North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Graduate)

Tables of Results
by Socioeconomic Background

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 socioeconomic background.

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.0	23.8%	58.1%	14.3%	3.8%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.1	28.7%	57.4%	12.1%	1.8%	338
Middle class	2004	3.2	29.6%	60.1%	9.2%	1.2%	666
	2010	3.2	31.3%	58.1%	9.9%	0.7%	556
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.3	35.4%	56.3%	8.3%	.	302
	2010	3.3	36.5%	57.7%	5.5%	0.3%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.4	5.7%	17.0%	25.9%	35.0%	16.4%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.5	5.1%	11.7%	21.6%	47.9%	13.8%	334
Middle class	2004	3.7	2.0%	10.1%	24.5%	42.0%	21.5%	662
	2010	3.6	3.3%	10.2%	24.8%	45.2%	16.6%	549
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	1.7%	9.7%	19.7%	37.1%	31.8%	299
	2010	3.6	5.5%	9.2%	21.6%	47.9%	15.8%	292

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened		Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		1.5	65.9%	25.6%	6.0%	1.9%	0.6%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	1.3	76.3%	19.6%	3.3%	0.3%	0.6%	337
Middle class	2004	1.4	71.1%	23.6%	4.5%	0.6%	0.2%	664
	2010	1.3	75.4%	20.3%	3.4%	0.9%	.	553
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	1.3	72.5%	21.8%	5.4%	0.3%	.	298
	2010	1.2	84.6%	12.6%	2.0%	0.7%	.	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.6	16.1%	40.8%	33.5%	8.9%	0.6%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	25.8%	54.5%	13.6%	4.2%	1.9%	213
Middle class	2004	3.7	18.3%	43.8%	29.6%	7.2%	1.1%	666
	2010	4.0	27.5%	51.1%	14.2%	4.4%	2.8%	360
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	24.9%	44.2%	25.9%	5.0%	.	301
	2010	3.8	20.6%	52.2%	20.0%	3.3%	3.9%	180

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.5	13.9%	36.7%	38.6%	8.9%	1.9%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	31.2%	42.8%	18.1%	5.1%	2.9%	138
Middle class	2004	3.6	16.1%	37.4%	36.1%	8.4%	2.0%	665
	2010	3.9	26.8%	45.0%	19.9%	3.5%	4.8%	231
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	20.9%	36.8%	36.4%	6.0%	.	302
	2010	3.9	29.5%	40.0%	24.8%	2.9%	2.9%	105

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.2	41.9%	45.1%	7.6%	4.8%	0.6%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	39.2%	46.8%	11.7%	1.8%	0.5%	222
Middle class	2004	4.4	47.2%	44.3%	6.0%	1.8%	0.7%	668
	2010	4.2	40.7%	43.7%	11.5%	2.2%	1.9%	366
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.5	57.0%	35.4%	6.3%	1.3%	.	302
	2010	4.2	37.2%	49.8%	10.6%	0.5%	1.9%	207

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.6	16.1%	44.5%	25.2%	11.7%	2.5%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	16.6%	51.1%	26.2%	3.9%	2.2%	229
Middle class	2004	3.8	21.1%	44.1%	26.6%	7.4%	0.8%	662
	2010	3.7	17.0%	50.8%	23.5%	6.2%	2.6%	388
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	26.5%	45.4%	18.9%	8.3%	1.0%	302
	2010	3.7	16.5%	50.5%	23.5%	6.0%	3.5%	200

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	42.6%	39.7%	9.1%	6.6%	1.9%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	51.9%	33.1%	10.0%	3.1%	1.9%	320
Middle class	2004	4.3	47.6%	42.8%	6.0%	3.1%	0.4%	668
	2010	4.3	50.7%	35.3%	8.1%	3.9%	2.1%	519
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.5	58.9%	35.1%	4.3%	1.7%	.	302
	2010	4.3	50.4%	35.0%	8.6%	2.1%	3.9%	280

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.9	26.3%	44.3%	19.6%	9.2%	0.6%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	36.2%	46.4%	13.5%	2.4%	1.4%	207
Middle class	2004	4.0	30.1%	45.4%	17.8%	5.7%	0.9%	667
	2010	4.1	33.0%	47.1%	14.4%	3.9%	1.5%	333
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	41.7%	40.7%	13.0%	4.7%	.	300
	2010	4.1	33.9%	46.1%	14.4%	3.3%	2.2%	180

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.1	35.4%	44.3%	15.2%	4.1%	0.9%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	43.7%	42.3%	11.2%	2.3%	0.5%	215
Middle class	2004	4.2	40.9%	44.4%	13.7%	0.6%	0.5%	665
	2010	4.3	44.9%	40.9%	10.4%	2.7%	1.1%	374
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.4	53.3%	37.7%	8.3%	0.3%	0.3%	302
	2010	4.3	44.7%	43.7%	8.6%	1.0%	2.0%	197

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.7	15.6%	47.9%	27.9%	7.3%	1.3%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	23.1%	53.8%	18.3%	3.8%	1.1%	186
Middle class	2004	3.7	16.1%	42.6%	33.9%	6.5%	0.9%	666
	2010	3.7	18.8%	49.5%	22.3%	5.8%	3.6%	309
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	23.4%	42.1%	28.8%	5.4%	0.3%	299
	2010	3.8	25.3%	42.0%	22.7%	6.7%	3.3%	150

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.7	17.5%	48.4%	21.0%	11.1%	1.9%	314
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	26.8%	50.9%	17.7%	3.2%	1.4%	220
Middle class	2004	3.9	23.5%	47.5%	22.8%	5.0%	1.2%	663
	2010	3.9	24.9%	52.8%	16.1%	4.1%	2.1%	386
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	29.7%	48.0%	17.3%	4.0%	1.0%	300
	2010	4.0	27.9%	50.0%	18.3%	2.4%	1.4%	208

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.1	36.7%	47.2%	9.2%	5.7%	1.3%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	44.1%	43.2%	9.1%	1.8%	1.8%	329
Middle class	2004	4.3	40.0%	50.4%	5.9%	3.5%	0.3%	665
	2010	4.2	43.0%	43.4%	10.8%	1.1%	1.7%	530
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.3	46.8%	43.2%	7.0%	2.7%	0.3%	301
	2010	4.2	42.5%	44.6%	7.3%	3.1%	2.4%	287

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.5	17.4%	35.0%	27.1%	17.7%	2.8%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.7	18.8%	51.8%	18.8%	5.3%	5.3%	170
Middle class	2004	3.6	17.2%	39.6%	27.4%	13.7%	2.1%	664
	2010	3.7	17.3%	49.8%	22.0%	6.3%	4.7%	255
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	21.1%	44.3%	23.5%	9.7%	1.3%	298
	2010	3.8	17.8%	52.9%	25.5%	2.5%	1.3%	157

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	35.4%	50.0%	8.9%	5.1%	0.6%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	37.2%	44.8%	11.9%	3.4%	2.7%	328
Middle class	2004	4.3	39.4%	51.3%	5.9%	2.7%	0.8%	663
	2010	4.2	37.5%	48.1%	9.3%	3.5%	1.5%	536
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.4	47.7%	45.0%	6.4%	0.7%	0.3%	298
	2010	4.2	37.9%	48.4%	9.8%	1.4%	2.5%	285

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	30.6%	53.9%	6.9%	7.9%	0.6%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	35.2%	49.1%	7.7%	6.2%	1.8%	338
Middle class	2004	4.1	35.3%	51.8%	5.5%	5.4%	1.9%	668
	2010	4.1	36.1%	47.1%	9.9%	5.8%	1.1%	554
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	40.7%	48.7%	4.0%	5.6%	1.0%	302
	2010	4.1	36.4%	46.3%	10.2%	6.8%	0.3%	294

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)
Socioeconomic Background		1.9	1.3%	2.2%	14.0%	54.9%	27.6%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	1.8	1.5%	3.8%	8.6%	45.6%	40.5%	338
Middle class	2004	1.9	0.7%	3.1%	8.2%	56.4%	31.4%	668
	2010	1.7	1.3%	1.6%	7.4%	47.9%	41.8%	553
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	1.7	1.3%	1.0%	8.6%	48.3%	40.7%	302
	2010	1.6	.	1.4%	7.8%	44.2%	46.6%	294

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.1	25.6%	60.3%	10.4%	3.8%	.	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	32.9%	51.6%	8.3%	4.5%	2.7%	337
Middle class	2004	4.1	28.1%	62.5%	6.3%	2.4%	0.8%	666
	2010	4.2	32.1%	54.7%	10.3%	2.4%	0.5%	552
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	35.3%	54.7%	5.7%	3.0%	1.3%	300
	2010	4.2	36.5%	50.5%	8.9%	2.7%	1.4%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		1.9	1.3%	4.1%	12.3%	51.9%	30.4%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	1.9	2.1%	4.7%	9.2%	44.2%	39.8%	337
Middle class	2004	1.9	0.9%	3.7%	8.5%	53.4%	33.4%	668
	2010	1.7	0.5%	3.1%	8.3%	45.4%	42.7%	553
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	1.7	1.0%	2.7%	6.7%	46.7%	43.0%	300
	2010	1.7	1.0%	2.0%	6.1%	43.7%	47.1%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.9	18.0%	57.4%	18.3%	5.7%	0.6%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	27.8%	50.3%	16.6%	3.8%	1.5%	338
Middle class	2004	4.0	24.6%	55.9%	15.7%	3.3%	0.4%	667
	2010	4.0	24.0%	52.6%	20.6%	2.2%	0.5%	549
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	31.2%	53.5%	12.6%	2.7%	.	301
	2010	4.0	26.5%	51.5%	19.9%	1.4%	0.7%	291

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.4	2.5%	12.3%	26.8%	36.9%	21.5%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.1	5.1%	9.8%	16.4%	28.6%	40.2%	336
Middle class	2004	2.2	1.3%	9.3%	21.6%	43.6%	24.3%	668
	2010	1.9	1.1%	5.8%	17.5%	34.2%	41.4%	553
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.1	3.0%	10.3%	13.6%	43.9%	29.2%	301
	2010	1.8	1.0%	7.8%	10.2%	35.7%	45.2%	294

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.0	27.8%	51.4%	13.6%	5.4%	1.9%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	42.7%	46.9%	8.6%	1.2%	0.6%	337
Middle class	2004	4.2	33.1%	53.9%	10.0%	2.2%	0.7%	668
	2010	4.2	36.1%	49.6%	12.5%	1.6%	0.2%	554
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.4	45.5%	45.8%	7.6%	0.3%	0.7%	301
	2010	4.3	42.6%	43.6%	11.0%	2.1%	0.7%	291

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.0	27.2%	57.0%	9.8%	4.4%	1.6%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	37.9%	50.6%	8.6%	2.4%	0.6%	338
Middle class	2004	4.2	33.4%	56.5%	7.6%	2.2%	0.1%	667
	2010	4.2	36.7%	52.1%	6.5%	4.0%	0.7%	553
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.3	42.7%	51.0%	3.0%	2.3%	1.0%	300
	2010	4.2	35.6%	51.4%	9.9%	2.4%	0.7%	292

Faculty support for attending conferences ⁷

Faculty support for attending conferences		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.0	38.0%	34.1%	17.6%	10.2%	255
Poor/Working class	2010
Middle class	2010	3.1	36.7%	40.0%	15.1%	8.2%	425
Upper middle/Upper class	2010	3.1	36.5%	41.8%	13.9%	7.7%	208

Faculty support for presenting at conferences ⁷

Faculty support for presenting at conferences		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.0	28.4%	44.0%	22.2%	5.3%	243
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.0	40.2%	33.3%	16.7%	9.8%	234
Middle class	2004	3.1	33.4%	47.7%	12.8%	6.1%	509
	2010	3.1	39.8%	39.3%	14.3%	6.6%	392
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.1	39.3%	36.1%	20.9%	3.7%	244
	2010	3.1	38.9%	39.4%	15.2%	6.6%	198

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair ⁷

Supportiveness of advisor/committee chair		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.0	37.4%	36.7%	18.7%	7.3%	289
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.4	52.6%	34.3%	10.7%	2.4%	289
Middle class	2004	3.2	42.8%	41.2%	12.2%	3.8%	582
	2010	3.3	44.8%	39.0%	13.1%	3.1%	480
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.3	47.8%	38.5%	11.9%	1.9%	270
	2010	3.3	48.8%	33.6%	13.3%	4.3%	256

Committee responsiveness ⁷

Committee responsiveness		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		2.9	25.4%	47.4%	20.2%	7.0%	228
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.2	36.6%	46.8%	13.0%	3.7%	216
Middle class	2004	3.0	30.0%	48.5%	17.8%	3.7%	454
	2010	3.1	33.1%	50.0%	14.8%	2.0%	344
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.2	36.4%	49.1%	12.1%	2.3%	214
	2010	3.1	35.8%	43.2%	18.8%	2.3%	176

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)
Socioeconomic Background		2.9	27.7%	39.6%	23.8%	8.9%	235
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.0	34.2%	42.7%	16.4%	6.7%	225
Middle class	2004	3.0	29.9%	47.2%	18.0%	5.0%	479
	2010	3.2	34.8%	48.5%	14.5%	2.2%	359
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.1	36.7%	44.0%	16.1%	3.2%	218
	2010	3.2	37.5%	47.3%	12.0%	3.3%	184

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.1	29.2%	52.5%	16.0%	2.3%	257
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.3	38.6%	50.5%	9.1%	1.8%	220
Middle class	2004	3.2	33.2%	57.5%	8.1%	1.3%	558
	2010	3.2	35.6%	52.0%	10.5%	2.0%	410
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.3	43.4%	47.8%	8.4%	0.4%	251
	2010	3.3	37.4%	54.7%	6.9%	1.0%	203

Selection process for TAs/RAs ⁷

Selection process for TAs/RAs		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		2.6	15.2%	42.0%	25.5%	17.3%	243
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.7	24.6%	38.3%	17.9%	19.2%	240
Middle class	2004	2.7	21.0%	44.0%	21.0%	14.1%	496
	2010	2.7	22.8%	40.0%	20.6%	16.6%	403
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.8	26.5%	41.3%	19.6%	12.6%	230
	2010	2.7	26.2%	37.8%	19.6%	16.4%	225

Selection process for other funding opportunities ⁷

Selection process for other funding opportunities		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		2.4	12.8%	36.8%	28.6%	21.8%	234
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.5	20.5%	28.6%	26.3%	24.6%	224
Middle class	2004	2.6	18.3%	39.4%	24.1%	18.1%	464
	2010	2.6	18.8%	38.0%	24.7%	18.6%	361
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.7	22.2%	39.8%	24.1%	13.9%	216
	2010	2.5	19.9%	33.0%	24.3%	22.8%	206

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.1	42.6%	31.4%	18.6%	6.7%	0.6%	312
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	53.8%	27.2%	15.7%	2.7%	0.6%	338
Middle class	2004	4.2	47.8%	31.0%	15.9%	5.0%	0.3%	665
	2010	4.3	54.2%	26.5%	14.7%	4.2%	0.4%	550
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	46.5%	31.8%	15.1%	5.7%	1.0%	299
	2010	4.3	57.7%	23.2%	14.3%	4.1%	0.7%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.6	4.5%	13.3%	31.1%	41.3%	9.8%	286
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.6	8.9%	11.0%	30.1%	29.7%	20.3%	246
Middle class	2004	2.6	3.9%	9.3%	35.3%	40.9%	10.6%	614
	2010	2.4	5.8%	10.9%	26.0%	34.0%	23.3%	430
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.5	3.9%	10.7%	30.4%	44.6%	10.4%	280
	2010	2.4	6.4%	9.6%	23.9%	33.9%	26.1%	218

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.1	42.9%	32.7%	19.3%	4.7%	0.4%	275
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	54.4%	28.2%	12.9%	3.7%	0.7%	294
Middle class	2004	4.2	43.9%	34.6%	17.3%	4.0%	0.3%	602
	2010	4.3	52.4%	31.6%	12.9%	2.7%	0.4%	490
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.3	48.4%	35.4%	12.3%	4.0%	.	277
	2010	4.4	58.2%	28.1%	11.0%	1.9%	0.8%	263

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.1	17.7%	17.3%	28.8%	29.2%	7.0%	243
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.6	29.7%	23.0%	27.6%	14.2%	5.4%	239
Middle class	2004	3.1	14.6%	18.3%	34.0%	24.9%	8.2%	514
	2010	3.4	24.9%	23.3%	27.2%	14.0%	10.6%	386
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.2	16.9%	21.2%	33.5%	21.6%	6.8%	236
	2010	3.6	35.6%	20.7%	21.6%	12.0%	10.1%	208

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.2	43.0%	38.1%	16.8%	2.1%	.	291
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	48.5%	35.4%	14.1%	1.7%	0.3%	291
Middle class	2004	4.1	35.6%	41.9%	19.7%	2.6%	0.2%	620
	2010	4.2	43.4%	34.0%	20.0%	2.6%	.	470
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	43.5%	36.0%	18.7%	1.8%	.	283
	2010	4.3	53.6%	29.4%	15.1%	2.0%	.	252

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.7	29.0%	32.2%	23.7%	10.1%	5.0%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.6	32.0%	25.3%	27.1%	6.7%	8.8%	328
Middle class	2004	3.8	31.3%	32.6%	23.1%	9.7%	3.3%	668
	2010	3.7	29.9%	27.4%	27.7%	8.7%	6.3%	541
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	32.2%	30.2%	21.9%	10.0%	5.6%	301
	2010	3.7	33.9%	29.4%	21.5%	6.9%	8.3%	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.7	31.4%	32.4%	23.0%	6.0%	7.2%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.7	34.8%	27.1%	19.8%	6.7%	11.6%	328
Middle class	2004	3.8	33.8%	34.3%	18.9%	7.6%	5.4%	668
	2010	3.6	32.5%	27.4%	22.0%	8.1%	10.1%	533
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	34.6%	30.9%	20.3%	9.3%	5.0%	301
	2010	3.6	36.6%	25.4%	17.8%	5.9%	14.3%	287

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.5	26.8%	28.1%	24.0%	11.0%	10.1%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.4	30.2%	20.9%	20.9%	11.7%	16.3%	325
Middle class	2004	3.6	28.8%	29.1%	22.4%	9.9%	9.8%	666
	2010	3.4	27.8%	24.1%	22.2%	12.0%	13.9%	532
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	32.6%	25.5%	18.8%	10.7%	12.4%	298
	2010	3.4	31.7%	25.0%	15.8%	9.2%	18.3%	284

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.2	25.9%	24.4%	18.4%	5.7%	25.6%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.8	25.3%	15.6%	13.0%	7.8%	38.3%	308
Middle class	2004	3.2	26.5%	21.1%	19.8%	8.1%	24.4%	663
	2010	3.0	27.5%	16.5%	15.5%	7.2%	33.3%	502
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.2	32.8%	17.1%	16.4%	9.0%	24.7%	299
	2010	3.2	29.8%	22.1%	11.8%	6.3%	30.1%	272

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)
Socioeconomic Background		13.8%	28.6%	28.3%	18.2%	11.0%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	15.7%	27.2%	15.7%	21.9%	19.5%	338
Middle class	2004	11.2%	23.4%	33.8%	20.5%	11.1%	668
	2010	17.4%	28.2%	19.3%	18.8%	16.3%	553
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	15.2%	28.5%	26.2%	13.6%	16.6%	302
	2010	15.0%	28.9%	17.7%	18.0%	20.4%	294

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)
Socioeconomic Background		46.2%	21.8%	32.0%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	41.2%	18.5%	40.3%	335
Middle class	2004	41.7%	18.1%	40.2%	667
	2010	39.4%	18.4%	42.1%	553
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	38.4%	22.8%	38.7%	302
	2010	36.3%	20.9%	42.8%	292

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)
Socioeconomic Background		49.5%	27.8%	14.5%	4.7%	3.5%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	46.9%	34.4%	9.8%	4.5%	4.5%	337
Middle class	2004	48.9%	31.3%	10.2%	4.8%	4.8%	667
	2010	42.0%	40.7%	9.2%	4.3%	3.8%	553
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	47.4%	34.4%	10.3%	2.3%	5.6%	302
	2010	42.0%	41.0%	9.9%	2.7%	4.4%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		54.9%	23.3%	11.4%	7.6%	2.8%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	39.1%	24.9%	16.9%	13.6%	5.6%	338
Middle class	2004	55.2%	25.6%	9.3%	7.2%	2.7%	667
	2010	49.3%	20.7%	15.4%	10.0%	4.7%	552
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	58.3%	21.9%	8.9%	6.6%	4.3%	302
	2010	50.9%	17.1%	13.3%	14.0%	4.8%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.8	20.6%	44.0%	31.9%	3.5%	.	141
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	29.4%	45.1%	23.0%	2.0%	0.5%	204
Middle class	2004	3.8	19.1%	49.7%	27.2%	4.0%	.	298
	2010	3.8	18.6%	48.9%	30.7%	1.4%	0.4%	280
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	33.3%	41.3%	21.4%	3.2%	0.8%	126
	2010	3.9	22.5%	46.5%	30.3%	0.7%	.	142

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events		Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		61.7%	11.1%	15.2%	12.0%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	58.0%	10.7%	17.0%	14.3%	336
Middle class	2004	65.3%	10.0%	15.2%	9.6%	659
	2010	59.6%	12.2%	21.3%	6.9%	549
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	69.0%	8.3%	15.0%	7.7%	300
	2010	66.8%	8.2%	17.8%	7.2%	292

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not aware		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		55.0%	45.0%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	60.0%	40.0%	195
Middle class	2004	59.8%	40.2%	669
	2010	60.9%	39.1%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	54.0%	46.0%	302
	2010	58.5%	41.5%	195

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)
Socioeconomic Background		17.0%	83.0%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	20.5%	79.5%	195
Middle class	2004	24.1%	75.9%	669
	2010	31.2%	68.8%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	19.9%	80.1%	302
	2010	27.2%	72.8%	195

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		70.1%	29.9%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	62.6%	37.4%	195
Middle class	2004	68.9%	31.1%	669
	2010	64.8%	35.2%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	73.5%	26.5%	302
	2010	67.2%	32.8%	195

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)
Socioeconomic Background		56.6%	43.4%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	55.9%	44.1%	195
Middle class	2004	54.7%	45.3%	669
	2010	51.4%	48.6%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	53.6%	46.4%	302
	2010	59.0%	41.0%	195

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		7.5%	92.5%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.6%	95.4%	195
Middle class	2004	8.5%	91.5%	669
	2010	5.2%	94.8%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	7.0%	93.0%	302
	2010	3.6%	96.4%	195

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)
Socioeconomic Background		14.2%	85.8%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	14.9%	85.1%	195
Middle class	2004	14.1%	85.9%	669
	2010	15.6%	84.4%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	13.6%	86.4%	302
	2010	17.9%	82.1%	195

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		29.9%	70.1%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	24.1%	75.9%	195
Middle class	2004	31.8%	68.2%	669
	2010	31.8%	68.2%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	30.8%	69.2%	302
	2010	31.8%	68.2%	195

Reasons for not participating: Location ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Location		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		12.3%	87.7%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	13.8%	86.2%	195
Middle class	2004	9.3%	90.7%	669
	2010	10.4%	89.6%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	11.6%	88.4%	302
	2010	13.8%	86.2%	195

Reasons for not participating: Cost ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Cost		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		13.2%	86.8%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	8.2%	91.8%	195
Middle class	2004	13.6%	86.4%	669
	2010	8.9%	91.1%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	9.3%	90.7%	302
	2010	7.7%	92.3%	195

Reasons for not participating: Other ¹⁰

Reasons for not participating: Other		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		9.1%	90.9%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	10.3%	89.7%	195
Middle class	2004	7.2%	92.8%	669
	2010	4.3%	95.7%	327
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	7.0%	93.0%	302
	2010	6.2%	93.8%	195

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.6	13.8%	47.8%	24.8%	10.4%	3.1%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	25.1%	53.4%	14.0%	5.4%	2.1%	335
Middle class	2004	3.8	13.0%	59.5%	18.7%	7.2%	1.6%	669
	2010	4.0	23.0%	58.3%	13.9%	4.2%	0.5%	552
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	16.3%	58.0%	20.3%	5.3%	.	300
	2010	4.0	25.3%	56.8%	14.4%	2.4%	1.0%	292

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.4	5.4%	45.1%	34.7%	12.0%	2.8%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.6	14.2%	44.7%	27.8%	10.0%	3.3%	331
Middle class	2004	3.4	6.1%	45.3%	35.4%	11.5%	1.6%	669
	2010	3.7	13.7%	46.5%	32.2%	7.0%	0.5%	546
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.5	7.0%	44.7%	35.3%	12.3%	0.7%	300
	2010	3.6	13.1%	47.8%	32.0%	5.2%	2.1%	291

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)
Socioeconomic Background		2.8	7.0%	16.1%	37.0%	26.9%	13.0%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.7	7.8%	17.1%	29.1%	25.8%	20.1%	333
Middle class	2004	2.8	7.0%	13.2%	40.5%	31.4%	7.9%	669
	2010	2.8	11.6%	13.6%	32.1%	31.9%	10.9%	552
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.7	5.0%	15.3%	37.3%	32.7%	9.7%	300
	2010	2.8	6.1%	15.7%	39.6%	27.6%	10.9%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.4	44.8%	45.7%	9.1%	0.3%	.	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	48.4%	40.6%	8.4%	1.8%	0.9%	335
Middle class	2004	4.3	41.3%	49.5%	8.0%	1.1%	0.2%	666
	2010	4.3	40.1%	47.4%	10.7%	1.6%	0.2%	551
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.3	44.7%	46.7%	7.7%	0.7%	0.3%	300
	2010	4.2	34.1%	54.3%	11.3%	0.3%	.	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		2.8	7.5%	23.0%	25.2%	28.0%	16.4%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.6	8.4%	15.9%	29.9%	20.1%	25.7%	334
Middle class	2004	2.8	6.7%	18.7%	32.1%	31.1%	11.4%	669
	2010	2.9	9.8%	19.3%	33.1%	25.6%	12.2%	550
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.8	7.0%	19.6%	31.6%	29.9%	12.0%	301
	2010	2.8	6.2%	18.5%	36.0%	26.4%	13.0%	292

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)
Socioeconomic Background		2.7	6.0%	17.3%	30.5%	28.9%	17.3%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.5	6.9%	13.6%	32.2%	21.4%	25.9%	332
Middle class	2004	2.7	6.7%	13.5%	31.3%	35.5%	12.9%	667
	2010	2.8	8.3%	15.4%	34.1%	27.5%	14.7%	545
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.7	6.0%	16.0%	29.3%	35.0%	13.7%	300
	2010	2.7	4.5%	17.6%	35.5%	29.0%	13.4%	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.2	39.9%	43.7%	11.4%	4.4%	0.6%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	29.2%	46.4%	19.6%	3.6%	1.2%	332
Middle class	2004	4.1	34.3%	49.4%	9.9%	5.3%	1.1%	664
	2010	3.9	21.8%	51.5%	19.2%	5.6%	1.8%	551
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	36.3%	47.7%	9.3%	5.3%	1.3%	300
	2010	3.9	21.2%	52.4%	19.9%	6.2%	0.3%	292

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.3	43.7%	46.2%	6.6%	3.5%	.	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	43.4%	41.6%	13.6%	1.2%	0.3%	332
Middle class	2004	4.2	38.2%	48.4%	9.6%	3.5%	0.3%	665
	2010	4.2	35.6%	48.3%	13.1%	2.7%	0.4%	551
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.3	43.3%	45.3%	8.7%	2.3%	0.3%	300
	2010	4.2	36.6%	48.3%	13.7%	1.4%	.	292

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.0	32.4%	41.8%	18.2%	7.5%	.	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	36.7%	43.1%	17.2%	2.7%	0.3%	332
Middle class	2004	3.9	26.4%	47.3%	16.8%	8.6%	0.9%	666
	2010	4.0	27.1%	49.7%	18.0%	4.2%	0.9%	549
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	29.5%	44.0%	19.8%	5.0%	1.7%	298
	2010	4.0	26.6%	50.2%	19.8%	3.4%	.	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.1	2.9%	21.9%	55.6%	18.4%	1.3%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.4	10.8%	29.6%	51.2%	6.0%	2.4%	334
Middle class	2004	3.1	3.4%	17.5%	65.1%	10.9%	3.0%	668
	2010	3.4	8.3%	28.9%	57.0%	4.7%	1.1%	551
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.2	3.4%	26.2%	60.4%	9.7%	0.3%	298
	2010	3.4	7.5%	28.7%	58.0%	5.5%	0.3%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.9	30.2%	39.9%	16.7%	11.6%	1.6%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	41.0%	36.8%	12.0%	6.6%	3.6%	334
Middle class	2004	3.7	23.5%	42.4%	18.7%	13.6%	1.6%	667
	2010	3.9	31.4%	41.2%	16.7%	8.3%	2.4%	551
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	30.3%	38.3%	18.7%	8.7%	4.0%	300
	2010	3.8	30.0%	38.6%	18.1%	9.9%	3.4%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		2.8	9.4%	19.2%	26.4%	28.9%	16.0%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.8	14.7%	16.2%	21.9%	28.1%	19.2%	334
Middle class	2004	2.8	7.9%	19.3%	28.0%	32.1%	12.6%	667
	2010	3.0	13.8%	22.2%	26.5%	24.9%	12.5%	550
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.7	7.3%	19.0%	26.7%	34.0%	13.0%	300
	2010	2.9	9.2%	24.9%	27.3%	24.2%	14.3%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.1	34.6%	45.0%	13.8%	5.0%	1.6%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	43.1%	38.6%	13.5%	3.9%	0.9%	334
Middle class	2004	4.1	34.3%	47.5%	13.0%	4.8%	0.4%	668
	2010	4.0	30.9%	48.3%	14.3%	5.3%	1.3%	551
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	40.9%	40.9%	12.3%	3.7%	2.3%	301
	2010	4.1	37.5%	42.3%	14.3%	3.8%	2.0%	293

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.1	36.5%	43.1%	15.1%	4.1%	1.3%	318
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	39.5%	40.1%	16.3%	2.4%	1.8%	332
Middle class	2004	4.1	31.7%	48.8%	14.6%	4.2%	0.8%	666
	2010	4.0	31.3%	48.4%	13.5%	5.6%	1.3%	550
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	36.5%	45.2%	13.0%	3.3%	2.0%	301
	2010	4.1	34.6%	48.6%	14.0%	1.7%	1.0%	292

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.9	35.6%	31.5%	19.6%	11.4%	1.9%	317
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	35.8%	34.9%	18.8%	6.6%	3.9%	335
Middle class	2004	3.8	29.9%	41.9%	13.9%	11.5%	2.7%	668
	2010	3.8	27.8%	40.7%	20.4%	7.6%	3.5%	550
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	31.6%	40.5%	15.0%	9.0%	4.0%	301
	2010	3.8	29.5%	39.0%	18.5%	10.3%	2.7%	292

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.0	25.9%	55.7%	15.5%	2.8%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.3	40.2%	48.5%	8.9%	2.4%	336
Middle class	2004	3.2	29.6%	61.7%	6.9%	1.8%	666
	2010	3.3	42.4%	49.9%	6.7%	0.9%	549
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.3	40.0%	53.7%	4.7%	1.7%	300
	2010	3.4	44.2%	48.3%	6.5%	1.0%	292

Faculty respect for minority grad students

Faculty respect for minority grad students		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.0	23.8%	54.3%	16.8%	5.1%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.2	36.5%	49.1%	9.9%	4.5%	334
Middle class	2004	3.1	27.6%	61.1%	8.9%	2.4%	666
	2010	3.3	40.6%	50.6%	6.8%	2.0%	545
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.2	36.4%	53.2%	8.8%	1.7%	297
	2010	3.3	42.3%	49.1%	7.9%	0.7%	291

Undergrad respect for minority TAs

Undergrad respect for minority TAs		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.5	7.3%	49.5%	32.6%	10.6%	301
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.9	21.2%	51.3%	22.2%	5.4%	316
Middle class	2004	2.7	9.0%	55.3%	28.1%	7.6%	644
	2010	2.9	23.3%	52.3%	19.7%	4.8%	524
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.7	15.5%	47.6%	30.0%	6.9%	290
	2010	2.9	22.6%	51.9%	21.2%	4.2%	283

Undergrad respect for female TAs

Undergrad respect for female TAs		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.6	8.0%	56.1%	28.2%	7.6%	301
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.0	25.2%	55.5%	16.1%	3.2%	317
Middle class	2004	2.8	11.5%	62.0%	23.6%	3.0%	644
	2010	3.1	28.9%	57.2%	12.5%	1.3%	526
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.8	17.3%	53.3%	26.3%	3.1%	289
	2010	3.1	25.8%	59.0%	14.1%	1.1%	283

Grad student respect for faculty

Grad student respect for faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.1	25.9%	62.0%	10.5%	1.6%	313
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.3	37.6%	53.4%	7.8%	1.2%	335
Middle class	2004	3.2	30.5%	63.5%	4.7%	1.4%	665
	2010	3.3	39.2%	55.3%	4.9%	0.5%	548
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.3	37.2%	56.7%	6.0%	.	298
	2010	3.4	40.8%	54.8%	4.1%	0.3%	292

Grad student respect for minority faculty

Grad student respect for minority faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.1	25.1%	57.3%	15.3%	2.3%	307
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.3	37.5%	52.0%	9.0%	1.5%	333
Middle class	2004	3.2	28.0%	63.7%	7.3%	1.1%	661
	2010	3.3	37.4%	54.3%	6.6%	1.7%	545
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.3	38.5%	54.7%	6.8%	.	296
	2010	3.3	39.3%	54.8%	5.2%	0.7%	290

Faculty respect for female grad students

Faculty respect for female grad students		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.0	24.1%	58.2%	16.1%	1.6%	311
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.2	41.5%	44.8%	10.1%	3.6%	335
Middle class	2004	3.2	27.3%	63.2%	7.9%	1.7%	660
	2010	3.3	42.3%	48.5%	8.0%	1.3%	549
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.3	39.3%	54.2%	5.4%	1.0%	295
	2010	3.4	42.8%	51.0%	6.2%	.	292

Grad student respect for female faculty

Grad student respect for female faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.1	26.8%	59.7%	11.6%	1.9%	310
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.3	40.8%	52.0%	6.3%	0.9%	331
Middle class	2004	3.2	30.9%	61.1%	7.0%	1.1%	661
	2010	3.3	40.4%	53.0%	5.5%	1.1%	547
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.4	41.4%	54.2%	3.7%	0.7%	297
	2010	3.4	42.1%	52.4%	5.1%	0.3%	292

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)
Socioeconomic Background		2.9	21.6%	49.7%	21.6%	7.1%	310
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.1	30.1%	55.4%	12.0%	2.4%	332
Middle class	2004	3.0	23.9%	57.3%	14.7%	4.1%	658
	2010	3.2	34.8%	50.6%	12.0%	2.6%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.1	32.0%	51.5%	13.1%	3.4%	297
	2010	3.2	35.1%	54.3%	8.2%	2.4%	291

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.7	15.1%	44.7%	30.3%	9.9%	304
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.0	27.4%	50.0%	18.0%	4.6%	328
Middle class	2004	2.8	15.3%	51.3%	27.0%	6.4%	640
	2010	3.0	28.5%	51.2%	15.6%	4.7%	533
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.9	24.4%	48.1%	22.4%	5.1%	295
	2010	3.1	31.5%	51.7%	15.0%	1.7%	286

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.9	22.4%	49.0%	21.2%	7.1%	0.3%	312
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	25.4%	52.0%	15.4%	5.7%	1.5%	331
Middle class	2004	3.9	20.3%	52.7%	24.1%	2.0%	0.9%	659
	2010	4.1	28.3%	51.8%	19.3%	0.6%	.	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	25.2%	50.3%	20.5%	3.7%	0.3%	298
	2010	4.1	28.7%	52.2%	17.6%	1.0%	0.3%	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.6	13.7%	38.2%	42.2%	4.9%	1.0%	306
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.7	17.3%	44.7%	32.2%	4.6%	1.2%	329
Middle class	2004	3.7	13.9%	43.6%	38.7%	2.6%	1.1%	653
	2010	3.9	20.3%	48.1%	29.7%	1.5%	0.6%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	17.6%	38.3%	38.6%	4.7%	0.7%	295
	2010	3.8	21.4%	41.8%	34.4%	2.1%	0.4%	285

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.9	22.4%	46.8%	25.3%	4.9%	0.6%	308
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	26.1%	49.7%	21.5%	2.1%	0.6%	330
Middle class	2004	3.9	21.0%	48.9%	27.1%	2.3%	0.8%	661
	2010	4.0	26.9%	51.2%	20.3%	1.3%	0.4%	547
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	26.6%	43.8%	25.9%	3.4%	0.3%	297
	2010	4.0	29.0%	46.6%	22.4%	2.1%	.	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.6	15.0%	39.5%	35.9%	8.8%	0.7%	306
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.7	16.4%	50.3%	26.1%	5.8%	1.5%	330
Middle class	2004	3.7	14.7%	46.1%	34.4%	4.1%	0.8%	655
	2010	3.9	20.4%	51.4%	26.4%	1.5%	0.4%	545
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	17.8%	41.8%	33.3%	6.4%	0.7%	297
	2010	3.8	20.8%	45.5%	31.3%	2.1%	0.3%	288

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		4.1	35.7%	43.2%	17.2%	2.6%	1.3%	308
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	38.8%	42.1%	16.1%	1.8%	1.2%	330
Middle class	2004	4.1	30.7%	48.7%	19.2%	1.2%	0.2%	657
	2010	4.1	35.3%	41.5%	20.2%	2.2%	0.7%	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.3	43.1%	39.8%	16.7%	0.3%	.	299
	2010	4.1	37.8%	42.7%	16.3%	2.8%	0.3%	288

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.9	22.4%	47.1%	26.0%	3.9%	0.6%	308
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	31.1%	47.0%	19.2%	2.1%	0.6%	328
Middle class	2004	3.9	20.9%	53.3%	22.5%	2.6%	0.8%	657
	2010	4.0	26.7%	51.8%	19.7%	1.7%	0.2%	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	28.3%	45.8%	20.9%	4.4%	0.7%	297
	2010	4.0	26.0%	55.4%	16.3%	1.7%	0.7%	289

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students

NCSU Supportiveness: Female students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.0	22.6%	54.8%	19.7%	2.6%	0.3%	310
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	26.0%	51.7%	19.9%	1.5%	0.9%	331
Middle class	2004	4.0	20.9%	55.9%	20.9%	2.1%	0.2%	656
	2010	4.1	27.6%	54.4%	16.9%	0.7%	0.4%	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	26.7%	52.7%	19.3%	1.4%	.	296
	2010	4.1	28.4%	52.9%	18.3%	0.3%	.	289

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		4.0	28.2%	47.9%	22.0%	1.6%	0.3%	309
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	33.2%	45.4%	19.8%	0.9%	0.6%	328
Middle class	2004	4.0	24.8%	50.2%	24.2%	0.8%	.	656
	2010	4.0	27.1%	48.6%	22.5%	1.5%	0.4%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	34.1%	44.3%	21.3%	.	0.3%	296
	2010	4.1	33.0%	44.4%	19.4%	2.8%	0.3%	288

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.2	9.4%	25.7%	46.9%	13.7%	4.2%	307
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.5	14.1%	40.1%	34.9%	8.3%	2.8%	327
Middle class	2004	3.4	7.4%	37.7%	42.6%	10.3%	2.0%	652
	2010	3.7	16.9%	43.0%	31.5%	7.6%	1.1%	540
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.3	9.5%	30.3%	44.6%	12.9%	2.7%	294
	2010	3.6	17.5%	37.4%	37.8%	6.3%	1.0%	286

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	20.8%	40.3%	35.4%	3.6%	.	308
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	36.4%	41.9%	20.5%	0.9%	0.3%	327
Middle class	2004	3.8	19.4%	46.6%	31.2%	2.3%	0.5%	653
	2010	4.1	33.6%	43.8%	20.6%	1.3%	0.7%	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	27.4%	42.2%	28.7%	1.4%	0.3%	296
	2010	4.2	37.0%	44.3%	18.3%	0.3%	.	289

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students		Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		3.6	14.6%	41.2%	31.2%	11.4%	1.6%	308
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.7	17.1%	45.7%	26.5%	8.2%	2.4%	328
Middle class	2004	3.7	14.5%	49.9%	28.2%	5.8%	1.5%	653
	2010	3.8	18.4%	46.8%	27.6%	6.4%	0.7%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	16.7%	49.7%	27.9%	5.1%	0.7%	294
	2010	3.8	21.8%	46.0%	26.3%	5.5%	0.3%	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.4	11.4%	32.0%	43.5%	10.5%	2.6%	306
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.7	18.5%	43.2%	28.6%	7.9%	1.8%	329
Middle class	2004	3.6	11.4%	45.6%	36.7%	5.4%	0.9%	651
	2010	3.8	20.1%	47.2%	29.7%	3.0%	.	542
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	16.4%	39.9%	39.9%	2.7%	1.0%	293
	2010	3.9	22.2%	45.8%	29.9%	1.4%	0.7%	288

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.7	14.3%	44.8%	36.7%	3.6%	0.6%	308
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	19.5%	51.4%	26.7%	2.1%	0.3%	329
Middle class	2004	3.8	14.8%	53.1%	30.2%	1.7%	0.2%	648
	2010	3.9	20.7%	50.6%	27.2%	1.3%	0.2%	541
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	20.9%	47.3%	30.5%	1.4%	.	292
	2010	3.9	21.7%	47.2%	30.3%	0.3%	0.3%	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.9	26.9%	39.0%	32.1%	2.0%	.	305
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	30.7%	46.6%	21.5%	0.9%	0.3%	326
Middle class	2004	3.9	20.4%	50.1%	28.9%	0.5%	0.2%	647
	2010	4.0	25.7%	45.8%	27.4%	1.1%	.	541
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	24.6%	42.3%	33.1%	.	.	293
	2010	3.9	24.9%	43.6%	28.4%	2.8%	0.3%	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.3	10.3%	33.1%	38.4%	15.6%	2.6%	302
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.6	16.7%	38.6%	31.9%	9.7%	3.0%	329
Middle class	2004	3.5	10.1%	41.2%	37.9%	9.3%	1.5%	646
	2010	3.7	17.3%	43.5%	30.0%	8.3%	0.9%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.5	14.2%	32.5%	43.9%	7.3%	2.1%	289
	2010	3.7	20.4%	41.5%	29.4%	7.3%	1.4%	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.9	24.7%	44.5%	25.3%	4.9%	0.6%	308
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	33.6%	42.4%	16.4%	5.5%	2.1%	330
Middle class	2004	3.9	23.5%	49.0%	24.0%	2.8%	0.8%	651
	2010	4.1	33.3%	45.5%	18.6%	2.2%	0.4%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	25.8%	49.5%	21.3%	3.5%	.	287
	2010	4.1	33.4%	45.2%	19.7%	1.4%	0.3%	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.7	19.3%	34.7%	42.3%	3.0%	0.7%	300
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	29.1%	38.3%	27.9%	3.1%	1.5%	326
Middle class	2004	3.7	18.1%	40.8%	38.2%	2.3%	0.6%	642
	2010	4.0	29.2%	44.1%	25.0%	1.5%	0.2%	537
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	20.5%	39.9%	36.0%	3.2%	0.4%	283
	2010	4.0	29.1%	41.5%	28.4%	0.7%	0.3%	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.0	31.8%	39.4%	24.5%	3.3%	1.0%	302
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	34.9%	45.0%	17.4%	1.5%	1.2%	327
Middle class	2004	4.0	26.5%	48.1%	22.8%	2.0%	0.6%	649
	2010	4.2	35.3%	47.4%	16.2%	1.1%	.	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	31.3%	44.7%	20.8%	2.8%	0.4%	284
	2010	4.2	36.6%	44.1%	17.9%	1.0%	0.3%	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.7	19.9%	37.5%	36.9%	5.3%	0.3%	301
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	28.3%	42.2%	24.3%	3.4%	1.8%	325
Middle class	2004	3.8	19.1%	45.2%	32.9%	2.2%	0.6%	635
	2010	4.0	29.9%	46.4%	22.4%	1.3%	.	545
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	22.3%	43.5%	30.0%	3.5%	0.7%	283
	2010	4.0	30.4%	43.9%	24.9%	0.7%	.	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	36.3%	43.1%	17.3%	2.3%	1.0%	306
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	42.4%	42.4%	13.1%	1.5%	0.6%	328
Middle class	2004	4.1	31.3%	49.4%	18.8%	0.5%	.	648
	2010	4.2	36.5%	44.9%	17.1%	1.1%	0.4%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	37.1%	45.5%	17.5%	.	.	286
	2010	4.2	37.2%	45.2%	16.6%	1.0%	.	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.0	33.2%	37.1%	25.4%	3.3%	1.0%	307
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	36.1%	44.0%	15.6%	3.1%	1.2%	327
Middle class	2004	4.0	27.2%	51.0%	18.9%	2.2%	0.8%	647
	2010	4.2	36.6%	45.2%	16.9%	1.1%	0.2%	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	34.3%	45.9%	16.3%	3.5%	.	283
	2010	4.2	37.2%	45.2%	15.5%	1.4%	0.7%	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.0	29.3%	48.0%	20.1%	2.3%	0.3%	304
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	35.2%	45.8%	15.8%	2.1%	1.2%	330
Middle class	2004	4.0	26.6%	53.1%	18.0%	2.0%	0.3%	651
	2010	4.1	33.5%	47.8%	17.5%	1.3%	.	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	30.5%	49.8%	17.9%	1.4%	0.4%	285
	2010	4.2	37.7%	45.0%	16.6%	0.7%	.	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.0	30.0%	44.6%	23.8%	1.7%	.	303
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	37.2%	45.7%	15.9%	0.9%	0.3%	328
Middle class	2004	4.0	27.4%	50.4%	21.5%	0.8%	.	647
	2010	4.1	36.0%	43.4%	19.8%	0.7%	.	541
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	32.2%	49.0%	18.5%	0.3%	.	286
	2010	4.1	35.2%	44.8%	19.0%	0.7%	0.3%	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.4	12.7%	27.7%	49.0%	8.7%	2.0%	300
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	24.8%	39.4%	30.9%	4.0%	0.9%	327
Middle class	2004	3.6	11.9%	39.5%	43.5%	3.6%	1.6%	641
	2010	3.9	27.5%	43.3%	26.6%	1.7%	0.9%	538
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	14.8%	34.9%	45.1%	4.2%	1.1%	284
	2010	4.0	28.6%	41.5%	28.2%	1.4%	0.3%	287

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.7	19.9%	32.4%	43.5%	3.6%	0.7%	306
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	28.4%	42.4%	27.1%	1.8%	0.3%	328
Middle class	2004	3.8	18.4%	41.6%	37.4%	2.2%	0.5%	642
	2010	4.0	30.5%	42.8%	25.0%	1.3%	0.4%	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	21.4%	40.4%	36.1%	1.8%	0.4%	285
	2010	4.1	32.9%	40.8%	25.6%	0.7%	.	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.9	26.2%	43.6%	22.3%	5.9%	2.0%	305
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	29.4%	43.7%	20.5%	5.5%	0.9%	327
Middle class	2004	4.0	24.5%	51.6%	21.3%	2.0%	0.6%	644
	2010	4.0	30.5%	44.2%	22.9%	2.4%	.	545
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	28.5%	50.4%	19.0%	2.1%	.	284
	2010	4.1	33.3%	41.3%	23.3%	2.1%	.	288

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.5	16.4%	32.9%	42.1%	6.3%	2.3%	304
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	27.7%	40.0%	22.5%	8.0%	1.8%	325
Middle class	2004	3.7	14.8%	46.0%	34.5%	3.9%	0.8%	641
	2010	4.0	29.5%	42.7%	26.7%	0.9%	0.2%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	17.5%	44.6%	34.4%	3.5%	.	285
	2010	4.0	29.3%	40.4%	29.6%	.	0.7%	287

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	18.8%	43.4%	33.9%	3.3%	0.7%	304
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	28.6%	44.3%	25.2%	1.5%	0.3%	325
Middle class	2004	3.8	16.3%	51.5%	30.3%	1.4%	0.5%	643
	2010	4.0	29.8%	43.6%	26.1%	0.4%	0.2%	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	21.8%	47.2%	29.9%	1.1%	.	284
	2010	4.0	30.3%	40.8%	28.6%	0.3%	.	287

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.9	24.2%	41.4%	33.8%	0.7%	.	302
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	33.3%	42.9%	22.5%	0.9%	0.3%	324
Middle class	2004	3.9	19.4%	49.8%	30.5%	0.2%	0.2%	639
	2010	4.0	30.1%	42.8%	26.5%	0.6%	.	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	23.6%	44.4%	31.3%	0.7%	.	284
	2010	4.0	32.3%	38.9%	28.1%	0.4%	0.4%	285

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.5	16.3%	37.7%	33.0%	9.0%	4.0%	300
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	29.0%	40.2%	23.8%	4.9%	2.1%	328
Middle class	2004	3.7	15.4%	46.5%	32.0%	4.5%	1.6%	641
	2010	4.0	29.3%	43.1%	23.8%	3.5%	0.4%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	19.2%	43.7%	31.8%	3.5%	1.7%	286
	2010	4.0	30.9%	43.1%	22.6%	2.8%	0.7%	288

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.9	18.8%	55.1%	22.9%	2.2%	1.0%	314
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	27.7%	50.8%	16.4%	3.3%	1.8%	329
Middle class	2004	4.0	20.3%	61.7%	15.9%	1.7%	0.5%	665
	2010	4.1	29.2%	49.1%	20.6%	0.6%	0.6%	538
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	26.5%	53.6%	17.5%	2.0%	0.3%	302
	2010	4.0	29.4%	42.6%	26.0%	2.1%	.	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.8	20.0%	50.2%	25.1%	3.8%	1.0%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	27.5%	52.2%	16.3%	2.5%	1.6%	320
Middle class	2004	4.0	20.4%	58.1%	18.8%	2.0%	0.8%	661
	2010	4.0	27.7%	51.8%	18.3%	1.5%	0.8%	531
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	26.2%	50.0%	20.9%	2.6%	0.3%	302
	2010	4.0	33.4%	40.1%	24.4%	2.1%	.	287

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.7	16.2%	45.2%	33.1%	4.5%	1.0%	314
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	26.4%	51.8%	18.4%	2.8%	0.6%	326
Middle class	2004	3.9	16.9%	55.4%	25.7%	1.8%	0.2%	661
	2010	4.0	25.8%	47.5%	25.6%	1.1%	.	528
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	22.2%	48.3%	27.8%	1.7%	.	302
	2010	4.0	28.4%	43.5%	28.1%	.	.	285

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.6	14.0%	40.3%	40.3%	4.1%	1.3%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	24.7%	49.7%	23.7%	1.3%	0.6%	312
Middle class	2004	3.8	16.0%	48.6%	33.6%	1.4%	0.5%	663
	2010	3.9	23.2%	46.1%	30.3%	0.4%	.	512
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	20.2%	47.0%	31.8%	0.7%	0.3%	302
	2010	4.0	30.3%	40.4%	28.5%	0.7%	.	277

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.4	7.0%	30.5%	59.4%	2.2%	1.0%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	17.6%	43.6%	37.8%	0.7%	0.3%	307
Middle class	2004	3.4	7.2%	32.4%	58.7%	1.4%	0.3%	663
	2010	3.7	17.9%	37.3%	43.5%	1.2%	.	496
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.5	9.9%	30.8%	57.6%	1.7%	.	302
	2010	3.7	19.4%	34.9%	45.7%	.	.	258

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	28.9%	57.1%	12.7%	1.0%	0.3%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	32.2%	52.8%	14.1%	0.6%	0.3%	326
Middle class	2004	4.2	33.3%	53.5%	12.7%	0.5%	.	663
	2010	4.1	33.1%	49.2%	17.0%	0.6%	.	528
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	37.7%	47.4%	14.2%	0.7%	.	302
	2010	4.2	36.3%	44.3%	18.3%	1.0%	.	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.4	7.0%	27.3%	64.1%	0.6%	1.0%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	20.3%	47.3%	31.3%	0.4%	0.8%	256
Middle class	2004	3.4	8.6%	27.4%	62.9%	1.1%	.	660
	2010	3.8	20.5%	41.3%	36.5%	1.7%	.	414
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.5	9.3%	32.1%	57.9%	0.7%	.	302
	2010	3.8	19.4%	39.6%	38.3%	2.3%	0.5%	222

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.4	5.1%	30.2%	63.0%	1.0%	0.6%	311
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	21.1%	43.4%	33.5%	0.4%	1.6%	251
Middle class	2004	3.4	5.8%	31.3%	62.1%	0.8%	0.2%	659
	2010	3.7	17.0%	42.0%	39.1%	1.9%	.	412
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.4	7.3%	30.2%	61.1%	1.3%	.	301
	2010	3.7	18.8%	38.5%	41.3%	0.9%	0.5%	218

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.6	8.6%	50.2%	36.8%	3.5%	1.0%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	19.9%	53.6%	24.9%	1.3%	0.3%	317
Middle class	2004	3.7	10.9%	51.5%	35.6%	2.0%	.	658
	2010	3.8	19.1%	45.9%	34.1%	1.0%	.	519
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	15.3%	48.3%	34.3%	1.7%	0.3%	300
	2010	3.9	23.4%	41.4%	34.2%	0.7%	0.4%	278

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.7	25.7%	39.4%	20.6%	12.4%	1.9%	315
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	26.0%	45.8%	16.0%	9.1%	3.1%	319
Middle class	2004	3.8	20.9%	46.8%	23.6%	7.7%	1.1%	665
	2010	3.9	27.8%	44.0%	19.6%	7.7%	1.0%	521
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	31.3%	42.7%	21.0%	4.3%	0.7%	300
	2010	4.0	34.6%	39.9%	21.6%	3.2%	0.7%	283

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.7	14.6%	46.2%	37.3%	1.6%	0.3%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	24.7%	39.2%	33.4%	2.1%	0.6%	332
Middle class	2004	3.8	14.8%	50.5%	33.1%	1.5%	0.2%	662
	2010	3.8	20.1%	42.0%	35.9%	1.8%	0.2%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	20.5%	43.7%	34.8%	1.0%	.	302
	2010	3.8	23.1%	38.3%	37.2%	1.4%	.	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.6	13.1%	38.9%	46.5%	1.0%	0.6%	314
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	24.5%	39.1%	34.2%	1.5%	0.6%	330
Middle class	2004	3.7	13.6%	46.8%	38.2%	1.2%	0.2%	660
	2010	3.8	22.1%	41.6%	34.0%	2.2%	0.2%	539
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	18.9%	39.7%	40.7%	0.7%	.	302
	2010	3.9	23.9%	39.4%	35.6%	1.0%	.	289

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.6	10.8%	37.0%	50.6%	0.9%	0.6%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	20.2%	40.8%	37.5%	0.9%	0.6%	331
Middle class	2004	3.6	10.5%	43.6%	44.2%	1.4%	0.3%	658
	2010	3.7	17.2%	40.4%	39.9%	2.6%	.	542
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	15.9%	38.5%	44.2%	1.3%	.	301
	2010	3.7	17.6%	39.3%	40.7%	2.1%	0.3%	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	13.7%	49.7%	35.7%	0.6%	0.3%	314
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	25.7%	42.6%	30.5%	0.6%	0.6%	331
Middle class	2004	3.9	17.1%	55.4%	26.3%	1.1%	0.2%	661
	2010	3.9	23.8%	46.8%	28.9%	0.6%	.	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	22.2%	47.7%	29.5%	0.7%	.	302
	2010	4.0	25.5%	47.9%	25.9%	0.7%	.	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.7	15.0%	46.5%	36.9%	1.3%	0.3%	314
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	26.6%	44.4%	27.8%	0.6%	0.6%	331
Middle class	2004	3.8	14.8%	52.3%	31.6%	1.1%	0.2%	661
	2010	3.9	22.6%	44.2%	32.2%	1.1%	.	541
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	18.3%	52.2%	27.9%	1.0%	0.7%	301
	2010	3.9	24.8%	44.8%	30.0%	0.3%	.	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.8	14.4%	53.0%	31.9%	0.3%	0.3%	313
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	28.9%	43.2%	26.7%	0.6%	0.6%	329
Middle class	2004	3.9	16.1%	56.8%	26.4%	0.5%	0.3%	660
	2010	4.0	25.4%	47.0%	27.3%	0.4%	.	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	22.6%	47.2%	30.2%	.	.	301
	2010	3.9	23.1%	49.0%	26.9%	0.7%	0.3%	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	14.6%	49.4%	34.8%	0.9%	0.3%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	26.7%	44.7%	27.1%	0.6%	0.9%	329
Middle class	2004	3.9	16.1%	54.2%	28.8%	0.8%	0.2%	659
	2010	3.9	23.6%	46.1%	29.9%	0.4%	.	542
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	21.1%	46.2%	32.1%	0.7%	.	299
	2010	4.0	24.5%	49.3%	26.2%	.	.	290

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.5	10.4%	34.5%	53.8%	0.6%	0.6%	316
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	24.6%	36.8%	37.4%	.	1.2%	329
Middle class	2004	3.6	12.1%	37.5%	49.2%	0.9%	0.3%	659
	2010	3.8	21.2%	39.0%	38.3%	0.9%	0.6%	543
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	16.9%	33.9%	47.8%	1.3%	.	301
	2010	3.8	20.8%	37.7%	40.1%	1.0%	0.3%	289

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