North Carolina State University
Campus Climate Survey Trends (Undergraduate)

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		3.1	28.5%	58.9%	11.0%	1.6%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.3	36.7%	53.1%	8.9%	1.4%	586
Middle class	2004	3.3	40.8%	50.4%	8.5%	0.3%	1,533
	2010	3.4	42.9%	51.2%	4.9%	1.0%	1,302
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.4	44.3%	47.9%	7.0%	0.8%	982
	2010	3.4	50.7%	42.0%	6.8%	0.5%	779

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*		3.7	1.3%	9.5%	29.5%	40.1%	19.6%	623
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.5	3.6%	13.4%	25.7%	40.8%	16.6%	584
Middle class	2004	3.9	1.4%	7.7%	20.3%	44.4%	26.1%	1,530
	2010	3.6	4.6%	9.7%	19.5%	49.0%	17.2%	1,302
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	1.1%	5.4%	19.4%	41.6%	32.4%	980
	2010	3.8	3.9%	8.9%	17.6%	46.1%	23.6%	777

Feel physically threatened ¹

Feel physically threatened		Mean	1: Never	2: Seldom	3: Occasionally	4: Often	5: Always	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		1.4	67.1%	26.6%	5.1%	0.8%	0.3%	623
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	1.3	73.5%	21.0%	4.4%	0.7%	0.3%	586
Middle class	2004	1.4	64.4%	30.1%	4.6%	0.3%	0.5%	1,530
	2010	1.3	75.8%	21.2%	2.5%	0.3%	0.2%	1,297
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	1.4	66.2%	27.7%	5.0%	0.9%	0.2%	980
	2010	1.3	75.0%	21.8%	3.0%	0.1%	0.1%	777

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.6	24.0%	39.7%	15.3%	14.5%	6.5%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	36.5%	45.4%	11.1%	3.3%	3.8%	425
Middle class	2004	3.8	29.0%	44.2%	13.0%	10.0%	3.9%	1,531
	2010	4.2	42.7%	42.5%	7.0%	4.5%	3.3%	1,030
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	30.6%	42.0%	14.6%	8.3%	4.5%	979
	2010	4.2	48.2%	37.4%	7.4%	4.3%	2.8%	652

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*		3.8	22.3%	47.9%	23.2%	5.1%	1.6%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	28.8%	49.3%	16.6%	4.5%	0.8%	493
Middle class	2004	3.9	24.9%	48.3%	22.8%	3.6%	0.5%	1,532
	2010	4.1	33.3%	49.7%	13.5%	2.4%	1.1%	1,148
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	26.9%	45.2%	22.6%	4.9%	0.4%	980
	2010	4.1	38.2%	42.0%	15.6%	2.9%	1.3%	691

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*		3.6	18.7%	38.8%	28.9%	10.5%	3.2%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	34.5%	44.4%	15.7%	4.0%	1.4%	426
Middle class	2004	3.7	20.7%	37.7%	32.1%	7.7%	1.8%	1,531
	2010	4.2	35.4%	49.5%	12.3%	1.7%	1.2%	1,011
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	20.4%	36.4%	31.6%	9.2%	2.5%	979
	2010	4.2	39.0%	43.4%	13.9%	2.4%	1.3%	631

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*		4.0	29.1%	51.3%	14.5%	4.6%	0.5%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	32.4%	37.8%	21.0%	5.5%	3.4%	238
Middle class	2004	4.0	25.2%	55.4%	15.0%	4.1%	0.3%	1,527
	2010	4.0	32.4%	40.4%	20.8%	4.6%	1.8%	544
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	26.3%	54.4%	15.0%	4.1%	0.3%	975
	2010	4.1	39.7%	35.6%	19.4%	3.1%	2.2%	320

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	38.9%	44.0%	10.2%	5.4%	1.4%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	44.5%	33.5%	13.2%	5.3%	3.5%	568
Middle class	2004	4.1	35.7%	47.4%	10.9%	5.3%	0.7%	1,526
	2010	4.1	43.0%	37.2%	11.8%	4.8%	3.2%	1,257
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	40.3%	46.7%	8.6%	3.8%	0.6%	975
	2010	4.1	43.7%	36.3%	12.0%	6.0%	2.0%	749

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*		4.0	27.6%	48.6%	17.7%	5.3%	0.8%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	30.9%	44.6%	19.1%	4.5%	0.9%	466
Middle class	2004	4.1	31.0%	50.9%	14.2%	3.4%	0.5%	1,521
	2010	4.1	33.0%	51.2%	11.9%	2.8%	1.0%	1,066
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	32.4%	51.9%	12.4%	3.2%	0.2%	970
	2010	4.2	41.6%	44.8%	10.9%	1.8%	0.9%	676

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	1: Very uncomfortable	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	29.9%	55.2%	11.2%	3.5%	0.2%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	28.2%	44.2%	19.2%	6.8%	1.5%	468
Middle class	2004	4.1	26.3%	58.4%	11.8%	3.1%	0.4%	1,530
	2010	3.9	25.8%	50.5%	17.5%	4.6%	1.6%	1,032
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	32.1%	55.5%	9.9%	2.2%	0.3%	979
	2010	4.1	33.2%	46.1%	16.9%	2.3%	1.6%	621

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	16.8%	41.0%	23.7%	16.3%	2.1%	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.5	19.0%	36.8%	26.0%	10.5%	7.8%	258
Middle class	2004	3.5	13.9%	42.0%	25.7%	16.3%	2.2%	1,528
	2010	3.7	21.5%	43.1%	24.4%	7.7%	3.3%	599
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	20.2%	37.0%	24.7%	15.8%	2.2%	979
	2010	3.8	28.4%	40.8%	20.0%	7.6%	3.2%	380

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*		4.2	32.3%	56.3%	9.1%	2.2%	.	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	30.9%	43.3%	18.0%	6.1%	1.7%	540
Middle class	2004	4.1	28.5%	58.7%	9.4%	3.0%	0.3%	1,528
	2010	4.0	32.4%	45.1%	15.8%	5.0%	1.7%	1,204
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	32.7%	56.8%	8.0%	2.5%	0.1%	979
	2010	4.1	34.4%	46.6%	12.4%	5.3%	1.2%	723

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	1: Strongly disagree	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.9	25.6%	53.7%	8.8%	10.5%	1.4%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	27.6%	44.8%	14.0%	10.6%	3.1%	587
Middle class	2004	4.0	25.4%	57.3%	8.8%	7.6%	0.9%	1,530
	2010	3.9	22.4%	54.8%	11.1%	10.7%	1.1%	1,302
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	30.2%	54.8%	7.3%	7.0%	0.6%	983
	2010	4.0	26.4%	52.9%	11.3%	8.1%	1.3%	779

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.1	1.1%	4.0%	20.4%	55.0%	19.5%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.0	0.9%	3.2%	16.5%	51.8%	27.6%	587
Middle class	2004	2.1	0.5%	2.9%	16.9%	63.3%	16.4%	1,530
	2010	2.0	0.7%	2.9%	14.7%	54.5%	27.2%	1,300
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.1	0.4%	4.7%	15.5%	60.4%	19.0%	980
	2010	2.0	0.9%	3.2%	15.2%	52.4%	28.3%	778

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.0	16.9%	69.4%	11.2%	2.4%	0.2%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	23.2%	58.7%	15.4%	1.9%	0.9%	583
Middle class	2004	4.1	18.8%	71.1%	8.8%	1.1%	0.2%	1,530
	2010	4.1	25.7%	60.5%	11.5%	1.7%	0.6%	1,301
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	23.0%	68.0%	7.3%	1.3%	0.3%	982
	2010	4.1	29.2%	58.5%	9.5%	2.2%	0.6%	775

Ignored by classmates/given trivial jobs during group work ⁴

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*		2.1	1.4%	4.6%	15.9%	58.1%	19.9%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.1	1.5%	7.5%	15.2%	47.1%	28.7%	586
Middle class	2004	2.0	0.4%	4.2%	12.5%	63.4%	19.4%	1,532
	2010	2.0	1.1%	4.2%	12.0%	54.6%	28.2%	1,297
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.0	1.9%	4.9%	11.0%	58.6%	23.6%	980
	2010	1.9	1.4%	3.3%	10.8%	50.6%	33.8%	778

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.7	12.3%	53.8%	29.4%	4.2%	0.3%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	17.4%	50.7%	27.5%	3.8%	0.7%	582
Middle class	2004	3.8	12.6%	56.5%	26.4%	4.1%	0.4%	1,529
	2010	3.8	16.2%	52.8%	27.6%	2.8%	0.6%	1,299
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	16.8%	56.5%	23.6%	2.8%	0.3%	981
	2010	3.9	19.9%	50.8%	25.7%	3.1%	0.5%	778

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.4	3.8%	13.1%	24.5%	40.6%	18.0%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.1	2.2%	8.7%	20.5%	36.4%	32.1%	585
Middle class	2004	2.3	2.4%	10.3%	23.4%	45.0%	19.0%	1,530
	2010	1.9	1.8%	6.2%	15.4%	36.8%	39.9%	1,300
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.3	2.6%	10.4%	22.0%	44.9%	20.1%	982
	2010	1.9	2.2%	5.9%	15.5%	33.4%	43.0%	779

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	27.2%	58.9%	11.2%	2.6%	0.2%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	31.0%	52.1%	14.0%	2.6%	0.3%	587
Middle class	2004	4.1	25.6%	63.3%	9.7%	1.0%	0.3%	1,529
	2010	4.1	30.0%	55.9%	12.0%	1.7%	0.3%	1,298
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	29.2%	60.8%	8.7%	1.1%	0.2%	982
	2010	4.2	35.6%	50.7%	10.9%	2.1%	0.6%	777

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.0	22.6%	62.4%	11.7%	2.2%	1.0%	623
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	21.4%	56.4%	16.8%	3.9%	1.4%	583
Middle class	2004	4.1	23.0%	65.3%	8.6%	2.5%	0.5%	1,531
	2010	4.1	26.7%	58.7%	11.2%	2.8%	0.5%	1,300
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	29.0%	61.3%	7.7%	1.9%	0.1%	981
	2010	4.2	32.4%	55.6%	8.5%	2.6%	0.9%	780

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	39.8%	35.6%	19.5%	4.5%	0.6%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	55.5%	26.3%	13.3%	3.8%	1.0%	578
Middle class	2004	4.1	38.9%	34.5%	20.5%	5.6%	0.4%	1,526
	2010	4.2	48.2%	32.0%	15.1%	4.3%	0.3%	1,294
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	34.8%	32.6%	23.7%	8.2%	0.8%	980
	2010	4.2	48.7%	32.1%	14.4%	3.9%	0.9%	778

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.7	3.8%	12.5%	38.1%	38.2%	7.3%	599
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.8	8.2%	14.4%	39.0%	27.4%	11.0%	526
Middle class	2004	2.7	4.3%	11.0%	37.3%	40.1%	7.3%	1,478
	2010	2.8	8.3%	14.4%	35.8%	31.5%	9.9%	1,192
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.6	3.5%	10.5%	35.9%	41.9%	8.2%	943
	2010	2.8	9.4%	16.4%	32.2%	31.6%	10.4%	724

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.0	38.7%	35.1%	19.1%	6.1%	1.0%	576
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	49.3%	29.2%	15.3%	5.0%	1.1%	535
Middle class	2004	4.1	38.6%	37.7%	18.5%	4.9%	0.3%	1,460
	2010	4.2	47.8%	31.5%	15.5%	4.1%	1.2%	1,201
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	37.2%	34.9%	19.3%	7.2%	1.4%	929
	2010	4.3	51.5%	30.8%	13.3%	3.8%	0.5%	730

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.0	12.9%	19.0%	30.8%	29.3%	7.9%	542
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.5	25.6%	26.0%	26.4%	16.0%	6.0%	500
Middle class	2004	2.9	11.4%	16.1%	32.9%	30.6%	9.0%	1,319
	2010	3.5	23.0%	25.8%	30.5%	15.3%	5.5%	1,119
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.8	11.2%	16.3%	30.4%	30.4%	11.7%	878
	2010	3.4	25.9%	22.1%	27.7%	17.9%	6.4%	671

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	1: Never	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		4.3	46.8%	37.7%	13.0%	2.2%	0.3%	602
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.3	48.2%	34.6%	14.0%	2.4%	0.7%	541
Middle class	2004	4.2	39.7%	41.0%	16.6%	2.6%	.	1,455
	2010	4.2	41.1%	39.0%	16.7%	2.4%	0.7%	1,189
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	41.5%	37.7%	18.5%	2.1%	0.2%	947
	2010	4.2	44.0%	37.1%	14.8%	3.6%	0.6%	723

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.0	39.6%	31.3%	18.8%	7.6%	2.7%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	45.5%	26.7%	18.8%	5.2%	3.8%	574
Middle class	2004	4.0	37.8%	31.9%	21.9%	7.1%	1.3%	1,528
	2010	4.0	43.3%	27.8%	21.2%	5.4%	2.3%	1,280
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	35.9%	33.7%	21.7%	7.8%	0.9%	978
	2010	4.1	43.0%	29.8%	19.8%	5.6%	1.8%	769

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.9	34.2%	35.6%	22.6%	5.6%	2.1%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	38.9%	29.1%	21.4%	6.3%	4.4%	571
Middle class	2004	3.9	32.3%	34.5%	24.1%	7.1%	2.0%	1,529
	2010	3.9	34.7%	32.7%	23.4%	6.0%	3.2%	1,274
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	28.7%	39.3%	23.9%	5.8%	2.2%	978
	2010	3.8	32.3%	33.9%	22.8%	6.9%	4.1%	772

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.5	26.4%	29.9%	22.6%	12.3%	8.8%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.6	32.9%	22.1%	24.0%	9.7%	11.3%	566
Middle class	2004	3.5	25.8%	25.7%	27.3%	13.2%	8.0%	1,527
	2010	3.5	28.3%	26.2%	24.6%	10.5%	10.5%	1,261
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.5	23.2%	29.1%	26.7%	12.9%	8.2%	980
	2010	3.5	27.5%	26.3%	24.7%	12.4%	9.2%	765

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*		3.8%	29.5%	35.6%	25.8%	5.3%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	10.4%	32.2%	25.9%	20.2%	11.3%	584
Middle class	2004	5.1%	34.7%	38.3%	18.4%	3.5%	1,534
	2010	13.0%	37.3%	31.6%	12.6%	5.5%	1,297
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.3%	35.8%	41.3%	15.9%	3.8%	983
	2010	12.9%	42.9%	29.6%	10.9%	3.6%	773

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*		19.2%	39.6%	23.8%	11.0%	6.4%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	15.2%	38.7%	26.5%	10.6%	8.9%	584
Middle class	2004	12.6%	49.9%	23.9%	7.4%	6.1%	1,534
	2010	10.5%	52.5%	23.5%	7.6%	5.8%	1,300
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	8.6%	56.0%	24.8%	6.8%	3.8%	980
	2010	6.0%	59.6%	21.2%	7.2%	5.9%	778

Back to Top

Section C: Multicultural Activities on Campus

Have taken: Ethnic Studies course

Have taken: Ethnic Studies course		Yes	No	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		25.0%	75.0%	619
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	21.2%	78.8%	586
Middle class	2004	18.2%	81.8%	1,517
	2010	16.8%	83.2%	1,302
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	14.7%	85.3%	973
	2010	12.7%	87.3%	778

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	1: Very negative	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	30.7%	48.4%	18.3%	1.3%	1.3%	153
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.4	52.1%	33.1%	14.9%	.	.	121
Middle class	2004	4.1	34.7%	46.9%	13.0%	4.7%	0.7%	277
	2010	4.2	36.1%	49.1%	12.0%	2.3%	0.5%	216
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	34.7%	46.5%	12.5%	4.9%	1.4%	144
	2010	3.9	33.7%	34.7%	26.3%	1.1%	4.2%	95

Have taken: Women's/Gender Studies course

Have taken: Women's/Gender Studies course		Yes	No	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		7.4%	92.6%	612
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	11.1%	88.9%	586
Middle class	2004	6.9%	93.1%	1,498
	2010	7.1%	92.9%	1,302
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	6.5%	93.5%	955
	2010	8.2%	91.8%	776

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.3	45.7%	41.3%	8.7%	2.2%	2.2%	46
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	46.7%	23.3%	23.3%	6.7%	.	60
Middle class	2004	4.1	38.9%	39.8%	14.8%	2.8%	3.7%	108
	2010	4.1	39.6%	39.6%	17.6%	1.1%	2.2%	91
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	28.6%	52.4%	17.5%	1.6%	.	63
	2010	4.0	35.5%	41.9%	16.1%	1.6%	4.8%	62

Number of classes with diversity issues clearly integrated

Number of classes with diversity issues clearly integrated		None	A few	Some	Most	All	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		34.3%	44.8%	14.8%	4.7%	1.4%	623
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	35.6%	39.2%	15.6%	7.7%	1.9%	584
Middle class	2004	34.8%	45.2%	15.4%	4.3%	0.3%	1,522
	2010	33.2%	42.7%	17.5%	5.5%	1.1%	1,298
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	33.6%	45.3%	15.6%	4.9%	0.5%	978
	2010	35.1%	41.4%	16.4%	6.5%	0.6%	773

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		3.7	10.8%	50.7%	33.3%	4.7%	0.5%	408
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	20.9%	46.1%	30.3%	2.1%	0.5%	373
Middle class	2004	3.7	13.4%	52.1%	30.7%	3.4%	0.4%	993
	2010	3.8	16.2%	53.5%	26.9%	2.7%	0.7%	865
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	11.1%	50.4%	34.5%	3.4%	0.6%	647
	2010	3.7	14.2%	49.5%	31.1%	3.4%	1.8%	499

Participation in diversity/multicultural events

Participation in diversity/multicultural events		Never	Once	Two or three times	Four or more times	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		63.7%	8.8%	16.2%	11.2%	623
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	45.5%	16.7%	21.7%	16.0%	580
Middle class	2004	65.0%	7.5%	17.6%	10.0%	1,524
	2010	53.8%	12.6%	20.4%	13.1%	1,293
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	68.3%	9.2%	13.9%	8.6%	974
	2010	54.0%	15.3%	17.7%	13.0%	769

Reasons for not participating: Not aware ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Not aware		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		62.5%	37.5%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	58.0%	42.0%	264
Middle class	2004	63.9%	36.1%	1,537
	2010	61.1%	38.9%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	65.5%	34.5%	984
	2010	61.0%	39.0%	415

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		32.4%	67.6%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	38.6%	61.4%	264
Middle class	2004	37.3%	62.7%	1,537
	2010	39.9%	60.1%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	40.4%	59.6%	984
	2010	50.6%	49.4%	415

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Not enough time		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		67.4%	32.6%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	65.9%	34.1%	264
Middle class	2004	66.9%	33.1%	1,537
	2010	67.5%	32.5%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	66.0%	34.0%	984
	2010	55.9%	44.1%	415

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)
Socioeconomic Background		65.0%	35.0%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	64.0%	36.0%	264
Middle class	2004	63.5%	36.5%	1,537
	2010	64.8%	35.2%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	60.9%	39.1%	984
	2010	57.1%	42.9%	415

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Uncomfortable		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		17.3%	82.7%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	12.1%	87.9%	264
Middle class	2004	18.9%	81.1%	1,537
	2010	11.6%	88.4%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	20.0%	80.0%	984
	2010	15.2%	84.8%	415

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)
Socioeconomic Background		22.1%	77.9%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	25.4%	74.6%	264
Middle class	2004	30.0%	70.0%	1,537
	2010	35.9%	64.1%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	36.4%	63.6%	984
	2010	40.0%	60.0%	415

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Uninteresting topic		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		41.2%	58.8%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	36.7%	63.3%	264
Middle class	2004	43.8%	56.2%	1,537
	2010	39.7%	60.3%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	47.2%	52.8%	984
	2010	41.4%	58.6%	415

Reasons for not participating: Location ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Location		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		14.8%	85.2%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	13.6%	86.4%	264
Middle class	2004	12.1%	87.9%	1,537
	2010	10.8%	89.2%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	12.4%	87.6%	984
	2010	8.7%	91.3%	415

Reasons for not participating: Cost ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Cost		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		21.5%	78.5%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	15.5%	84.5%	264
Middle class	2004	20.2%	79.8%	1,537
	2010	15.5%	84.5%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	15.7%	84.3%	984
	2010	10.6%	89.4%	415

Reasons for not participating: Other ⁷

Reasons for not participating: Other		Yes, a reason	No, not a reason	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background		7.3%	92.7%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.9%	95.1%	264
Middle class	2004	4.4%	95.6%	1,537
	2010	3.3%	96.7%	696
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.3%	95.7%	984
	2010	3.4%	96.6%	415

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	15.9%	59.6%	14.8%	8.5%	1.1%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	27.3%	54.0%	11.9%	5.0%	1.9%	582
Middle class	2004	3.9	16.9%	63.7%	12.8%	5.9%	0.7%	1,530
	2010	4.1	31.3%	52.5%	10.9%	3.9%	1.4%	1,296
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	20.8%	61.7%	12.5%	4.9%	0.1%	981
	2010	4.0	34.5%	45.6%	12.1%	5.4%	2.3%	776

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.6	8.7%	51.2%	29.1%	9.8%	1.3%	623
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	19.5%	48.4%	23.6%	5.9%	2.6%	580
Middle class	2004	3.6	8.4%	56.3%	27.7%	7.2%	0.5%	1,532
	2010	3.8	21.1%	47.9%	25.0%	4.9%	1.2%	1,289
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	9.3%	55.6%	25.5%	8.8%	0.8%	978
	2010	3.8	21.4%	44.7%	25.9%	6.8%	1.2%	776

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.1	13.2%	19.1%	34.9%	25.5%	7.2%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.9	14.4%	16.5%	28.8%	27.6%	12.7%	583
Middle class	2004	3.1	9.8%	20.2%	40.8%	24.2%	5.0%	1,533
	2010	2.9	14.2%	18.2%	28.8%	26.1%	12.7%	1,293
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.1	10.9%	22.8%	39.8%	22.0%	4.5%	981
	2010	3.2	18.8%	21.5%	29.1%	22.3%	8.4%	773

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.2	41.1%	45.8%	10.7%	1.6%	0.8%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	40.4%	44.8%	11.9%	1.9%	1.0%	582
Middle class	2004	4.2	34.6%	51.1%	12.2%	1.5%	0.6%	1,532
	2010	4.2	36.8%	46.5%	13.7%	1.9%	1.1%	1,293
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	33.2%	50.6%	13.7%	2.4%	0.1%	976
	2010	4.1	36.6%	45.5%	14.5%	1.9%	1.4%	778

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)
Socioeconomic Background		3.1	13.3%	24.2%	31.1%	21.8%	9.6%	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.0	12.6%	23.6%	31.0%	17.4%	15.5%	581
Middle class	2004	3.2	13.0%	29.3%	32.1%	19.0%	6.7%	1,534
	2010	3.1	13.3%	24.5%	35.1%	16.8%	10.3%	1,295
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.4	16.4%	33.3%	28.1%	17.4%	4.8%	978
	2010	3.4	20.1%	29.2%	30.8%	15.2%	4.6%	775

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.0	11.3%	20.1%	34.5%	24.0%	10.1%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.9	12.2%	18.9%	31.9%	20.5%	16.5%	576
Middle class	2004	3.0	10.4%	22.3%	36.2%	24.0%	7.2%	1,535
	2010	3.0	11.5%	19.2%	38.5%	19.1%	11.8%	1,289
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.1	11.1%	25.2%	35.0%	23.3%	5.3%	979
	2010	3.2	16.8%	20.5%	33.0%	22.9%	6.8%	769

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.9	27.4%	44.8%	17.0%	8.3%	2.6%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	22.2%	44.4%	25.7%	5.9%	1.7%	576
Middle class	2004	3.8	22.9%	50.1%	17.2%	7.6%	2.1%	1,531
	2010	3.7	18.3%	44.9%	27.5%	6.6%	2.7%	1,289
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	22.3%	47.0%	21.3%	8.2%	1.2%	977
	2010	3.6	18.7%	41.1%	28.1%	9.6%	2.5%	771

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	30.4%	50.5%	15.0%	3.5%	0.6%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	33.2%	44.1%	20.0%	2.4%	0.3%	581
Middle class	2004	4.0	28.0%	53.6%	13.8%	3.9%	0.8%	1,531
	2010	4.0	28.0%	47.1%	20.4%	3.4%	1.1%	1,291
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	28.2%	53.4%	13.8%	4.1%	0.5%	978
	2010	4.0	31.8%	42.8%	19.2%	4.6%	1.5%	776

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.7	20.6%	45.0%	20.3%	11.5%	2.6%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	25.9%	46.1%	22.1%	5.0%	0.9%	583
Middle class	2004	3.7	18.3%	45.7%	23.5%	10.6%	1.9%	1,534
	2010	3.8	23.6%	45.4%	24.5%	4.8%	1.6%	1,292
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	19.7%	42.4%	24.3%	11.3%	2.1%	978
	2010	3.8	23.7%	45.4%	21.0%	7.3%	2.6%	771

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.3	5.6%	31.8%	52.0%	9.1%	1.4%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.5	12.7%	36.8%	42.6%	6.2%	1.7%	582
Middle class	2004	3.3	6.1%	30.6%	52.1%	9.7%	1.4%	1,529
	2010	3.5	13.2%	33.4%	47.8%	4.6%	0.9%	1,293
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.4	6.3%	32.8%	52.0%	7.9%	1.0%	972
	2010	3.6	15.7%	33.9%	45.6%	4.5%	0.3%	776

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.0	28.6%	47.3%	16.0%	6.9%	1.3%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	38.9%	39.8%	15.3%	3.9%	2.1%	583
Middle class	2004	3.9	25.5%	50.1%	16.4%	6.3%	1.7%	1,532
	2010	4.1	34.7%	44.1%	14.6%	4.9%	1.8%	1,295
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	24.7%	51.5%	15.5%	7.4%	0.9%	979
	2010	4.1	34.7%	44.8%	13.8%	4.5%	2.2%	776

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.9	9.3%	22.8%	27.2%	28.6%	12.1%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.9	12.3%	22.3%	25.0%	26.4%	14.0%	584
Middle class	2004	3.0	10.5%	22.7%	29.1%	29.2%	8.5%	1,530
	2010	3.1	13.4%	25.0%	25.3%	26.7%	9.6%	1,294
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.0	9.1%	28.2%	26.2%	28.9%	7.6%	977
	2010	3.2	16.1%	26.4%	26.2%	24.2%	7.1%	774

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.0	32.9%	43.1%	17.6%	5.3%	1.1%	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	34.6%	43.3%	16.1%	4.1%	1.9%	584
Middle class	2004	4.0	31.1%	49.6%	13.6%	4.5%	1.2%	1,531
	2010	4.0	33.3%	44.8%	16.0%	4.6%	1.4%	1,293
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	29.9%	48.4%	14.8%	5.4%	1.5%	978
	2010	4.0	31.6%	43.7%	17.7%	4.6%	2.3%	775

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)
Socioeconomic Background		4.0	30.2%	44.9%	18.4%	5.6%	1.0%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.0	33.9%	40.6%	19.5%	3.8%	2.2%	584
Middle class	2004	4.0	27.5%	51.7%	14.9%	4.7%	1.2%	1,535
	2010	4.0	32.6%	43.9%	17.6%	4.2%	1.6%	1,295
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	28.1%	48.6%	15.5%	6.3%	1.5%	975
	2010	4.0	29.4%	47.8%	15.6%	4.9%	2.3%	776

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	29.0%	40.0%	17.1%	10.0%	3.8%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	36.5%	32.9%	20.2%	6.9%	3.4%	583
Middle class	2004	3.8	24.7%	44.6%	18.5%	9.6%	2.6%	1,533
	2010	3.9	30.5%	39.4%	19.9%	6.6%	3.6%	1,297
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	26.0%	42.4%	18.0%	11.0%	2.6%	979
	2010	3.8	30.6%	39.1%	18.2%	7.5%	4.5%	774

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.1	24.7%	63.9%	10.7%	0.6%	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.3	42.8%	49.3%	7.2%	0.7%	584
Middle class	2004	3.2	29.2%	62.7%	7.8%	0.3%	1,532
	2010	3.4	43.2%	52.2%	4.5%	0.2%	1,298
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.2	31.8%	60.6%	7.3%	0.2%	980
	2010	3.4	48.4%	46.0%	4.8%	0.8%	770

Faculty respect for minority students

Faculty respect for minority students		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.1	25.9%	61.2%	11.8%	1.1%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.3	42.6%	49.3%	7.0%	1.0%	582
Middle class	2004	3.2	29.1%	62.5%	7.6%	0.7%	1,532
	2010	3.4	43.3%	51.7%	4.9%	0.1%	1,295
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.2	30.6%	61.2%	7.8%	0.4%	981
	2010	3.4	47.3%	49.0%	3.5%	0.3%	768

Student respect for faculty

Student respect for faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.9	13.8%	67.7%	17.4%	1.1%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.1	27.1%	55.0%	16.5%	1.4%	582
Middle class	2004	3.0	16.2%	65.9%	16.9%	0.9%	1,530
	2010	3.1	27.6%	58.2%	13.7%	0.5%	1,295
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.0	20.1%	65.5%	13.5%	0.9%	981
	2010	3.2	32.2%	53.3%	13.7%	0.8%	767

Student respect for minority faculty

Student respect for minority faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.8	14.0%	59.7%	21.7%	4.7%	623
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.0	25.4%	51.7%	19.0%	3.8%	578
Middle class	2004	2.9	16.0%	60.1%	20.5%	3.4%	1,530
	2010	3.0	25.6%	54.4%	18.1%	1.9%	1,294
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.9	18.2%	59.1%	19.2%	3.5%	981
	2010	3.1	29.4%	49.2%	18.9%	2.5%	768

Faculty respect for female students

Faculty respect for female students		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.1	23.2%	67.8%	8.2%	0.8%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.3	43.3%	48.8%	7.4%	0.5%	582
Middle class	2004	3.2	26.2%	65.2%	7.9%	0.7%	1,529
	2010	3.4	43.7%	51.5%	4.7%	0.1%	1,294
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.2	29.2%	62.8%	7.8%	0.1%	982
	2010	3.4	47.9%	46.0%	6.0%	0.1%	768

Student respect for female faculty

Student respect for female faculty		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.0	18.4%	68.9%	11.9%	0.8%	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.2	30.3%	57.7%	11.2%	0.9%	581
Middle class	2004	3.1	23.2%	65.6%	10.2%	1.0%	1,525
	2010	3.2	31.8%	55.8%	11.7%	0.7%	1,294
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.2	26.3%	66.4%	7.2%	0.2%	979
	2010	3.2	35.5%	52.1%	11.6%	0.9%	770

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.9	20.6%	53.5%	20.8%	5.2%	621
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.0	27.8%	53.8%	13.7%	4.6%	582
Middle class	2004	3.0	22.6%	55.5%	17.7%	4.1%	1,527
	2010	3.1	29.0%	55.7%	13.1%	2.2%	1,291
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.0	26.3%	51.5%	18.3%	3.9%	977
	2010	3.1	31.1%	53.9%	13.1%	2.0%	766

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT students

Friendships between heterosexual and GLBT students		Mean	4: Excellent	3: Good	2: Fair	1: Poor	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		2.6	10.9%	44.9%	33.0%	11.3%	622
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	2.7	18.6%	44.5%	28.3%	8.6%	580
Middle class	2004	2.6	13.0%	47.5%	30.2%	9.4%	1,518
	2010	2.8	20.4%	46.8%	26.9%	5.9%	1,286
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	2.7	16.1%	43.4%	31.5%	9.0%	977
	2010	2.8	21.6%	43.2%	26.0%	9.1%	768

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*		4.1	32.4%	50.6%	13.5%	3.2%	0.3%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	39.6%	46.6%	11.1%	2.6%	0.2%	584
Middle class	2004	4.2	34.5%	53.6%	10.2%	1.4%	0.3%	1,532
	2010	4.3	40.7%	46.5%	11.6%	0.9%	0.3%	1,298
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	35.4%	53.7%	9.2%	1.5%	0.2%	983
	2010	4.3	43.8%	45.7%	9.3%	1.0%	0.1%	772

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*		3.7	14.2%	46.5%	33.3%	5.1%	1.0%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	21.6%	44.3%	29.0%	4.3%	0.7%	582
Middle class	2004	3.8	17.6%	46.7%	31.7%	3.4%	0.6%	1,527
	2010	3.9	24.4%	46.4%	25.8%	3.1%	0.3%	1,296
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	18.2%	47.1%	30.5%	3.6%	0.6%	980
	2010	3.9	28.2%	41.3%	27.6%	2.9%	.	765

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*		4.0	23.8%	54.4%	19.4%	2.2%	0.2%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	29.2%	50.1%	18.7%	1.9%	0.2%	583
Middle class	2004	4.1	25.6%	56.6%	16.0%	1.6%	0.2%	1,529
	2010	4.2	33.9%	50.5%	14.2%	1.3%	0.1%	1,298
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	28.5%	55.4%	14.6%	1.2%	0.3%	982
	2010	4.2	37.7%	45.4%	15.6%	1.2%	0.1%	771

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*		3.7	15.5%	51.8%	25.2%	7.0%	0.5%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	24.8%	47.0%	23.9%	3.8%	0.5%	581
Middle class	2004	3.8	18.8%	51.9%	24.5%	4.4%	0.4%	1,529
	2010	4.0	26.8%	49.5%	21.1%	2.4%	0.2%	1,294
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	19.1%	52.3%	23.8%	4.3%	0.5%	979
	2010	4.0	30.7%	46.8%	19.4%	2.9%	0.3%	769

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*		4.0	34.8%	41.8%	16.2%	4.3%	2.9%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	40.3%	34.8%	18.4%	4.5%	2.1%	583
Middle class	2004	4.1	36.2%	45.3%	13.6%	3.8%	1.2%	1,534
	2010	4.2	43.5%	35.6%	16.6%	3.2%	1.2%	1,297
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	40.6%	43.8%	11.4%	3.2%	1.0%	981
	2010	4.1	44.0%	32.8%	16.3%	5.1%	1.8%	771

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*		4.1	26.4%	55.6%	16.3%	1.4%	0.3%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	35.6%	48.3%	14.4%	1.5%	0.2%	584
Middle class	2004	4.1	27.5%	57.0%	13.3%	1.7%	0.5%	1,529
	2010	4.2	38.7%	48.4%	12.0%	0.9%	.	1,290
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	30.9%	54.1%	13.1%	1.6%	0.2%	981
	2010	4.3	39.8%	47.9%	11.2%	1.2%	.	771

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*		4.1	24.8%	57.4%	16.1%	1.6%	0.2%	629
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	33.0%	51.2%	14.9%	0.9%	.	584
Middle class	2004	4.1	25.6%	59.2%	12.9%	2.0%	0.3%	1,531
	2010	4.2	36.8%	50.8%	12.0%	0.3%	0.1%	1,296
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	30.9%	57.0%	10.8%	1.1%	0.1%	980
	2010	4.3	42.3%	45.8%	11.2%	0.8%	.	769

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	28.0%	50.3%	16.6%	3.8%	1.3%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	34.4%	41.7%	20.7%	2.1%	1.2%	585
Middle class	2004	4.1	30.4%	51.3%	15.1%	2.6%	0.6%	1,531
	2010	4.1	37.9%	41.4%	17.8%	2.1%	0.8%	1,298
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.2	35.2%	49.7%	12.7%	2.0%	0.3%	981
	2010	4.1	40.4%	36.6%	17.8%	3.9%	1.3%	770

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*		3.5	13.5%	36.3%	36.9%	10.4%	2.9%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	24.1%	41.3%	25.9%	6.5%	2.2%	584
Middle class	2004	3.5	12.6%	38.1%	37.3%	9.9%	2.2%	1,529
	2010	3.8	25.0%	41.6%	25.0%	7.3%	1.2%	1,292
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.5	13.6%	36.9%	37.9%	9.1%	2.5%	978
	2010	3.8	26.1%	39.1%	25.7%	7.5%	1.4%	769

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*		3.9	25.6%	48.7%	19.1%	5.1%	1.4%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.2	39.9%	40.0%	17.0%	2.2%	0.9%	582
Middle class	2004	4.0	29.3%	48.8%	18.0%	3.5%	0.5%	1,530
	2010	4.3	44.8%	39.5%	13.6%	1.6%	0.5%	1,296
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	34.0%	49.6%	14.0%	2.1%	0.3%	982
	2010	4.3	47.9%	34.5%	15.3%	1.4%	0.9%	771

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*		3.7	14.7%	50.6%	27.3%	6.9%	0.6%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.7	18.6%	45.3%	26.6%	6.4%	3.1%	580
Middle class	2004	3.8	15.2%	55.8%	23.5%	5.0%	0.5%	1,531
	2010	3.9	23.9%	47.6%	24.9%	3.4%	0.2%	1,293
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	19.4%	53.7%	22.7%	3.9%	0.3%	978
	2010	3.9	26.7%	44.1%	25.4%	3.6%	0.1%	768

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	10.7%	43.8%	27.5%	13.6%	4.5%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	23.7%	44.7%	22.9%	6.5%	2.2%	582
Middle class	2004	3.7	15.4%	49.0%	27.5%	7.2%	0.9%	1,528
	2010	4.0	28.1%	48.7%	20.5%	2.4%	0.4%	1,294
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	19.6%	50.8%	24.1%	4.7%	0.7%	978
	2010	4.1	34.7%	45.4%	17.2%	2.2%	0.5%	767

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	12.2%	55.4%	25.0%	5.8%	1.6%	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	24.5%	48.7%	21.2%	4.5%	1.0%	579
Middle class	2004	3.8	16.6%	55.4%	21.1%	5.5%	1.3%	1,528
	2010	4.0	28.6%	47.8%	20.2%	2.6%	0.7%	1,294
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	21.3%	57.0%	18.8%	2.7%	0.3%	976
	2010	4.1	34.0%	43.5%	19.4%	2.6%	0.5%	768

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*		4.1	31.8%	47.8%	18.6%	1.4%	0.3%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	38.1%	40.2%	19.5%	1.6%	0.7%	580
Middle class	2004	4.0	28.4%	50.1%	18.6%	2.2%	0.6%	1,530
	2010	4.1	37.2%	42.5%	17.7%	2.2%	0.4%	1,293
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.0	28.8%	48.2%	19.4%	3.2%	0.4%	978
	2010	4.0	38.0%	37.7%	17.4%	4.6%	2.3%	769

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*		3.5	10.5%	39.6%	39.9%	8.6%	1.4%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.6	16.0%	40.5%	33.1%	8.1%	2.2%	580
Middle class	2004	3.6	11.2%	43.0%	38.6%	6.0%	1.3%	1,525
	2010	3.8	22.0%	42.8%	29.9%	4.9%	0.3%	1,293
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	13.5%	43.9%	37.2%	4.9%	0.5%	977
	2010	3.8	23.5%	40.5%	31.2%	4.7%	0.1%	770

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	13.4%	58.2%	24.4%	3.0%	1.0%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	22.4%	47.1%	26.6%	2.6%	1.2%	575
Middle class	2004	3.9	14.5%	61.4%	22.0%	2.0%	0.1%	1,533
	2010	3.9	23.6%	49.5%	24.8%	1.8%	0.3%	1,269
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	13.7%	61.8%	21.4%	2.9%	0.3%	978
	2010	3.9	24.3%	47.1%	25.7%	2.5%	0.4%	760

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	15.2%	55.3%	24.3%	4.2%	1.1%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	23.2%	46.3%	25.7%	3.2%	1.6%	564
Middle class	2004	3.9	16.6%	56.4%	23.3%	3.2%	0.5%	1,532
	2010	4.0	25.5%	48.5%	22.7%	2.6%	0.6%	1,258
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	16.1%	55.1%	23.5%	5.0%	0.3%	978
	2010	3.9	25.1%	44.7%	26.3%	2.8%	1.1%	756

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	13.9%	52.2%	29.6%	3.8%	0.5%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	19.8%	46.2%	31.0%	1.9%	1.1%	567
Middle class	2004	3.7	11.9%	55.4%	28.6%	3.7%	0.4%	1,530
	2010	3.9	21.6%	45.3%	31.5%	1.4%	0.2%	1,265
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	12.4%	55.6%	27.6%	4.0%	0.4%	978
	2010	3.9	21.7%	46.1%	29.3%	2.6%	0.3%	757

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.6	11.9%	41.2%	45.2%	1.3%	0.5%	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	19.7%	43.1%	34.9%	1.5%	0.8%	522
Middle class	2004	3.6	9.9%	43.1%	45.1%	1.6%	0.3%	1,529
	2010	3.8	21.0%	42.0%	36.1%	0.8%	0.1%	1,164
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	11.0%	42.4%	44.8%	1.4%	0.3%	978
	2010	3.8	20.9%	42.6%	34.7%	1.4%	0.3%	697

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.5	7.5%	39.1%	50.4%	2.9%	0.2%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.7	15.5%	42.2%	38.4%	2.9%	0.9%	554
Middle class	2004	3.5	7.4%	38.4%	51.7%	2.2%	0.3%	1,532
	2010	3.7	16.7%	40.8%	40.6%	1.3%	0.6%	1,235
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.5	7.1%	40.6%	50.3%	2.1%	.	975
	2010	3.6	14.9%	38.5%	43.0%	2.8%	0.7%	737

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	2: Negative influence	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		4.1	28.2%	54.7%	14.7%	2.4%	.	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	4.1	33.0%	48.9%	16.8%	0.7%	0.5%	570
Middle class	2004	4.1	25.3%	60.7%	13.1%	0.8%	.	1,533
	2010	4.1	33.2%	47.9%	18.2%	0.6%	0.1%	1,268
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	4.1	25.7%	56.3%	17.1%	0.6%	0.3%	976
	2010	4.1	35.4%	44.0%	18.8%	1.3%	0.4%	759

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.5	14.2%	33.9%	45.0%	5.8%	1.1%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	23.8%	43.0%	26.5%	5.4%	1.3%	446
Middle class	2004	3.6	13.3%	42.2%	40.1%	3.5%	0.9%	1,526
	2010	3.9	25.6%	42.3%	27.4%	3.6%	1.1%	1,071
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	13.8%	40.5%	40.2%	4.4%	1.0%	977
	2010	3.9	27.4%	41.4%	25.8%	3.7%	1.6%	674

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.6	14.0%	35.7%	48.4%	1.6%	0.3%	628
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	24.8%	42.0%	29.6%	2.3%	1.2%	483
Middle class	2004	3.6	12.2%	40.2%	45.8%	1.6%	0.2%	1,527
	2010	3.9	27.1%	43.5%	26.8%	2.3%	0.3%	1,117
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	12.6%	42.8%	42.5%	1.6%	0.4%	974
	2010	3.9	27.0%	40.5%	29.7%	2.1%	0.7%	708

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.5	10.1%	37.5%	50.0%	2.1%	0.3%	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	20.4%	45.3%	30.6%	2.5%	1.2%	510
Middle class	2004	3.6	9.3%	41.2%	46.9%	2.2%	0.4%	1,530
	2010	3.9	23.7%	43.3%	30.8%	1.9%	0.3%	1,148
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.5	7.9%	40.6%	48.7%	2.6%	0.3%	976
	2010	3.9	23.9%	40.8%	33.2%	1.5%	0.6%	716

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	1: Very negative influence	Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.7	11.0%	47.4%	38.9%	2.6%	0.2%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	18.4%	42.2%	37.6%	0.9%	0.9%	543
Middle class	2004	3.6	9.2%	49.3%	38.8%	2.4%	0.3%	1,530
	2010	3.8	18.4%	42.7%	37.4%	1.3%	0.1%	1,210
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	9.0%	48.7%	39.5%	2.7%	0.1%	971
	2010	3.8	20.4%	41.4%	36.2%	1.5%	0.5%	741

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)
Socioeconomic Background*		3.8	23.0%	42.9%	22.7%	10.1%	1.3%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	29.4%	33.9%	25.0%	9.4%	2.3%	572
Middle class	2004	3.9	24.6%	48.2%	17.7%	8.4%	1.2%	1,530
	2010	3.8	27.7%	39.3%	24.8%	6.5%	1.7%	1,276
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	26.0%	46.2%	18.5%	8.1%	1.2%	978
	2010	3.8	28.6%	38.5%	23.1%	7.0%	2.8%	761

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	14.1%	50.2%	32.4%	3.2%	0.2%	626
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	21.5%	42.0%	33.6%	2.1%	0.9%	578
Middle class	2004	3.8	14.7%	50.8%	32.7%	1.7%	0.2%	1,533
	2010	3.8	20.6%	42.2%	35.1%	1.7%	0.4%	1,289
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	12.8%	50.5%	34.4%	2.3%	.	981
	2010	3.8	21.0%	38.3%	37.7%	2.5%	0.5%	767

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*		3.7	16.0%	42.2%	39.4%	2.1%	0.3%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	22.1%	43.0%	32.0%	2.2%	0.7%	579
Middle class	2004	3.8	17.6%	45.8%	34.8%	1.5%	0.4%	1,530
	2010	3.8	23.1%	41.4%	33.3%	1.5%	0.7%	1,290
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	16.9%	41.3%	39.7%	1.4%	0.7%	981
	2010	3.8	24.1%	37.2%	33.9%	3.6%	1.2%	768

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	13.1%	40.8%	43.0%	2.6%	0.5%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	17.7%	42.9%	36.8%	1.9%	0.7%	576
Middle class	2004	3.7	12.8%	42.8%	41.7%	2.2%	0.4%	1,529
	2010	3.7	16.8%	42.4%	38.8%	1.4%	0.5%	1,291
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.7	13.6%	42.1%	41.6%	1.7%	1.0%	979
	2010	3.7	18.1%	37.6%	39.6%	3.7%	1.0%	766

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	14.2%	55.2%	29.2%	1.0%	0.5%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	23.2%	46.1%	28.2%	1.2%	1.2%	577
Middle class	2004	3.9	16.7%	54.5%	27.5%	1.1%	0.2%	1,529
	2010	3.9	24.4%	45.7%	29.2%	0.5%	0.2%	1,289
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	17.1%	53.2%	28.2%	1.3%	0.1%	981
	2010	3.9	24.1%	44.5%	29.7%	1.2%	0.5%	768

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*		3.8	14.8%	54.2%	28.9%	1.9%	0.2%	627
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	25.7%	43.5%	28.8%	1.6%	0.3%	579
Middle class	2004	3.8	16.0%	54.3%	28.0%	1.4%	0.3%	1,531
	2010	4.0	25.2%	46.3%	27.1%	1.1%	0.3%	1,288
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.8	15.3%	55.3%	27.7%	1.5%	0.2%	977
	2010	3.9	24.3%	45.2%	28.0%	2.0%	0.5%	767

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*		3.9	16.5%	53.8%	28.8%	0.8%	.	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	24.9%	46.4%	27.7%	0.7%	0.3%	578
Middle class	2004	3.9	18.6%	55.0%	25.8%	0.5%	0.1%	1,526
	2010	4.0	27.2%	45.5%	27.0%	0.2%	0.1%	1,286
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	17.2%	55.0%	27.4%	0.4%	.	976
	2010	3.9	25.4%	44.7%	28.9%	0.7%	0.4%	769

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*		3.9	17.5%	54.3%	27.4%	0.6%	0.2%	624
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.9	25.0%	44.6%	28.7%	1.4%	0.3%	579
Middle class	2004	3.9	17.9%	55.3%	25.7%	1.0%	0.1%	1,524
	2010	4.0	26.1%	45.9%	27.1%	0.7%	0.2%	1,289
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.9	16.7%	54.9%	27.5%	0.9%	.	977
	2010	3.9	24.3%	45.7%	28.9%	0.5%	0.7%	766

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*		3.6	12.0%	37.4%	46.6%	2.7%	1.3%	625
Poor/Working class	2004
	2010	3.8	22.8%	38.3%	35.4%	2.1%	1.4%	579
Middle class	2004	3.6	13.5%	40.8%	42.1%	1.8%	1.8%	1,529
	2010	3.8	23.4%	38.7%	34.9%	1.9%	1.1%	1,288
Upper middle/Upper class	2004	3.6	13.6%	37.4%	46.1%	2.2%	0.6%	978
	2010	3.8	24.1%	34.9%	37.5%	2.2%	1.3%	768

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