Building diverse/inclusive community should be key goal of NCSU	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	28.6%	45.0%	17.9%	7.6%	0.8%	1,308
2004
2010	4.0	29.8%	47.7%	18.4%	3.5%	0.6%	1,220

Easy to find diversity info on NCSU website ¹¹

Easy to find diversity info on NCSU website	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	3.3%	20.7%	61.5%	12.6%	2.0%	1,306
2004
2010	3.4	9.0%	28.9%	55.5%	5.2%	1.4%	1,223

Learning about different cultures is important part of grad education ¹¹

Learning about different cultures is important part of grad education	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	26.9%	40.8%	18.1%	12.0%	2.1%	1,310
2004
2010	3.9	34.0%	39.0%	15.8%	8.1%	3.1%	1,223

Including diversity in curriculum detracts from more important knowledge ¹¹

Including diversity in curriculum detracts from more important knowledge	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	2.8	8.2%	19.2%	27.2%	32.0%	13.4%	1,310
2004
2010	2.9	13.1%	21.0%	25.5%	25.5%	14.9%	1,222

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

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me to work in chosen field	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.1	35.9%	45.4%	13.0%	4.6%	1.1%	1,312
2004
2010	4.1	36.0%	44.0%	14.2%	4.4%	1.4%	1,223

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

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me live in my community	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.1	34.3%	46.4%	14.1%	4.0%	1.1%	1,310
2004
2010	4.1	34.7%	45.5%	14.6%	3.7%	1.5%	1,219

Interaction with different people is essential part of grad education ¹¹

Interaction with different people is essential part of grad education	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	31.6%	39.3%	15.6%	10.8%	2.7%	1,312
2004
2010	3.9	30.9%	38.5%	19.4%	7.8%	3.5%	1,222

Back to Top

Section E: Campus Climate

Faculty respect for grad students in general

Faculty respect for grad students in general	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	31.0%	58.4%	8.6%	2.0%	1,294
2004
2010	3.3	42.4%	49.0%	7.2%	1.3%	1,193

Faculty respect for minority grad students

Faculty respect for minority grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	28.6%	57.6%	10.9%	2.9%	1,289
2004
2010	3.3	40.0%	49.7%	7.9%	2.4%	1,186

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.6	10.1%	52.2%	29.5%	8.2%	1,246
2004
2010	2.9	22.6%	52.2%	20.5%	4.7%	1,139

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.8	12.0%	58.6%	25.2%	4.2%	1,245
2004
2010	3.1	27.1%	57.4%	13.7%	1.8%	1,142

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	30.9%	61.5%	6.5%	1.1%	1,288
2004
2010	3.3	39.3%	54.6%	5.5%	0.7%	1,191

Grad student respect for minority faculty

Grad student respect for minority faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	29.7%	60.0%	9.2%	1.1%	1,274
2004
2010	3.3	38.1%	53.6%	6.9%	1.4%	1,184

Faculty respect for female grad students

Faculty respect for female grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	29.2%	59.9%	9.4%	1.5%	1,276
2004
2010	3.3	42.3%	48.1%	8.1%	1.6%	1,192

Grad student respect for female faculty

Grad student respect for female faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.2	32.2%	59.2%	7.4%	1.2%	1,278
2004
2010	3.3	41.1%	52.4%	5.6%	0.8%	1,186

Friendships between grad students of different racial/ethnic groups

Friendships between grad students of different racial/ethnic groups	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	25.1%	54.0%	16.2%	4.6%	1,275
2004
2010	3.2	33.5%	53.0%	11.0%	2.5%	1,182

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT grad students

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT grad students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.8	17.3%	49.0%	26.7%	7.0%	1,249
2004
2010	3.1	28.9%	51.3%	15.9%	3.9%	1,163

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students

NCSU Supportiveness: African American students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	22.0%	51.1%	22.6%	3.6%	0.6%	1,285
2004
2010	4.0	27.4%	52.1%	17.6%	2.2%	0.7%	1,181

NCSU Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students

NCSU Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	14.7%	41.1%	39.6%	3.6%	0.9%	1,269
2004
2010	3.8	19.5%	45.6%	31.5%	2.6%	0.9%	1,174

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	22.6%	47.1%	26.4%	3.2%	0.6%	1,282
2004
2010	4.0	27.0%	49.6%	21.1%	1.8%	0.5%	1,184

NCSU Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students

NCSU Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	15.6%	43.4%	34.6%	5.7%	0.7%	1,273
2004
2010	3.8	19.2%	49.6%	27.5%	3.0%	0.8%	1,180

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	34.9%	45.3%	18.1%	1.3%	0.4%	1,279
2004
2010	4.1	37.0%	42.1%	17.8%	2.3%	0.8%	1,179

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	23.0%	49.9%	23.0%	3.3%	0.7%	1,276
2004
2010	4.0	27.7%	51.4%	18.5%	1.9%	0.6%	1,178

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	22.7%	54.8%	20.3%	2.0%	0.2%	1,277
2004
2010	4.1	27.2%	53.4%	18.0%	0.8%	0.6%	1,181

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	27.8%	48.2%	23.0%	0.8%	0.2%	1,276
2004
2010	4.0	30.2%	46.8%	20.8%	1.7%	0.5%	1,176

NCSU Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students

NCSU Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.3	8.3%	33.2%	44.2%	11.6%	2.7%	1,266
2004
2010	3.6	16.2%	41.0%	33.7%	7.3%	1.7%	1,171

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)
Year*	3.8	21.5%	43.9%	31.9%	2.4%	0.3%	1,272
2004
2010	4.1	35.3%	43.3%	19.9%	1.0%	0.5%	1,179

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.7	14.9%	47.8%	29.0%	6.9%	1.3%	1,268
2004
2010	3.7	18.9%	46.2%	26.9%	6.7%	1.3%	1,178

NCSU Supportiveness: Poor/working class students

NCSU Supportiveness: Poor/working class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.6	12.5%	40.9%	39.3%	5.9%	1.3%	1,263
2004
2010	3.8	20.1%	45.8%	29.3%	3.9%	0.8%	1,177

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)
Year*	3.8	16.1%	49.6%	32.0%	2.1%	0.2%	1,261
2004
2010	3.9	20.5%	50.0%	27.8%	1.3%	0.3%	1,178

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)
Year*	3.9	23.0%	45.4%	30.8%	0.7%	0.1%	1,258
2004
2010	4.0	26.7%	45.6%	26.0%	1.4%	0.3%	1,174

NCSU Supportiveness: Students with children

NCSU Supportiveness: Students with children	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.5	11.0%	37.1%	39.6%	10.2%	1.9%	1,249
2004
2010	3.7	17.7%	41.7%	30.3%	8.5%	1.8%	1,179

Grad Program Supportiveness: African American students

Grad Program Supportiveness: African American students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	24.2%	47.9%	23.7%	3.6%	0.6%	1,258
2004
2010	4.1	33.3%	44.8%	18.0%	2.9%	1.0%	1,181

Grad Program Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Native American/Alaska Native students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	18.8%	39.0%	38.8%	2.7%	0.6%	1,237
2004
2010	4.0	28.8%	42.1%	26.5%	1.8%	0.8%	1,170

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)
Year*	4.0	28.9%	45.1%	22.8%	2.6%	0.6%	1,247
2004
2010	4.1	35.4%	46.0%	16.8%	1.3%	0.6%	1,179

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Hispanic/Latino students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	20.0%	42.8%	33.3%	3.3%	0.6%	1,231
2004
2010	4.0	29.3%	44.8%	23.4%	1.8%	0.7%	1,177

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)
Year	4.1	34.0%	46.6%	18.2%	0.9%	0.2%	1,252
2004
2010	4.2	38.3%	44.4%	15.7%	1.3%	0.4%	1,179

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)
Year*	4.0	30.3%	46.4%	19.8%	2.9%	0.6%	1,249
2004
2010	4.1	36.3%	45.0%	16.3%	1.7%	0.7%	1,179

Grad Program Supportiveness: Female students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Female students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	28.1%	51.0%	18.5%	2.0%	0.3%	1,252
2004
2010	4.1	35.0%	46.6%	16.7%	1.4%	0.4%	1,181

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)
Year*	4.1	29.2%	48.5%	21.4%	1.0%	.	1,248
2004
2010	4.1	35.9%	44.6%	18.4%	0.8%	0.3%	1,177

Grad Program Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Gay, lesbian and bisexual students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.5	12.6%	35.5%	45.4%	4.9%	1.5%	1,236
2004
2010	3.9	26.8%	42.1%	28.0%	2.2%	0.9%	1,170

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

Grad Program Supportiveness: Christian students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Christian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	19.4%	38.9%	38.7%	2.5%	0.5%	1,245
2004
2010	4.0	30.3%	42.5%	25.6%	1.3%	0.3%	1,179

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)
Year*	4.0	25.7%	49.4%	21.1%	3.0%	0.8%	1,244
2004
2010	4.0	30.6%	43.5%	22.3%	3.1%	0.4%	1,178

Grad Program Supportiveness: Poor/working class students

Grad Program Supportiveness: Poor/working class students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	15.9%	42.3%	36.5%	4.4%	1.0%	1,241
2004
2010	3.9	28.6%	41.7%	26.1%	2.6%	0.9%	1,173

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)
Year*	3.8	18.2%	48.4%	31.2%	1.8%	0.4%	1,242
2004
2010	4.0	29.5%	43.3%	26.3%	0.7%	0.3%	1,174

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)
Year*	3.9	21.6%	46.3%	31.6%	0.4%	0.1%	1,236
2004
2010	4.0	31.4%	42.1%	25.6%	0.6%	0.3%	1,171

Grad Program Supportiveness: Students with children

Grad Program Supportiveness: Students with children	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	16.6%	43.6%	32.3%	5.3%	2.2%	1,237
2004
2010	4.0	29.3%	42.5%	23.4%	3.7%	1.1%	1,177

Back to Top

Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity

Influence on thinking: Interactions with students in class ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	4.0	21.5%	58.1%	18.0%	1.9%	0.5%	1,286
2004
2010	4.0	28.9%	47.9%	20.6%	1.8%	0.8%	1,168

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

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	21.7%	54.2%	20.8%	2.6%	0.7%	1,283
2004
2010	4.0	29.2%	48.8%	19.3%	1.9%	0.8%	1,150

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

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	18.1%	51.1%	28.1%	2.4%	0.3%	1,282
2004
2010	4.0	26.6%	47.7%	24.2%	1.4%	0.2%	1,150

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

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	16.6%	46.1%	34.9%	1.9%	0.6%	1,285
2004
2010	4.0	25.7%	45.5%	27.8%	0.8%	0.2%	1,111

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)
Year*	3.4	7.8%	31.5%	58.7%	1.6%	0.4%	1,285
2004
2010	3.7	18.3%	38.4%	42.4%	0.8%	0.1%	1,072

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)
Year	4.2	33.4%	52.9%	13.0%	0.6%	0.1%	1,285
2004
2010	4.1	33.6%	48.9%	16.5%	0.8%	0.2%	1,155

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)
Year*	3.4	8.4%	28.4%	62.1%	0.9%	0.2%	1,282
2004
2010	3.8	20.1%	42.6%	35.4%	1.6%	0.3%	900

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.4	6.0%	30.6%	62.1%	0.9%	0.2%	1,276
2004
2010	3.8	18.6%	41.4%	38.1%	1.4%	0.6%	888

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff ¹²

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	11.5%	50.2%	35.7%	2.3%	0.3%	1,278
2004
2010	3.9	20.5%	46.7%	31.4%	1.1%	0.3%	1,126

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

Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year	3.8	24.7%	43.8%	22.2%	8.1%	1.2%	1,285
2004
2010	3.9	29.0%	43.3%	19.1%	7.0%	1.6%	1,134

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)
Year*	3.8	16.3%	47.7%	34.5%	1.4%	0.2%	1,286
2004
2010	3.8	22.2%	40.2%	35.6%	1.8%	0.3%	1,178

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.7	14.9%	43.0%	40.9%	1.0%	0.2%	1,282
2004
2010	3.8	23.2%	40.4%	34.4%	1.7%	0.3%	1,171

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language

Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.6	11.9%	40.7%	45.9%	1.3%	0.3%	1,280
2004
2010	3.7	18.2%	40.2%	39.4%	2.0%	0.3%	1,176

Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds

Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.9	17.6%	52.0%	29.5%	0.9%	0.2%	1,282
2004
2010	3.9	24.8%	45.7%	28.7%	0.6%	0.2%	1,177

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)
Year*	3.8	15.8%	50.8%	32.0%	1.1%	0.3%	1,282
2004
2010	3.9	24.3%	44.4%	30.3%	0.8%	0.2%	1,175

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)
Year*	3.9	17.3%	53.4%	28.7%	0.3%	0.2%	1,280
2004
2010	4.0	26.0%	46.3%	27.0%	0.5%	0.3%	1,175

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

Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	17.0%	50.9%	31.1%	0.8%	0.2%	1,280
2004
2010	4.0	24.8%	46.5%	28.1%	0.3%	0.3%	1,174

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)
Year*	3.6	12.9%	35.8%	50.0%	0.9%	0.3%	1,282
2004
2010	3.8	22.1%	38.0%	38.6%	0.7%	0.7%	1,174

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