NC State logo

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