North Carolina State University
2004 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 "2004 Sophomore Student Survey: All Respondents." For information about the survey and analysis methods, see "2004 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.

Intellectual Enviroment | Overall Instruction and Education | Classroom Environment | Faculty Contributions


Q Intellectual Environment

Intellectual environment on this campus
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
3.15
3.20
2.90
3.25
3.19
3.00
3.16
3.15
3.22
3.09
2.98
 
 
0.3
.
.
.
0.3
.
.
.
.
0.8
1.8
1: Very weak
%
2: Weak
%
7.4
5.9
16.7
.
6.4
15.4
6.7
7.3
6.3
10.3
12.3
3: Strong
%
69.1
68.2
76.7
75.0
67.6
69.2
70.1
70.7
65.6
68.3
71.9
4: Very strong
%
23.2
25.9
6.7
25.0
25.7
15.4
23.1
22.0
28.1
20.6
14.0
Back to Top

Q Overall Instruction and Education


Overall quality of instruction
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
3.03
3.07
3.03
2.92
2.93
3.03
3.12
3.13
2.91
3.04
3.07
 
 
1.3
1.3
.
2.8
2.8
.
.
2.5
.
.
1.8
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
14.1
10.9
16.7
13.9
20.5
15.4
11.9
15.0
21.9
9.4
5.3
3: Good
%
65.0
67.8
63.3
72.2
57.5
66.7
64.6
50.0
65.6
77.2
77.2
4: Excellent
%
19.6
20.1
20.0
11.1
19.3
17.9
23.5
32.5
12.5
13.4
15.8

Overall education at NC State
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
3.20
3.28
3.27
3.22
3.19
3.10
3.21
3.20
3.19
3.17
3.05
 
 
0.5
.
.
.
1.2
.
.
2.5
.
.
1.8
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
9.4
6.7
10.0
13.9
9.2
17.9
9.8
12.5
9.4
8.7
10.5
3: Good
%
59.2
58.4
53.3
50.0
58.7
53.8
59.4
47.5
62.5
65.9
68.4
4: Excellent
%
30.9
34.9
36.7
36.1
30.9
28.2
30.8
37.5
28.1
25.4
19.3
Back to Top

Classroom Environment

Q Number of Classes Too Large to Learn Effectively

# Classes too large to learn effectively
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
 
26.2
24.0
33.3
26.5
28.0
14.6
31.9
36.6
28.1
15.6
19.0
None
%
One
%
16.6
18.2
33.3
11.8
14.3
9.8
18.9
24.4
21.9
11.7
13.8
Two
%
26.6
24.8
23.3
17.6
30.1
24.4
24.1
22.0
31.3
23.4
41.4
Three
%
16.3
21.5
10.0
26.5
14.3
17.1
13.3
12.2
9.4
18.0
19.0
Four or more
%
14.4
11.6
.
17.6
13.4
34.1
11.9
4.9
9.4
31.3
6.9
Back to Top

Q Number of Classes had Difficulty Understanding the Instructor???s English

# Classes difficulty understand instruct
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
 
23.4
32.6
51.7
11.4
16.3
17.1
28.8
19.5
12.5
14.8
24.1
None
%
One
%
30.0
35.1
37.9
31.4
21.5
22.0
36.9
36.6
15.6
30.5
27.6
Two
%
24.5
19.0
6.9
31.4
26.5
31.7
21.8
26.8
34.4
28.1
34.5
Three
%
13.6
8.3
3.4
17.1
18.8
14.6
9.2
17.1
34.4
16.4
8.6
Four or more
%
8.5
5.0
.
8.6
16.9
14.6
3.3
.
3.1
10.2
5.2
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
3.23
3.28
3.40
3.17
3.19
3.20
3.25
3.29
3.10
3.23
3.19
 
 
0.2
.
.
.
0.9
.
.
.
.
.
.
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
7.3
6.2
10.0
8.3
9.3
7.3
5.5
7.3
16.1
4.7
8.5
3: Good
%
61.4
59.3
40.0
66.7
59.6
65.9
64.0
56.1
58.1
67.4
64.4
4: Excellent
%
31.1
34.6
50.0
25.0
30.1
26.8
30.5
36.6
25.8
27.9
27.1

Respect diverse talents/ways of learning
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
2.93
2.96
2.87
3.03
2.83
2.90
2.99
2.95
2.71
3.03
2.95
 
 
2.1
0.8
.
2.8
3.9
2.4
0.7
4.9
3.2
0.8
5.1
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
21.0
21.1
30.0
16.7
25.9
19.5
17.8
14.6
29.0
17.8
13.6
3: Good
%
58.7
59.5
53.3
55.6
53.0
63.4
63.7
61.0
61.3
58.9
62.7
4: Excellent
%
18.2
18.6
16.7
25.0
17.2
14.6
17.8
19.5
6.5
22.5
18.6

Encourage you to be actively involved
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
3.03
3.11
3.17
3.06
2.94
3.00
3.09
3.15
2.75
2.99
3.05
 
 
1.1
0.4
.
.
2.4
.
0.7
.
3.1
.
1.7
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
18.6
16.5
20.0
13.9
22.3
26.8
14.8
12.2
25.0
20.2
16.9
3: Good
%
56.8
55.0
43.3
66.7
54.5
46.3
59.6
61.0
65.6
60.5
55.9
4: Excellent
%
23.6
28.1
36.7
19.4
20.8
26.8
24.8
26.8
6.3
19.4
25.4

Encourage student-faculty interaction
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
2.93
2.97
3.13
2.83
2.91
3.05
2.91
2.95
2.91
2.90
2.92
 
 
2.7
1.2
.
8.3
3.4
.
3.0
2.4
3.1
3.1
3.4
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
23.8
24.7
23.3
19.4
23.8
19.5
22.9
26.8
28.1
24.8
23.7
3: Good
%
51.2
50.2
40.0
52.8
51.2
56.1
54.6
43.9
43.8
51.2
50.8
4: Excellent
%
22.2
23.9
36.7
19.4
21.6
24.4
19.6
26.8
25.0
20.9
22.0

Give you frequent and prompt feedback
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
2.95
2.95
2.80
2.89
2.95
3.07
2.94
3.07
2.84
3.03
2.91
 
 
1.2
0.4
.
2.8
2.4
.
0.4
2.4
.
0.8
1.7
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
22.2
22.6
40.0
22.2
20.5
17.1
24.5
14.6
25.0
17.8
27.6
3: Good
%
56.9
58.8
40.0
58.3
57.2
58.5
56.1
56.1
65.6
58.9
48.3
4: Excellent
%
19.7
18.1
20.0
16.7
19.9
24.4
19.0
26.8
9.4
22.5
22.4

Encourage devoting time/energy to course
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
3.22
3.31
3.07
3.11
3.24
3.24
3.14
3.29
3.03
3.24
3.22
 
 
0.4
.
.
.
0.9
.
.
.
.
1.6
.
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
9.5
8.3
20.0
13.9
8.7
7.3
10.0
4.9
15.6
8.5
11.9
3: Good
%
57.8
52.9
53.3
61.1
55.4
61.0
65.6
61.0
65.6
54.3
54.2
4: Excellent
%
32.3
38.8
26.7
25.0
34.9
31.7
24.4
34.1
18.8
35.7
33.9

Opp. to learn cooperatively w/ students
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
2.89
2.86
3.07
2.89
2.83
3.22
2.93
2.88
2.78
2.90
2.92
 
 
2.0
2.1
.
.
3.3
.
0.7
2.4
.
1.6
5.1
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
24.9
26.0
20.0
33.3
27.7
12.2
23.3
29.3
34.4
21.7
16.9
3: Good
%
55.0
55.4
53.3
44.4
51.2
53.7
58.5
46.3
53.1
62.0
59.3
4: Excellent
%
18.1
16.5
26.7
22.2
17.8
34.1
17.4
22.0
12.5
14.7
18.6

Care about academic success and welfare
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
2.86
2.94
2.97
2.78
2.71
2.80
2.93
3.00
2.75
2.90
2.91
 
 
4.3
4.1
.
2.8
7.6
4.9
1.5
2.4
6.3
3.9
3.4
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
24.4
22.3
26.7
30.6
29.1
24.4
22.3
19.5
28.1
21.3
19.0
3: Good
%
52.7
49.2
50.0
52.8
48.2
56.1
58.4
53.7
50.0
55.9
60.3
4: Excellent
%
18.6
24.4
23.3
13.9
15.2
14.6
17.8
24.4
15.6
18.9
17.2

General eval of instructors on 8 items
NCSU
College/School
CALS
Design
CED
COE
CNR
CHASS
PAMS
COT
COM
FYC
 
Mean
3.05
3.08
3.23
2.89
3.00
3.08
3.07
3.10
2.94
3.03
3.12
 
 
0.6
.
.
.
1.8
.
.
.
.
.
1.7
1: Poor
%
2: Fair
%
12.3
10.3
10.0
22.2
14.8
10.0
10.8
12.2
18.8
11.9
8.5
3: Good
%
68.9
71.6
56.7
66.7
65.1
72.5
71.4
65.9
68.8
73.0
66.1
4: Excellent
%
18.2
18.1
33.3
11.1
18.4
17.5
17.8
22.0
12.5
15.1
23.7
Back to Top



For more information on the 2004 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: September, 2004

Return to 2004 Sophomore Survey Table of Contents Page

Return to OIRP Survey Page

Return to OIRP Home Page