North Carolina State University
2002 Sophomore Student Survey:
College Comparisons of Academic Environment

This Web document reports survey data on college differences in the respondents' overall assessment of the academic environment at NC State. Survey results for all respondents are provided in "2002 Sophomore Student Survey: All Respondents." For information about the survey and analysis methods, see "2002 Sophomore Student Survey: Introduction, Methods, and Student Demographic Profile." Exact question wording is available on the web or by clicking on the "Q" in the section heading of the tables.


Academic Environment
     Intellectual environment
     Overall instruction
     Overall education
     Classroom environment
     Faculty contributions

 

Academic Environment

Q Intellectual environment
Intellectual environment on this campus NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 3.08 3.15 2.96 3.00 3.05 3.13 3.06 3.10 3.04 3.11 3.11
    0.5 0.3 3.8 2.9 0.4 . . 2.0 1.9 . .
1: Very weak %
2: Weak % 10.1 8.9 9.6 . 11.6 12.5 11.6 6.1 9.6 9.0 9.5
3: Strong % 70.1 66.1 73.1 91.4 70.7 62.5 70.8 71.4 71.2 70.7 70.3
4: Very strong % 19.3 24.7 13.5 5.7 17.4 25.0 17.6 20.4 17.3 20.4 20.3
Back to top

Q Overall instruction
Overall quality of instruction NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 2.99 3.12 3.15 3.03 2.87 3.04 3.03 2.98 2.90 3.08 2.85
    1.3 0.9 . 2.9 2.1 2.1 . . . 1.8 2.7
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 15.3 9.5 5.8 8.8 21.3 14.9 14.9 18.4 15.4 11.4 18.9
3: Good % 66.2 66.1 73.1 70.6 64.7 59.6 66.8 65.3 78.8 64.1 68.9
4: Excellent % 17.2 23.4 21.2 17.6 12.0 23.4 18.3 16.3 5.8 22.8 9.5
Back to top

Q Overall education
Overall education at NC State NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 3.18 3.29 3.33 3.09 3.09 3.17 3.17 3.29 3.25 3.22 3.12
    0.6 0.3 . 2.9 0.8 . 0.4 . . 0.6 2.7
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 10.0 7.6 3.8 5.9 12.9 10.6 10.2 12.2 5.8 9.1 9.5
3: Good % 59.7 54.4 59.6 70.6 62.2 61.7 62.0 46.9 63.5 57.6 60.8
4: Excellent % 29.7 37.7 36.5 20.6 24.0 27.7 27.4 40.8 30.8 32.7 27.0
Back to top

Q Classroom environment

# Classes too large
to learn effectively		 NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
    27.4 25.6 40.4 22.9 30.4 26.0 22.9 41.7 19.2 24.0 30.1
None %
One % 16.9 19.9 32.7 17.1 13.2 16.0 14.3 22.9 19.2 19.2 16.4
Two % 27.8 28.2 19.2 20.0 24.1 34.0 34.2 20.8 34.6 28.7 30.1
Three % 15.1 14.9 3.8 22.9 15.2 6.0 17.7 8.3 21.2 16.8 12.3
Four or more % 12.8 11.4 3.8 17.1 17.0 18.0 10.9 6.3 5.8 11.4 11.0
 
# Classes difficulty
understanding instructor's English		 NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
    16.7 13.4 40.4 25.7 11.0 20.0 26.9 14.3 9.6 15.6 18.9
None %
One % 27.4 29.0 28.8 37.1 20.7 26.0 35.1 22.4 15.4 34.1 29.7
Two % 28.4 29.3 26.9 11.4 30.2 32.0 24.3 28.6 26.9 30.5 29.7
Three % 15.1 18.2 1.9 14.3 18.5 12.0 8.2 20.4 25.0 13.2 10.8
Four or more % 12.4 10.2 1.9 11.4 19.7 10.0 5.6 14.3 23.1 6.6 10.8
Back to top

Q Faculty Contributions

Set high expectations to learn NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 3.19 3.27 3.37 3.28 3.11 3.24 3.19 3.20 3.12 3.21 3.09
    0.5 0.3 . . 1.0 . 0.4 . . . 1.4
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 8.1 4.1 5.8 8.3 11.1 12.0 6.3 10.2 7.7 8.2 9.5
3: Good % 63.5 63.6 51.9 55.6 63.6 52.0 67.2 59.2 73.1 62.6 67.6
4: Excellent % 27.9 32.0 42.3 36.1 24.3 36.0 26.1 30.6 19.2 29.2 21.6
 
Respect diverse talents/ways of learning NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 2.86 2.94 3.02 2.94 2.75 2.90 2.91 2.90 2.73 2.92 2.77
    2.9 1.6 1.9 . 3.2 8.0 1.5 . 7.7 3.5 6.8
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 23.8 20.4 19.2 25.7 28.3 18.0 23.5 24.5 25.0 21.1 21.6
3: Good % 57.9 60.8 53.8 54.3 58.3 50.0 57.8 61.2 53.8 55.6 59.5
4: Excellent % 15.3 17.2 25.0 20.0 10.1 24.0 17.2 14.3 13.5 19.9 12.2
 
Encourage you to be actively involved NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 2.90 3.04 3.08 2.86 2.74 2.94 3.01 2.90 2.75 2.98 2.78
    1.9 1.6 2.0 . 2.2 . 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.7
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 25.2 18.2 19.6 31.4 33.1 26.0 17.9 31.3 34.6 21.1 28.4
3: Good % 53.9 54.9 47.1 51.4 53.1 54.0 57.1 41.7 50.0 55.0 56.8
4: Excellent % 19.1 25.4 31.4 17.1 11.6 20.0 23.1 25.0 13.5 22.2 12.2
 
Encourage student-faculty interaction NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 2.79 2.93 2.85 2.83 2.68 2.82 2.79 2.78 2.77 2.88 2.68
    4.0 1.9 3.8 2.8 5.9 6.0 2.6 4.1 . 4.1 6.8
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 30.4 26.6 28.8 33.3 32.8 24.0 33.6 28.6 34.6 25.7 31.5
3: Good % 48.2 48.3 46.2 41.7 49.0 52.0 45.5 53.1 53.8 48.0 47.9
4: Excellent % 17.5 23.2 21.2 22.2 12.3 18.0 18.3 14.3 11.5 22.2 13.7
 
Give you frequent and prompt feedback NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 2.90 3.03 3.06 3.06 2.76 3.00 2.89 2.82 2.69 3.05 2.84
    2.2 0.9 1.9 2.8 3.7 2.0 2.2 4.1 1.9 . 1.4
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 24.4 19.1 21.2 13.9 30.1 16.0 25.1 22.4 32.7 19.5 27.0
3: Good % 54.9 56.4 46.2 58.3 52.3 62.0 54.3 61.2 59.6 55.6 58.1
4: Excellent % 18.5 23.5 30.8 25.0 13.8 20.0 18.4 12.2 5.8 24.9 13.5
 
Encourage devoting time/energy to course NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 3.17 3.25 3.50 3.17 3.12 3.14 3.17 3.04 3.10 3.20 3.14
    0.6 0.3 . . 0.6 . 0.4 2.0 . 0.6 4.1
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 11.6 10.1 7.7 11.1 14.4 8.0 10.4 20.4 11.5 9.4 8.1
3: Good % 57.5 54.4 34.6 61.1 57.6 70.0 60.8 49.0 67.3 59.4 58.1
4: Excellent % 30.3 35.2 57.7 27.8 27.4 22.0 28.4 28.6 21.2 30.6 29.7
 
Opp. to learn cooperatively w/ students NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 2.80 2.82 3.21 2.89 2.69 2.86 2.83 2.71 2.79 2.92 2.68
    3.9 1.6 . 8.6 6.1 8.0 3.0 4.1 5.8 2.3 2.7
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 28.1 30.7 17.3 17.1 30.4 20.0 28.4 32.7 25.0 21.1 33.8
3: Good % 52.4 51.7 44.2 51.4 52.0 50.0 51.1 51.0 53.8 58.5 56.8
4: Excellent % 15.6 16.0 38.5 22.9 11.5 22.0 17.5 12.2 15.4 18.1 6.8
 
Care about academic success and welfare NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 2.73 2.86 3.00 3.00 2.57 2.78 2.79 2.67 2.69 2.85 2.56
    6.4 3.5 7.7 2.9 8.3 12.0 4.1 10.2 1.9 7.1 11.0
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 29.2 24.6 15.4 22.9 36.6 16.0 30.0 30.6 38.5 20.7 31.5
3: Good % 48.8 54.6 46.2 45.7 44.7 54.0 49.1 40.8 48.1 52.1 47.9
4: Excellent % 15.6 17.4 30.8 28.6 10.4 18.0 16.9 18.4 11.5 20.1 9.6
 
General eval of instructors on 8 items NCSU College/School
CALS Design CED COE CNR CHASS PAMS COT COM FYC
  Mean 2.96 3.10 3.17 3.03 2.84 3.08 2.98 2.92 2.87 3.02 2.80
    1.0 0.6 . . 1.6 . 0.4 . . 1.2 4.1
1: Poor %
2: Fair % 15.9 8.8 9.6 16.7 22.3 18.0 14.2 18.4 21.2 11.7 17.6
3: Good % 69.0 70.4 63.5 63.9 66.9 56.0 72.4 71.4 71.2 70.8 73.0
4: Excellent % 14.0 20.1 26.9 19.4 9.1 26.0 13.1 10.2 7.7 16.4 5.4
Back to top

 

 

 
For more information on the 2002 Sophomore Student Survey 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: October, 2002

Download a Microsoft Excel Version of this report.

Return to 2002 Sophomore Survey Table of Contents Page

Return to OIRP Survey Page

Return to OIRP Home Page