North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Undergraduate)

Tables of Results
College of Textiles

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, for students enrolled in the College of Textiles.

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*	3.3	37.8%	51.0%	10.2%	1.0%	98
2004
2010	3.5	54.9%	40.7%	3.5%	0.9%	113

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	3.9	2.0%	11.2%	15.3%	39.8%	31.6%	98
2004
2010	3.8	3.5%	9.7%	17.7%	46.0%	23.0%	113

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened	Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	Total (N)
Year*	1.5	58.2%	32.7%	8.2%	1.0%	98
2004
2010	1.3	76.1%	22.1%	1.8%	.	113

Comfort: Living in a campus residence hall ²

Comfort: Living in a campus residence hall	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	26.5%	45.9%	14.3%	8.2%	5.1%	98
2004
2010	4.2	45.6%	37.8%	8.9%	2.2%	5.6%	90

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	3.9	20.4%	52.0%	23.5%	3.1%	1.0%	98
2004
2010	4.1	33.3%	46.7%	15.2%	3.8%	1.0%	105

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	18.4%	40.8%	31.6%	5.1%	4.1%	98
2004
2010	4.2	36.0%	47.2%	14.6%	1.1%	1.1%	89

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*	3.9	23.5%	57.1%	10.2%	9.2%	.	98
2004
2010	4.1	41.4%	29.3%	24.1%	3.4%	1.7%	58

Comfort: Meeting with academic advisor ²

Comfort: Meeting with academic advisor	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.2	38.8%	50.0%	6.1%	3.1%	2.0%	98
2004
2010	4.3	52.2%	32.7%	11.5%	0.9%	2.7%	113

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	4.1	36.7%	46.9%	11.2%	4.1%	1.0%	98
2004
2010	4.3	46.5%	43.6%	7.9%	1.0%	1.0%	101

Comfort: Interacting with college/department support staff ²

Comfort: Interacting with college/department support staff	Mean	5: Very comfortable	4: Comfortable	3: Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable	2: Uncomfortable	Total (N)
Year	4.1	28.6%	55.1%	12.2%	4.1%	98
2004
2010	4.2	38.5%	44.8%	12.5%	4.2%	96

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	3.5	14.3%	42.9%	24.5%	16.3%	2.0%	98
2004
2010	3.8	25.0%	40.6%	21.9%	10.9%	1.6%	64

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*	4.2	31.6%	59.2%	6.1%	3.1%	.	98
2004
2010	4.1	37.5%	41.3%	18.3%	1.9%	1.0%	104

Working hard leads to desired grade ⁴

Working hard leads to desired grade	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.0	28.9%	53.6%	7.2%	10.3%	97
2004
2010	3.9	26.7%	48.5%	13.9%	10.9%	101

Ignored in class when attempting to participate ⁴

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*	2.2	.	7.2%	14.4%	64.9%	13.4%	97
2004
2010	1.9	1.0%	.	15.8%	54.5%	28.7%	101

Comments taken seriously by instructor ⁴

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	19.6%	72.2%	7.2%	1.0%	.	97
2004
2010	4.1	26.0%	62.0%	9.0%	2.0%	1.0%	100

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work ⁴

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work	Mean	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	2.1	7.3%	10.4%	66.7%	15.6%	96
2004
2010	1.9	2.0%	13.9%	53.5%	30.7%	101

Instructors recognize importance of ideas ⁴

Instructors recognize importance of ideas	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.9	15.5%	62.9%	17.5%	3.1%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	3.9	21.2%	52.5%	25.3%	1.0%	.	99

Singled out to speak on behalf of specific group ⁴

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*	2.5	1.0%	18.6%	21.6%	44.3%	14.4%	97
2004
2010	2.1	.	9.9%	21.8%	35.6%	32.7%	101

Professors communicate welcomeness in course ⁴

Professors communicate welcomeness in course	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.0	22.7%	63.9%	7.2%	5.2%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.1	30.7%	51.5%	15.8%	2.0%	.	101

Comfortable among students in courses ^{4 5}

Comfortable among students in courses	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.0	23.7%	58.8%	11.3%	5.2%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.1	27.7%	59.4%	7.9%	5.0%	.	101

Back to Top

Section B: Interacting with Others

Interact with students from different race/ethnicity ⁶

Interact with students from different race/ethnicity	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	4.1	38.5%	38.5%	18.8%	2.1%	2.1%	96
2004
2010	4.2	48.5%	30.9%	15.5%	4.1%	1.0%	97

Interact with students who have a disability ⁶

Interact with students who have a disability	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	2.7	4.3%	11.7%	36.2%	44.7%	3.2%	94
2004
2010	2.7	8.8%	13.2%	33.0%	31.9%	13.2%	91

Interact with students with different religious belief ⁶

Interact with students with different religious belief	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	4.2	41.8%	40.7%	13.2%	4.4%	.	91
2004
2010	4.1	44.0%	31.9%	16.5%	6.6%	1.1%	91

Interact with students with different sexual orientation ⁶

Interact with students with different sexual orientation	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	1: Never	Total (N)
Year	3.0	16.1%	17.2%	28.7%	28.7%	9.2%	87
2004
2010	3.5	25.3%	26.4%	25.3%	18.7%	4.4%	91

Interact with students from different social/economic background ⁶

Interact with students from different social/economic background	Mean	5: Very often	4: Often	3: Sometimes	2: Seldom	Total (N)
Year	4.4	50.5%	37.4%	8.8%	3.3%	91
2004
2010	4.1	40.2%	32.6%	22.8%	4.3%	92

Socialized with student of different race/ethnicity than own within past year ⁶

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	4.0	38.5%	37.5%	13.5%	9.4%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	4.1	45.8%	30.2%	10.4%	10.4%	3.1%	96

Worked in class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year ⁶

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	4.1	39.2%	36.1%	20.6%	3.1%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.0	37.5%	30.2%	27.1%	5.2%	.	96

Worked outside class with student of different race/ethnicity within past year ⁶

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*	3.9	29.5%	41.1%	23.2%	6.3%	.	95
2004
2010	3.7	30.9%	28.7%	21.3%	14.9%	4.3%	94

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	2.1%	21.6%	50.5%	21.6%	4.1%	97
2004
2010	6.2%	36.1%	36.1%	16.5%	5.2%	97

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	6.2%	46.4%	36.1%	8.2%	3.1%	97
2004
2010	2.1%	58.3%	26.0%	4.2%	9.4%	96

Back to Top

Section C: Multicultural Activities on Campus

Have taken: Ethnic Studies course

Have taken: Ethnic Studies course	Yes	No	Total (N)
Year	17.5%	82.5%	97
2004
2010	17.5%	82.5%	97

Impact on thinking/understanding diversity: Ethnic Studies Course

Impact on thinking/understanding diversity: Ethnic Studies Course	Mean	5: Very positive	4: Positive	3: Neither positive nor negative	2: Negative	Total (N)
Year	4.4	37.5%	62.5%	.	.	16
2004
2010	4.1	43.8%	31.3%	18.8%	6.3%	16

Have taken: Women's/Gender Studies course

Have taken: Women's/Gender Studies course	Yes	No	Total (N)
Year	5.3%	94.7%	94
2004
2010	10.3%	89.7%	97

Impact on thinking/understanding diversity: Women's/Gender Studies course

Impact on thinking/understanding diversity: Women's/Gender Studies course	Mean	5: Very positive	4: Positive	3: Neither positive nor negative	2: Negative	1: Very negative	Total (N)
Year	3.8	50.0%	16.7%	16.7%	.	16.7%	6
2004
2010	4.2	55.6%	22.2%	11.1%	11.1%	.	9

Number of classes with diversity issues clearly integrated

Number of classes with diversity issues clearly integrated	None	A few	Some	Most	All	Total (N)
Year	35.4%	46.9%	11.5%	5.2%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	28.1%	50.0%	17.7%	4.2%	.	96

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	3.7	6.5%	66.1%	17.7%	8.1%	1.6%	62
2004
2010	3.7	11.6%	52.2%	33.3%	1.4%	1.4%	69

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events	Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Year	55.7%	13.4%	18.6%	12.4%	97
2004
2010	54.7%	21.1%	11.6%	12.6%	95

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Not aware	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	59.2%	40.8%	98
2004
2010	61.5%	38.5%	52

Reasons for not participating: Event has nothing to do with me ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Event has nothing to do with me	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	31.6%	68.4%	98
2004
2010	46.2%	53.8%	52

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	56.1%	43.9%	98
2004
2010	67.3%	32.7%	52

Reasons for not participating: Not convenient for schedule ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Not convenient for schedule	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	62.2%	37.8%	98
2004
2010	69.2%	30.8%	52

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	13.3%	86.7%	98
2004
2010	15.4%	84.6%	52

Reasons for not participating: Friends do not participate ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Friends do not participate	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	27.6%	72.4%	98
2004
2010	36.5%	63.5%	52

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	35.7%	64.3%	98
2004
2010	44.2%	55.8%	52

Reasons for not participating: Location ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Location	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	18.4%	81.6%	98
2004
2010	17.3%	82.7%	52

Reasons for not participating: Cost ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Cost	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	19.4%	80.6%	98
2004
2010	11.5%	88.5%	52

Reasons for not participating: Other ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Other	Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Year	5.1%	94.9%	98
2004
2010	3.8%	96.2%	52

Back to Top

Section D: The Role of Diversity in Higher Education

NCSU provides environment for free expression of ideas/opinions/beliefs ⁸

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*	3.8	18.8%	56.3%	14.6%	8.3%	2.1%	96
2004
2010	4.2	34.4%	51.6%	12.9%	1.1%	.	93

NCSU is good place to learn about multicultural issues/perspectives ⁸

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	3.6	9.4%	52.1%	27.1%	10.4%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	3.8	18.5%	48.9%	27.2%	4.3%	1.1%	92

NCSU places too much emphasis on diversity ⁸

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	3.1	12.2%	20.4%	43.9%	16.3%	7.1%	98
2004
2010	3.0	15.2%	15.2%	30.4%	32.6%	6.5%	92

Diversity is good for NCSU ⁸

Diversity is good for NCSU	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.1	34.7%	50.5%	9.5%	5.3%	.	95
2004
2010	4.2	37.6%	43.0%	17.2%	1.1%	1.1%	93

Efforts to increase diversity lead to admission of less qualified students ⁸

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	3.2	13.4%	30.9%	28.9%	17.5%	9.3%	97
2004
2010	3.1	14.0%	22.6%	33.3%	18.3%	11.8%	93

Efforts to increase diversity lead to less qualified faculty/staff/admin ⁸

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	2.9	9.3%	23.7%	27.8%	30.9%	8.2%	97
2004
2010	2.8	12.0%	16.3%	27.2%	30.4%	14.1%	92

Enhancing ability to partic in multicultural society should be part of university mission ⁸

Enhancing ability to partic in multicultural society should be part of university mission	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	29.2%	42.7%	13.5%	12.5%	2.1%	96
2004
2010	3.7	15.2%	39.1%	42.4%	2.2%	1.1%	92

Fostering intellectual diversity should be goal of NCSU ⁸

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	4.1	31.3%	51.0%	13.5%	3.1%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	3.9	25.8%	40.9%	29.0%	3.2%	1.1%	93

Building diverse/inclusive community should be key goal of NCSU ⁸

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	3.7	22.7%	36.1%	27.8%	11.3%	2.1%	97
2004
2010	3.8	20.4%	47.3%	28.0%	3.2%	1.1%	93

Easy to find diversity info on NCSU website ⁸

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	3.3	5.2%	33.3%	50.0%	8.3%	3.1%	96
2004
2010	3.6	10.9%	41.3%	43.5%	3.3%	1.1%	92

Learning about different cultures is important part of college education ⁸

Learning about different cultures is important part of college education	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	3.9	28.9%	49.5%	12.4%	6.2%	3.1%	97
2004
2010	4.0	32.3%	39.8%	22.6%	3.2%	2.2%	93

Including diversity in curriculum detracts from more important knowledge ⁸

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%	16.5%	34.0%	27.8%	13.4%	97
2004
2010	3.0	12.0%	17.4%	33.7%	28.3%	8.7%	92

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me to work in chosen field ⁸

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	38.1%	47.4%	8.2%	3.1%	3.1%	97
2004
2010	3.9	29.0%	44.1%	18.3%	5.4%	3.2%	93

Developing respect for diversity will better enable me live in my community ⁸

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	3.9	30.2%	43.8%	17.7%	6.3%	2.1%	96
2004
2010	4.0	32.3%	44.1%	16.1%	4.3%	3.2%	93

Interaction with different people is essential part of college education ⁸

Interaction with different people is essential part of college education	Mean	5: Strongly agree	4: Agree	3: Neither agree nor disagree	2: Disagree	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Year	4.0	30.9%	45.4%	15.5%	5.2%	3.1%	97
2004
2010	3.9	30.1%	39.8%	22.6%	4.3%	3.2%	93

Back to Top

Section E: Campus Climate

Faculty respect for students in general

Faculty respect for students in general	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.1	21.6%	68.0%	9.3%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	3.4	47.2%	47.2%	3.4%	2.2%	89

Faculty respect for minority students

Faculty respect for minority students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	22.7%	59.8%	9.3%	8.2%	97
2004
2010	3.4	51.1%	42.0%	4.5%	2.3%	88

Student respect for faculty

Student respect for faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.0	17.5%	67.0%	14.4%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	3.2	32.6%	56.2%	10.1%	1.1%	89

Student respect for minority faculty

Student respect for minority faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	2.9	13.4%	64.9%	16.5%	5.2%	97
2004
2010	3.2	33.0%	52.3%	14.8%	.	88

Faculty respect for female students

Faculty respect for female students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	19.6%	68.0%	9.3%	3.1%	97
2004
2010	3.4	49.4%	43.8%	5.6%	1.1%	89

Student respect for female faculty

Student respect for female faculty	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year*	3.0	17.5%	70.1%	11.3%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	3.3	40.4%	49.4%	10.1%	.	89

Friendships between students of different racial/ethnic groups

Friendships between students of different racial/ethnic groups	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	3.0	23.7%	55.7%	15.5%	5.2%	97
2004
2010	3.1	31.5%	48.3%	16.9%	3.4%	89

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT students

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT students	Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Year	2.8	16.5%	54.6%	16.5%	12.4%	97
2004
2010	2.8	23.9%	37.5%	28.4%	10.2%	88

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*	4.1	36.1%	47.4%	9.3%	7.2%	.	97
2004
2010	4.3	50.6%	37.1%	10.1%	.	2.2%	89

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	19.6%	38.1%	34.0%	7.2%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.0	25.8%	49.4%	22.5%	2.2%	.	89

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students

NCSU Supportiveness: Asian students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.0	28.9%	46.4%	20.6%	4.1%	97
2004
2010	4.2	39.3%	43.8%	15.7%	1.1%	89

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	3.8	19.6%	46.4%	24.7%	8.2%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.0	28.1%	47.2%	22.5%	2.2%	.	89

NCSU Supportiveness: White students

NCSU Supportiveness: White students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.2	44.3%	38.1%	12.4%	2.1%	3.1%	97
2004
2010	4.3	52.8%	30.3%	14.6%	2.2%	.	89

NCSU Supportiveness: International students

NCSU Supportiveness: International students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	29.9%	55.7%	12.4%	1.0%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.3	44.3%	40.9%	14.8%	.	.	88

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	26.8%	55.7%	10.3%	6.2%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.3	42.7%	46.1%	10.1%	1.1%	.	89

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students

NCSU Supportiveness: Male students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	35.1%	46.4%	15.5%	2.1%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.3	47.2%	36.0%	14.6%	2.2%	.	89

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*	3.4	11.3%	34.0%	39.2%	12.4%	3.1%	97
2004
2010	4.0	30.3%	41.6%	23.6%	2.2%	2.2%	89

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	Total (N)
Year	4.2	36.1%	45.4%	17.5%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.2	44.9%	36.0%	16.9%	2.2%	89

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students

NCSU Supportiveness: Nontraditional students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	1: Strongly nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	3.9	20.6%	50.5%	25.8%	3.1%	.	97
2004
2010	3.9	23.6%	52.8%	20.2%	.	3.4%	89

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	15.5%	45.4%	26.8%	8.2%	4.1%	97
2004
2010	4.1	32.6%	44.9%	20.2%	1.1%	1.1%	89

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	13.4%	56.7%	24.7%	3.1%	2.1%	97
2004
2010	4.0	34.1%	40.9%	20.5%	2.3%	2.3%	88

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students

NCSU Supportiveness: Upper class/wealthy students	Mean	5: Strongly supportive	4: Supportive	3: Neutral	2: Nonsupportive	Total (N)
Year	4.1	36.1%	41.2%	17.5%	5.2%	97
2004
2010	4.1	37.1%	39.3%	21.3%	2.2%	89

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	3.6	12.4%	45.4%	37.1%	2.1%	3.1%	97
2004
2010	3.8	19.1%	49.4%	21.3%	7.9%	2.2%	89

Back to Top

Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students in class ⁹

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	3.7	10.3%	60.8%	21.6%	6.2%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.0	26.1%	48.9%	20.5%	4.5%	.	88

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class ⁹

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	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	12.4%	57.7%	25.8%	4.1%	97
2004
2010	4.0	28.7%	44.8%	24.1%	2.3%	87

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class ⁹

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	3.6	9.3%	53.6%	30.9%	5.2%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	3.9	24.1%	42.5%	29.9%	3.4%	.	87

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class ⁹

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	3.6	11.3%	42.3%	44.3%	1.0%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	3.8	20.8%	45.5%	28.6%	5.2%	.	77

Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials ⁹

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	3.1%	37.1%	56.7%	3.1%	.	97
2004
2010	3.7	14.5%	44.6%	36.1%	3.6%	1.2%	83

Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances ⁹

Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances	Mean	5: Very positive influence	4: Positive influence	3: Neither positive nor negative influence	Total (N)
Year*	4.1	22.7%	67.0%	10.3%	97
2004
2010	4.2	40.9%	40.9%	18.2%	88

Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls ⁹

Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls	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	14.6%	44.8%	32.3%	7.3%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	4.0	32.9%	41.1%	20.5%	2.7%	2.7%	73

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs ⁹

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	Total (N)
Year*	3.8	13.4%	55.7%	27.8%	3.1%	97
2004
2010	4.0	32.5%	38.6%	26.5%	2.4%	83

Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events ⁹

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*	3.6	7.2%	49.5%	38.1%	4.1%	1.0%	97
2004
2010	4.0	27.4%	44.0%	28.6%	.	.	84

Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff ⁹

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	Total (N)
Year*	3.6	8.3%	53.1%	33.3%	5.2%	96
2004
2010	3.9	24.1%	41.4%	34.5%	.	87

Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences ⁹

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	19.8%	46.9%	21.9%	11.5%	.	96
2004
2010	3.8	33.0%	29.5%	28.4%	6.8%	2.3%	88

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	3.7	12.5%	50.0%	35.4%	1.0%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	3.8	19.3%	43.2%	35.2%	1.1%	1.1%	88

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	16.7%	44.8%	33.3%	4.2%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	3.9	23.9%	42.0%	31.8%	2.3%	.	88

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	11.5%	45.8%	38.5%	3.1%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	3.8	19.5%	42.5%	34.5%	3.4%	.	87

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	3.8	16.8%	53.7%	27.4%	1.1%	1.1%	95
2004
2010	4.0	27.3%	44.3%	27.3%	1.1%	.	88

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	15.6%	49.0%	33.3%	1.0%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	4.0	28.4%	44.3%	25.0%	2.3%	.	88

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	16.7%	55.2%	27.1%	.	1.0%	96
2004
2010	4.0	29.5%	42.0%	27.3%	1.1%	.	88

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	13.5%	57.3%	27.1%	1.0%	1.0%	96
2004
2010	4.0	28.7%	42.5%	27.6%	1.1%	.	87

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	3.7	14.9%	47.9%	34.0%	2.1%	1.1%	94
2004
2010	3.9	27.3%	36.4%	31.8%	4.5%	.	88

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