North Carolina State University
2006 Sophomore Student Survey:
All Respondents

This overview report presents findings from all sophomore students participating in the 2006 Sophomore Student Survey. For information about the survey methods and analysis, see "2006 Sophomore Student Survey: Introduction, Methods, and Student Demographic Profile." For additional responses broken down by gender, race/ethnicity, and college, as well as a copy of the survey instrument with exact question wording, see the Table of Contents.

Table of Contents:

Background Information:

Academic Environment and Faculty Contributions: Campus Climate: Student Services: Knowledge, Skills and Personal Development Student Employment and Extracurricular Activities

Background Information

This section presents background information provided by those who responded to the survey, including plans for degree completion and satisfaction with their choice of NC State.
Plans for Degree Completion and Satisfaction with NC State (Table 1)
Sophomores' overall satisfaction with NC State is high. Slightly more than ninety percent of respondents (90.8%)said they plan to complete their degree at NC State; only about two percent do not intend to stay. The majority of respondents (71.2%) also stated that thay would choose NC State again if they could start over. Most of the others (21.5%) were not sure if they would choose NC State again; only 7.3 percent said they would not.
Table 1: Plans for Degree Completion
  Yes No Not Sure
Plan to complete degree at NC State? 90.8% 2.2% 7.0%
Would still choose to attend NC State? 71.2% 7.3% 21.5%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Withdrawal/Transfer from NC State (Tables 2 and 3)

The majority of respondents (56.8%) reported that they had not ever considered withdrawing or transferring from NC State. Among those who had considered it, the majority did not consider it seriously.

Over one-third (38.0%) of students who had considered leaving NC State mentioned reasons related to programs (e.g., Nursing) that NC State did not offer. The next most frequently offered reasons (cited by 32.7% of respondents) were personal (e.g., emotional, medical). Fewer than 10 percent (6.5%) cited financial reasons (such as increasing tuition) as a reason for having considered leaving.
Table 2: Withdrawal/Transfer from NC State
Ever consider withdrawing/transferring from NCSU N %
No 812 56.8
Yes, not seriously 367 25.7
Yes, seriously 230 16.1
Yes-left & returned 20 1.4
Back to Top

Table 3: Reasons for considering leaving NC State
Category N %
Program
(e.g., NC State doesn't offer a major or isn't perceived to be as strong in a particular field.)		 186 38
Personal
(e.g., family, emotional, medical, happiness)		 160 32.7
Academic
(e.g., issues related to faculty, TAs, curriculum, courses, class size, advising)		 115 23.5
Environment
(e.g., diversity, city, atmosphere, physical environment)		 115 23.5
Financial
(e.g., rising tuition costs, high out-of-state tuition costs.) 		32 6.5
Miscellaneous
(e.g., issues with staff.) 		13 2.7
*Note: Respondents could offer more than one reason.

Academic Environment and Faculty Contributions

This section presents respondents' evaluations of the overall learning environment at NC State, and their assessment of faculty contribution to their education.

Intellectual Environment (Table 4)

Nearly all respondents (92.1%) characterized the intellectual environment on NC State's campus as either "very strong" (23.5%) or "strong" (68.6%).
Table 4: Intellectual Environment
  Mean Very strong Strong Weak Very weak
Intellectual environment on this campus 3.15 23.5% 68.6% 6.8% 1.0%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Overall Instruction and Education (Table 5)

Respondents were very pleased with the overall quality of instruction and education NC State. Over 80 percent rated NC State as "excellent" or "good" in these two areas. Close to 40 percent (38.8%) of respondents said that the overall education they were receiving was "excellent," and another 53.4 percent rated it as "good".
Table 5: Overall Instruction and Education
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Overall quality of instruction 3.09 22.4% 66.1% 10.0% 1.5%
Overall education at NC State 3.30 38.8% 53.4% 7.0% 0.8%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Classroom Environment (Table 6)

A majority of respondents reported that during their time at NC State they had had at least one class that was too large to learn effectively, or had had an instructor whose spoken English was difficult to understand. About one-fourth of respondents (24.6%) reported having had three or more classes that were too large to learn effectively. A slightly smaller proportion (23.2%) reported having had three or more classes where the instructor???s English was difficult to understand.
Table 6: Classroom Environment
  Four or more Three Two One None
# Classes too large to learn effectively 9.2% 15.4% 27.4% 18.8% 29.2%
# Classes difficulty understand instructor's English 9.5% 13.7% 26.8% 30.1% 19.8%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Faculty Contributions (Table 7)

A majority of respondents gave positive ratings to faculty members??? contributions to their educational experience at NC State. When asked for a general evaluation of NC State???s instructors, 88.1 percent of respondents said either "excellent" (18.1%) or "good" (70%).

Around 90 percent of respondents gave either "excellent" or " good" ratings to instructors for setting high expectations for students to learn (93.7%), and for encouraging students to devote sufficient time and energy to their coursework (89.4%). Respondents were somewhat less positive about faculty-student interaction and teaching methods. More than one-quarter of respondents rated how well faculty members care about [students???] academic success (26.9%), encourage student-faculty interaction (24.2%), and develop opportunities for cooperative learning (29.0%) as either "poor" or "fair".
Table 7: Faculty Contributions
How well do faculty members... Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Set high expectations to learn 3.26 32.4% 61.3% 6.1% 0.2%
Respect diverse talents/ways of learning 2.96 19.8% 58.3% 20.0% 1.9%
Encourage you to be actively involved 3.01 22.1% 58.0% 18.4% 1.5%
Encourage student-faculty interaction 2.95 22.0% 53.8% 21.4% 2.8%
Give you frequent and prompt feedback 3.01 22.9% 56.7% 18.7% 1.6%
Encourage devoting time/energy to coursework 3.21 32.8% 56.6% 9.8% 0.9%
Opp. to learn cooperatively w/ students 2.86 17.5% 53.4% 26.7% 2.3%
Care about academic success and welfare 2.90 20.7% 52.5% 23.4% 3.5%
General eval of instructors on 8 items 3.05 18.1% 70.0% 11.0% 0.9%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Mentoring Experiences with NC State Faculty (Table 8)

Of the mentoring experiences asked about, respondents were most likely to have met regularly with faculty for academic guidance (26.2%) or professional guidance (15.2%), and to have worked with faculty on campus life activities (11.8%). The remaining mentoring experiences asked about were participated in by less than ten percent of respondents, with the smallest number having worked on an extension or public service project with a faculty member outside of course or program requirements (3.8%). All mentoring experiences, however, were generally very highly rated by participants in terms of contribution to their personal and/or professional growth.
Table 8: Mentoring Experiences with NC State Faculty:
  Yes, had experience Experience's Contribution to Personal/Professional Growth
N % Mean 4: A Great Deal 3: Some 2: A Little 1: Not at All
Work on ind study w/ faculty 84 5.9% 3.39 53.0% 36.4% 7.6% 3.0%
Work on non-course rsch w/ faculty 77 5.4% 3.52 60.0% 31.7% 8.3% 0.0%
Work on extension/pub svc proj w/ faculty 54 3.8% 3.47 55.3% 36.8% 7.9% 0.0%
Assist teaching class/lab w/ fac guidance 76 5.3% 3.32 40.0% 51.7% 8.3% 0.0%
Reg met w/ faculty for academic guidance 373 26.2% 3.58 64.1% 30.6% 4.7% 0.6%
Reg met w/ faculty for prof guidance 216 15.2% 3.61 68.5% 25.0% 5.5% 1.0%
Reg met w/ faculty for non-acad guidance 108 7.6% 3.61 65.6% 30.0% 4.4% 0.0%
Work w/ faculty on campus activities 168 11.8% 3.46 53.7% 39.5% 6.1% 0.7%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Campus Climate

This section explores students' attitudes toward diversity on campus, including NC State's commitment to helping minority students succeed and to fostering diversity on campus, how supportive the campus environment is toward various populations, and respondents' sense of belonging at NC State.

Student Assessment of Diversity at NC State (Table 9)

Respondents were generally satisfied with issues related to diversity at NC State. An overwhelming majority (94.3%) agreed that NC State is committed to helping minorities succeed, and 83 percent agreed that there is visible leadership to help foster diversity on this campus.
Table 9: Diversity Issues
  Mean Agree strongly Agree somewhat Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly
NC State committed to helping minority students 3.35 41.3% 53.0% 4.8% 1.0%
NC State leadership fosters diversity on campus 3.11 31.9% 51.1% 12.7% 4.2%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Campus Climate for Student Groups (Table 10)

Respondents were asked their opinion on how supportive the campus is toward different groups of students (e.g., women, African Americans, students with disabilities, etc.). Overall, of the groups asked about, respondents were most likely to report that the campus is "strongly supportive" of men (48.4%), followed by women (39.9%) and African Americans (36.8%). Respondents were least likely to report the campus is "strongly supportive" of gay and lesbian students (19.4%). About 15 percent (15.5%) of respondents said the campus is non-supportive of gay and lesbian students - about 3 times the number giving such a rating to any other group asked about.
Table 10: Campus Support for Various Groups
Assess campus climate for... Mean Strongly supportive Mildly supportive Neutral Mildly nonsupportive Strongly nonsupportive
Women 4.13 39.9% 35.7% 22.2% 2.0% 0.2%
Men 4.18 48.4% 24.3% 24.8% 2.0% 0.6%
African Americans 4.00 36.8% 31.9% 27.0% 3.2% 1.0%
Other ethnic minorities 3.88 31.1% 32.8% 30.5% 4.7% 0.9%
International students 3.93 33.8% 30.4% 31.4% 3.1% 1.2%
Disabled students 3.81 29.3% 30.2% 34.0% 5.0% 1.5%
Gay/lesbian students 3.44 19.4% 25.6% 39.6% 10.8% 4.7%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Sense of Belonging at NC State (Table 11)

More than 80 percent of respondents stated that it was "very" (47.1%) or "moderately important" (38.7%) to experience a sense of belonging at NC State. Over one-fourth (30.5%) of all respondents said they actually did experience a sense of belonging to a "great extent" and another 52 percent experienced it to "some extent".

There is a clear relationship between sophomores??? beliefs about the importance of feeling a sense of belonging at NC State and actually having that experience. In general, respondents who believed it was important to experience a sense of belonging while at NC State responded that they achieved that experience to at least some extent. Only 1.6 percent of respondents who thought it was "very important" to experience a sense of belonging did not experience it at all. Conversely, those who saw it as less important generally reported feeling less connected to NC State.
Table 11: Sense of Belonging at NC State
  How important is it for you to experience a sense of belonging at NC State?
To what extent do you experience a sense of belonging at NC State? % Saying
  Extent Very Moderately Slightly Not at all
Great extent 30.5 47.7 18.9 5.3 3.8
Some extent 52.1 41.1 67.9 54.0 22.6
Small extent 14.4 9.6 2.1 34.7 43.4
Not at all 2.9 1.6 1.1 6.0 30.2
Importance 100% 47.2 38.7 10.4 3.7
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Student Services

This section examines respondents' perceptions of campus safety, followed by a discussion of respondents' ratings of services available outside of the classroom and satisfaction with offices that serve students. Ratings ranged from 1 ("poor") to 4 ("excellent"). "Don't know" and "Did not use" responses are excluded from the analyses.

Campus Safety (Table 12)

Over seventy percent of respondents (71.9%) felt that the campus had taken sufficient steps to esure their safety.
Table 12: Campus Safety
  Yes No Not Sure
Campus taken sufficient steps to ensure safety 71.9% 13.3% 14.7%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Services Outside of the Classroom (Tables 13-20)

Respondents were asked to rate 35 specific services, divided into 7 categories: new student orientation, academic advising, academic assistance and tutoring, library, technology, career-related, and the campus bookstore. Respondents appear to be satisfied with all such services, with less than 7 percent rating any of the 35 individual services as "poor." The highest ratings were given to services related to technology on campus and library services, while lowest average ratings were given to those services related to New Student Orientation.

New Student Orientation: While still rated positively by majorities of respondents, various aspects of orientation for new students received relatively lower ratings compared to the other services asked about. Only one aspect, helpfulness of staff, was rated as "excellent" by at least 30 percent of respondents. Seventeen percent or fewer respondents rated each of the remaning aspects as "excellent".
Table 13: New Student Orientation
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Length of orientation session 2.78 13.5% 57.6% 22.6% 6.4%
Quality of orientation programs 2.80 14.1% 55.9% 25.4% 4.5%
Helpfulness of orientation staff 3.15 31.2% 54.8% 11.6% 2.5%
Orientations accomodations 2.85 16.1% 57.6% 21.5% 4.8%
Overall effectiveness of orientation 2.89 16.7% 60.0% 19.1% 4.2%

Academic Advising: Each of the aspects related to academic advising was rated as "excellent" by about one-third of respondents. Relative to other academic advising issues, respondents were slightly more likely to rate access to advisor and accurate information about degree requirements and course sequencing as "excellent," and slightly more likely to rate sufficient time with advisor and as either "fair" or "poor" (26.4%).
Table 14: Academic Advising
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Access to advisor 3.11 38.7% 39.7% 15.8% 5.8%
Sufficient time with advisor 3.01 34.0% 39.6% 19.6% 6.8%
Accurate info on degree reqs/course sequencing 3.06 37.3% 38.2% 17.7% 6.8%
Advisor knowledge of policies/procedures 3.04 31.3% 46.5% 17.3% 4.9%
Academic advising services overall 3.08 33.8% 45.3% 15.7% 5.3%

Academic Assistance and Tutoring: Respondent ratings varied for the different areas of academic assistance and tutoring. Assistance and tutoring for science and mathematics were most likely to be rated as "excellent" (37.9% and 30.9%, respectively). Assistance or tutoring for reading and for foreign languages were slightly more likely than those for other areas to be rated "fair" or "poor" (25.2% and 23.2%, respectively).
Table 15: Academic Assistance/Tutoring
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Academic assistance in writing 3.00 25.3% 54.4% 14.8% 5.5%
Academic assistance in reading 2.87 17.9% 56.9% 19.5% 5.7%
Academic assistance in mathematics 3.11 30.9% 52.8% 12.7% 3.5%
Academic assistance in study skills 2.96 21.2% 57.8% 16.6% 4.4%
Academic assistance in foreign language 2.96 25.2% 51.5% 16.9% 6.3%
Academic assistance in computer science 2.98 25.3% 52.7% 16.9% 5.1%
Academic assistance in science 3.22 37.9% 48.3% 11.3% 2.5%
Academic help services overall 3.09 25.2% 60.3% 12.5% 1.9%

Library: Respondents seemed overall very satisfied with the library services asked about, with over ninety percent of respondents rating 4 of the 5 as "excellent" or "good." Ratings were particularly high for hours of operation, with 69.6 percent rating them as "excellent". Ratings were lowest for training to use the library, with over twenty percent rating it as only "fair" (18.2%) or "poor" (4.6%).
Table 16: Library
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Library hours of operation 3.67 69.6% 28.3% 1.7% 0.4%
Staff responsiveness 3.32 41.9% 49.1% 7.9% 1.2%
Access to databases and collections 3.42 49.7% 43.4% 6.2% 0.7%
Training to use library 3.03 30.8% 46.5% 18.2% 4.6%
Library services overall 3.43 46.7% 49.8% 3.2% 0.3%

Technology: Respondents also gave high ratings to some of the specific technology services available on campus, with at least 50 percent rating 3 of the 6 services asked about as "excellent." Access to the Internet received the highest average rating, with 68.2 percent rating it as "excellent". Students gave lower ratings to access to trained staff for help and technology training classes, with 16.3% and 14.4%, respectively, rating them as either "fair" or "poor."
Table 17: Technology
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Access to the Internet 3.64 68.2% 28.5% 2.7% 0.6%
Hrs of op for comp center labs and help 3.48 54.5% 39.8% 4.9% 0.8%
Access to up-to-date facilities 3.45 51.0% 43.4% 5.0% 0.6%
Access to trained staff for help 3.16 35.3% 48.4% 13.5% 2.8%
Technology training classes 3.19 35.2% 50.5% 12.1% 2.3%
Technology services overall 3.42 46.5% 49.4% 3.8% 0.3%

Career-related Services: Various aspects of career-related services were consistently rated positively by respondents. Each of the services asked about was rated as "excellent" by at least one-third of respondents.
Table 18: Career-Related Services
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Opportunity for career assistance 3.24 36.3% 53.5% 8.3% 1.9%
Info. on internships/co-op/other 3.18 36.6% 48.0% 12.5% 2.9%
Resources to explore career options 3.18 35.5% 49.1% 12.8% 2.6%
Info. avail through computers/Internet 3.26 38.8% 49.8% 9.6% 1.7%
Career-related services overall 3.20 33.6% 54.4% 10.4% 1.6%

Bookstore: More than one-fourth of respondents (26.7%) rated timely availability of course materials at the bookstore as "excellent".
Table 19: Bookstore
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Avail of books/supplies at bookstore 3.00 26.7% 51.3% 17.2% 4.8%

Virtual Advising Center: Over one-fourth of respondents rated the Virtual Advising Center as "excellent."
Table 20: Virtual Advising Center
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Virtual Advising Center Web site 3.15 28.2% 61.1% 8.4% 2.3%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Non-Academic Service Areas (Tables 21 and 22)

Respondents were asked to rate various non-academic service areas, and when relevant, the responsiveness of the staff connected with these services. While each service was rated positively by a majority of respondents, average ratings of services varied widely. Respondents were most likely to give a rating of "excellent" to opportunities to participate in extra-curricular activities (33.6%), personal counseling services (32.3%), and health services (31.6%), and least likely, to campus food services (14.1%).

Respondents??? ratings of staff responsiveness were generally similar to the associated service. Respondents, however, were more likely to rate food services staff as "excellent" (18.4% vs. 14.1% for the service itself), and less likely to rate staff associated with opportunities in extra-curricular activities as "excellent" compared to the opportunities in extracurricular service in general (25.1% vs. 33.6%). Overall, staff responsiveness for health services was most likely to be rated as "excellent" (33.5%), and food service least likely (18.4%).
Table 21: Evaluation of Non-Academic Service Areas
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Service Area: Opps in ex-curr activities 3.18 33.6% 53.4% 10.9% 2.1%
Service Area: Counseling (personal) 3.13 32.3% 50.8% 14.4% 2.5%
Service Area: Health Services 3.11 31.6% 51.3% 14.0% 3.1%
Service Area: Registration Process 3.11 29.5% 54.5% 13.4% 2.6%
Service Area: Business Services/Cashier 3.09 24.8% 61.4% 11.8% 2.0%
Service Area: Opps to Dev Leadership Skills 3.05 29.3% 50.5% 16.0% 4.2%
Service Area: Opps. in Commun Serv Projs 2.97 25.8% 50.3% 18.8% 5.2%
Service Area: Residence Life Programs 2.92 22.1% 52.4% 21.3% 4.2%
Service Area: Financial Aid Disbursement 2.90 27.2% 43.6% 21.1% 8.0%
Service Area: Financial Aid Application/Award 2.90 26.0% 46.8% 18.7% 8.5%
Service Area: Food Services 2.59 14.1% 42.7% 31.4% 11.8%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top
Table 22: Evaluation of Non-Academic Services' Staff Responsiveness
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Staff Resp: Health Services 3.10 33.5% 47.8% 13.9% 4.8%
Staff Resp: Opps in ex-curr activities 3.04 25.1% 56.8% 14.9% 3.3%
Staff Resp: Business Services/Cashier 3.01 23.2% 58.1% 15.4% 3.3%
Staff Resp: Counseling (personal) 3.00 29.2% 47.6% 17.7% 5.6%
Staff Resp: Registration Process 2.97 23.3% 55.6% 16.3% 4.8%
Staff Resp: Residence Life Programs 2.92 21.6% 54.1% 18.7% 5.6%
Staff Resp: Financial Aid Disbursement 2.86 23.0% 48.2% 20.6% 8.3%
Staff Resp: Financial Aid Application/Award 2.84 22.7% 48.0% 19.8% 9.5%
Staff Resp: Food Services 2.77 18.4% 48.8% 24.1% 8.7%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Financial Aid (Tables 23 and 24)

More than half of respondents (56.9%) said they had received some type of financial aid (e.g., scholarships, grants, loans, work-study) while at NC State. About one-third of them (32.7%) reported being "very satisfied" with their aid package. About 15 percent were either "moderately" or "very dissatisfied" with their aid. Majorities of those receiving aid gave positive ratings to the customer service skills of the financial aid staff. Respondents were most likely to rate advisor staff as "excellent" (35.3%), followed by reception staff (29.6%) and phone staff (28.9%).
Table 23: Satisfaction with Financial Aid Package
  Mean Very satisfied Moderately satisfied Moderately dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with financial aid package (among those who received financial aid, n=817) 3.12 32.7% 51.9% 10.0% 5.4%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top
Table 24: Customer Service Skills of Financial Aid Staff
  Mean Excellent Good Fair Poor
Financial aid reception staff 3.10 29.6% 53.7% 13.6% 3.1%
Financial aid phone staff 3.02 28.9% 48.7% 17.7% 4.6%
Financial aid advisor staff 3.13 35.3% 47.0% 13.2% 4.5%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development

This section of the overview report focuses on respondents' perceptions of how well NC State has contributed to their academic and personal development. First, it explores beliefs about the extent to which the university met their needs in general. This is followed by a discussion of how well respondents thought NC State contributed to their knowledge, skills, and personal development of goals related to their general education, personal development, and world view.

NC State Meeting Student Needs (Table 25)

The majority of respondents were generally satisfied with how well NC State is meeting their needs. More than three-fourths of the respondents thought that their needs for intellectual growth (93.1%), personal growth (83.7%), and career training (79.6%) were being met "very well" or "adequately".
Table 25: NC State Meeting Student Needs
  Mean Very Well Adequately Somewhat adequately Poorly
NCSU meeting your intellectual growth needs 3.40 48.3% 44.8% 5.7% 1.3%
NCSU meeting your career training needs 3.13 37.5% 42.1% 16.6% 3.9%
NCSU meeting your personal growth needs 3.20 39.9% 43.8% 12.8% 3.5%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development (Tables 26-28)

Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which their college education so far had contributed to their development of various educational goals. The 37 goals listed related to personal development, general education, and world views. Contributions were rated on a scale of 1 ("not at all") to 4 ("very much"). "Don't know" responses were excluded from the analyses.

General Education Goals:

Overall, respondents were satisfied with the extent to which NC State met their general education goals, with at least 40 percent saying NCSU contributed "very much" to 12 of 14 such goals. NCSU was most likely to have been rated as contributing "very much" to respondents' ability to use mathematics skills (53.4%), apply scientific methods of inquiry (51.1%), and use books, journals, and/or articles from the library/internet, etc. for a research paper/project (50.4). NCSU was least likely to have been rated as contributing "very much" to respondents' writing skills (37.0%) and speaking skills (31.8%).

Personal Development Goals:

Respondents also gave high ratings to the extent to which NC State met their personal development goals. At least 50 percent of respondents said NCSU contributed "very much" to their development of 7 of the 17 goals related to personal development, and at least 40 percent gave such a rating to another 6 personal development goals. Respondents were most likely to say that NCSU contributed "very much" to their development of independence and self-reliance (64.7%) and realizing my potential for success (59.3%), and least likely to say that NCSU contributed "very much" to their development of exercising public responsibility and community service (30.3%).

World View Goals:

While still receiving positive ratings by the majority of respondents, respondents gave some of the lowest ratings to questions pertaining to NC State???s contribution to their world view goals. Among the world view goals, respondents were most likely to say that NCSU contributed "very much" to their development of the ability to work with people from diverse backgrounds (43.3%) and developing tolerance for divergent views (42.4%). Respondents were least likely to say that NCSU contributed "very much" to understanding the present as it relates to history (30.9%), and advancing appreciation of the arts (29.9%). About 30 percent of respondents said that NCSU contributed "very little" (19.9%) or "not at all" (9.2%) to advancing [their] appreciation of the arts.
Table 26: Contribution to General Education Goals
  Mean Very Much Somewhat Very Little Not at all
Enhancing analytical skills 3.43 49.6% 44.6% 4.9% 0.9%
Ability to analyze ideas/info 3.41 48.6% 45.0% 5.5% 0.9%
Ability to plan/carry out projects indep 3.39 48.5% 43.6% 6.3% 1.6%
Using math skills 3.39 53.4% 34.7% 9.6% 2.3%
Applying sci inquiry 3.39 51.1% 38.8% 7.8% 2.3%
Using books/journals for research 3.39 50.4% 39.6% 8.7% 1.3%
Comprehension skills 3.37 48.1% 42.8% 7.4% 1.8%
Understand sci/tech influence 3.33 45.9% 43.2% 8.9% 1.9%
Ability to adapt to chging tech 3.30 43.2% 45.4% 9.2% 2.2%
Listening skills 3.30 44.1% 44.1% 9.0% 2.8%
Understanding of diverse cultures/values 3.26 44.0% 41.7% 10.6% 3.7%
Developing computer skills 3.24 43.5% 40.8% 11.8% 3.9%
Writing skills 3.19 37.0% 47.9% 12.1% 2.9%
Speaking skills 3.05 31.8% 46.3% 17.7% 4.3%
Table 27: Contribution to Personal Development Goals
  Mean Very Much Somewhat Very Little Not at all
Independence and self-reliance 3.58 64.7% 29.7% 4.3% 1.3%
Potential for success 3.52 59.3% 35.2% 4.2% 1.3%
Personal growth 3.50 57.2% 36.8% 4.3% 1.6%
Self discipline 3.46 55.4% 36.8% 5.9% 1.8%
Coping with change 3.45 55.6% 36.2% 5.7% 2.6%
Time management 3.42 54.2% 36.0% 7.5% 2.3%
Taking responsibility for behavior 3.41 53.2% 37.5% 6.3% 3.1%
Valuing learning as lifelong 3.36 47.7% 43.0% 7.3% 2.0%
Ability to function as part of a team 3.35 45.5% 45.3% 7.6% 1.6%
Ability to handle stress 3.30 46.8% 40.0% 9.2% 4.0%
Self-confidence 3.28 43.7% 44.0% 9.1% 3.3%
Sense of personal identity 3.28 45.2% 41.2% 10.0% 3.7%
Recognizing and acting ethical 3.21 38.1% 48.6% 9.3% 4.0%
Ability to lead/guide others 3.21 37.3% 49.2% 10.8% 2.8%
Commitment to fitness 3.16 36.7% 46.5% 13.0% 3.8%
Public responsibility & comm. service 3.05 30.3% 49.5% 15.3% 4.9%
Table 28: Contribution to World View Goals
  Mean Very Much Somewhat Very Little Not at all
Ability to work w/ diverse bckgrnds 3.30 43.3% 45.5% 8.8% 2.4%
Developing tolerance for divergent views 3.25 42.4% 44.3% 9.5% 3.8%
Appreciating racial equity 3.18 40.8% 42.7% 10.5% 5.9%
Appreciating gender equity 3.18 40.8% 41.6% 11.9% 5.6%
Understanding world issues 3.18 34.5% 51.6% 11.0% 3.0%
Understand present as it relates to history 3.08 30.9% 50.3% 15.1% 3.7%
Advancing appreciation of arts 2.91 29.9% 41.0% 19.9% 9.2%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Student Employment and Extracurricular Activities

On and Off Campus Employment (Tables 29 and 30)

Over half (56.4%) of all respondents indicated that they were employed during the 2005-2006 academic year. The majority of employed respondents worked off-campus.
Table 29: On- and Off-Campus Employment
  N %
Not Employed 624 43.7%
Employed 805 56.4%
Table 30: Employment location (Among employed respondents, N=805)
  N %
On campus 271 33.7%
Off campus 470 58.4%
Both on and off campus 64 8.0%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top
Hours Worked (Table 30)
Those respondents who worked only on campus generally reported working fewer average hours per week (12.5) in comparison to those who worked only off-campus (17.8) and those who worked both on- and off-campus (26.8).
Table 31: Number of Hours Worked (among employed respondents who answered, N=744)
  On Campus Off Campus On and Off Campus
Average hours per week 12.5 17.8 26.8
  N % N % N %
1-10 hours per week 149 61.1% 114 26.1% 4 6.3%
11-20 hours per week 72 29.5% 214 49.1% 17 26.6%
21-40 hours per week 16 6.6% 84 19.3% 34 53.1%
40+ hours per week 7 2.9% 24 5.5% 9 14.1%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Job Relationship to Major (Table 32)

About 45 percent (46.4%) of those respondents who worked on campus reported that their job was at least somewhat, if not directly, related to their academic major. That proportion drops somewhat (36.1%) for those respondents working off-campus. In either case, when the job was unrelated to the respondent's major, it was likely to be by choice.
Table 32: Job Relation to Academic Major
Job related to major? Directly Related Somewhat Related Not Related
On-campus job (n=319) 17.6% 28.8% 53.6%
Off-campus job (n=493) 16.8% 19.3% 63.9%
If not related, by choice? Not Related
(by choice)		 Not Related
(not by choice)
On campus job (N=171) 69.0% 31.0%
Off campus job (N=315) 61.9% 38.1%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top

Reasons for working during the Academic Year (Table 33)

Respondents were asked to explain, in their own words, why they worked for pay during the academic year. Employed respondents were most likely to say they worked in order to pay various basic living expenses, such as rent, utilities, and groceries (41.6%). The next most common reason for working cited by respondents was to allow them to pay for various social activities, such as going out with friends, shopping, travel, and entertainment (31.5%). Nearly 20 percent (19.4%) of those employed respondents giving a reason for working cited the need to pay or help pay for educational expenses. Other reasons, given by about 15 percent or fewer of employed respondents, included gaining some work experience (12.0%), for various personal reasons such as enjoyment of the work (6.8%) or saving money (4.9%), and that the work was required as a part of their financial aid or work study package (11.2%).
Table 33: Reasons for Working During the Academic Year
Reason N %
Living Expenses
(e.g., bills, housing, utilities, car, groceries)		 330 41.6%
Personal/Optional Expenses
(e.g., spending money, shopping, entertainment, travel)		 250 31.5%
School Expenses
(e.g., books, tuition, school loans, fees)		 154 19.4%
Miscellaneous 105 13.2%
Work Experience
(e.g., networking, learning skills, professional development) 		95 12.0%
Financial Aid/Work Study Requirements 89 11.2%
Personal Fulfillment
(e.g., enjoy the work, helps with time management)		 54 6.8%
Saving 39 4.9%
Benefits
(e.g., health insurance)		 12 1.5%
Back to Top

Involvement with Campus Activities (Table 34)

Sophomores were asked in which campus activities they were involved. Respondents were most likely to be involved in organizations/clubs related to their major (40.9%), intramural/recreational sports/club teams (39.8%), and religious groups (25.5%).
Table 34: Involvement with Campus Activities
  N Yes % Yes
Academic scholarship program 83 5.7%
Intramurals/rec sports/club team 579 39.8%
Minority student groups 156 10.7%
Org/clubs related to major 595 40.9%
Religious groups 371 25.5%
Political/issue groups 95 6.5%
Residence hall council 77 5.3%
ROTC 31 2.1%
Service groups 188 12.9%
Social fraternity/sorority 174 12.0%
Student government 32 2.2%
Student media/publications 32 2.2%
UAB groups 23 1.6%
University honors program 57 3.9%
University scholars program 279 19.2%
Varsity athletic teams 52 3.6%
Visual/performing arts/music group 83 5.7%
Comparisons and Frequencies: Gender/Ethnicity, College
Back to Top


For more information on the 2006 Sophomore 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: November, 2006

Download a Microsoft Word Version of this report.

Return to 2006 Sophomore Survey Table of Contents Page

Return to OIRP Survey Page

Return to OIRP Home Page