North Carolina State University
Sophomore Student Survey Trends, 1998-2008:
Overview of Results

This overview report presents findings from all sophomore students participating in the Sophomore Student Survey from 1998-2008. Tables providing frequency distributions or means for each item asked in multiple years are included. Years in which certain items were not asked or are not comparable over time have been assigned "NA" to indicate that the category does not apply to results for that year.

For information about the survey and analysis methods, see "Sophomore Student Survey Trends, 1998-2008: Introduction, Methods and Student Demographic Profile."

Table of Contents:

Satisfaction with NC State

Plans for Degree Completion
Satisfaction with NC State
Withdrawal/Transfer from NC State

Academic Environment and Faculty Contributions

Intellectual Environment
Overall Instruction and Education
Classroom Environment
Faculty Contributions

Campus Climate

Services for Students

Academic Services
Non-Academic Services

Knowledge, Skills and Personal Development

Meeting Student Needs
Knowledge, Skills and Personal Development

Employment and Extracurricular Activities

Number of Hours Worked
Job Relationship to Major
Extracurricular Involvement

Satisfaction with NC State

Plans for Degree Completion and Satisfaction with NC State (Tables 1 & 2)

Sophomores' overall satisfaction with NC State is high. Around 90 percent of respondents in each year said they plan to complete their degree at NC State. Fewer than four percent in each year did not intend to stay. The majority of respondents (over 70% in each year) also stated that they would choose NC State again if they could start over, although many (around 20% in each year) were "not sure."

Table 1: Plans for Degree Completion

Plan to complete degree program at NC State (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Yes	90.7%	91.4%	88.3%	90.1%	91.4%	90.8%	92.0%
No	2.8%	1.9%	3.0%	3.6%	3.0%	2.2%	2.2%
Not sure	6.5%	6.7%	8.8%	6.3%	5.6%	7.0%	5.8%
Total N	1,111	1,157	1,337	1,546	1,188	1,428	1,330

Would still choose to attend NC State (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Yes	73.6%	73.0%	70.2%	73.1%	71.7%	71.2%	74.1%
No	6.7%	7.1%	8.6%	7.7%	6.2%	7.3%	5.9%
Not sure	19.7%	19.9%	21.2%	19.2%	22.2%	21.5%	20.0%
Total N	1,110	1,158	1,332	1,544	1,186	1,430	1,333

Back to Top

Withdrawal/Transfer from NC state (Table 3)
Starting in 2004, sophomores were asked if they had considered withdrawing or transferring from NC State. Fewer than half had done so, and of those, most did not seriosuly consider it. Only a very small percentage (less than 2%) actually left and returned.

Table 3: Withdrawal/Transfer from NC State

Ever consider withdrawal/transfer from NCSU (Q)	2004	2006	2008
No	58.5%	56.8%	59.8%
Yes, not seriously	24.9%	25.7%	24.0%
Yes, seriously	15.1%	16.1%	14.9%
Yes-left & returned	1.5%	1.4%	1.3%
Total N	1,195	1,429	1,337

This section presents respondents’ evaluations of the overall learning environment at NC State. Respondents also evaluated the classroom environment and faculty contributions to students' education.

Intellectual Environment (Table 4)

Around ninety percent of survey respondents in each year characterized the intellectual environment at NC State as "strong" or "very strong." The percentage rating it as "very strong" has increased 10 percentage points, going from 19 percent in 2002 to 29 percent in 2008. Only one percent or fewer rated the intellectual environment aas "very weak" in any year.

Table 4: Intellectual Environment*

Intellectual environment on this campus (Q)	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.08	3.15	3.15	3.19
4: Very strong	19.3%	23.2%	23.5%	28.7%
3: Strong	70.1%	69.1%	68.6%	62.5%
2: Weak	10.1%	7.4%	6.8%	8.1%
1: Very weak	0.5%	0.3%	1.0%	0.7%
Total N	1,544	1,195	1,432	1,333

*Because response options changed from a 5-point scale to a 4-point scale in 2002, results for 1998-2000 are not reported here.
Back to Top

Overall Instruction and Education (Table 5)

In general, sophomores have been pleased with the overall quality of instruction and education at NC State, with at least 80 percent of respondents rating the overall quality of instruction and the overall education they are receiving at NC State as "excellent" or "good" in each survey year. Ratings for both decreased between 1998 and 2000, but have steadily increased since then. Respondents, however, consistently rate their overall education notably higher than the quality of instruction.

Table 5: Overall Instruction and Education

Overall quality of instruction (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.01	2.95	2.93	2.99	3.03	3.09	3.12
4: Excellent	17.7%	14.4%	13.3%	17.2%	19.6%	22.4%	23.8%
3: Good	66.5%	67.3%	67.4%	66.2%	65.0%	66.1%	65.4%
2: Fair	14.6%	17.2%	18.3%	15.3%	14.1%	10.0%	9.7%
1: Poor	1.2%	1.1%	1.0%	1.3%	1.3%	1.5%	1.0%
Total N	1,112	1,159	1,340	1,543	1,195	1,434	1,334

Overall education receiving at NC State (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.21	3.15	3.12	3.18	3.20	3.30	3.35
4: Excellent	31.6%	27.4%	26.1%	29.7%	30.9%	38.8%	42.5%
3: Good	58.8%	60.2%	60.7%	59.7%	59.2%	53.4%	50.7%
2: Fair	9.1%	12.0%	12.0%	10.0%	9.4%	7.0%	6.2%
1: Poor	0.5%	0.3%	1.2%	0.6%	0.5%	0.8%	0.5%
Total N	1,113	1,157	1,337	1,542	1,191	1,428	1,333

In each survey year, the majority of sophomores reported having had at least one class that was too large to learn effectively and one in which it was difficult to understand the instructor's English. Overall, the percentage of sophomores reporting having had at least one class that was too large to learn effectively has declined across survey years from 77 percent in 1998 to 71 percent in 2008. The perentage of sophomores reporting having had at least one class in which it was difficult to understand the instructor's English has fluctuated between 71 percent and 83 percent.

Table 6: Classroom Environment

Classes too large to learn effectively (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
None	22.9%	24.4%	25.6%	27.4%	26.2%	29.2%	28.6%
One	14.2%	15.9%	14.3%	16.9%	16.6%	18.8%	22.2%
Two	27.3%	24.9%	23.7%	27.8%	26.6%	27.4%	27.1%
Three	15.9%	19.0%	18.5%	15.1%	16.3%	15.4%	13.6%
Four or more	19.7%	15.7%	17.8%	12.8%	14.4%	9.2%	8.5%
Total N	1,104	1,156	1,338	1,552	1,205	1,450	1,345

Classes difficult understand instructor English (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
None	27.0%	29.4%	24.0%	16.7%	23.4%	19.8%	23.4%
One	31.4%	31.2%	31.5%	27.4%	30.0%	30.1%	31.6%
Two	23.1%	23.7%	24.4%	28.4%	24.5%	26.8%	25.9%
Three	11.8%	9.9%	11.3%	15.1%	13.6%	13.7%	12.2%
Four or more	6.7%	5.8%	8.7%	12.4%	8.5%	9.5%	6.9%
Total N	1,113	1,156	1,339	1,554	1,202	1,448	1,347

Respondents evaluated faculty contributions to their education on a scale from 4="excellent" to 1="poor." A majority of sophomore survey respondents in each survey year gave positive ratings to faculty members' contributions to their educational experience at NC State. Their general evaluation of instructors averaged around 3.0 each year (a mean rating of "good"). Students felt most favorably about instructors setting high expectations to learn and encouraging devotion of time/energy to coursework. Students were less positive about faculty-student interaction and teaching methods. The lowest overall rating was given to how well faculty members care about [students'] academic success.

The proportion of students giving faculty a rating of "excellent" has steadily increased since 2000 for each aspect of instruction asked about. Growth in positive ratings has been especially large for respect diverse talents/ways of learning , with 24 percent of respondents saying faculty are "excellent" at this in 2008, compared to about 12 percent in 1998, 1999, and 2000.

Table 7: Faculty Contributions (Q)

Set high expectations to learn	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.12	3.16	3.16	3.19	3.23	3.26	3.33
4: Excellent	24.4%	24.4%	25.4%	27.9%	31.1%	32.4%	37.8%
3: Good	63.5%	67.4%	65.3%	63.5%	61.4%	61.3%	57.6%
2: Fair	11.4%	7.8%	9.2%	8.1%	7.3%	6.1%	4.2%
1: Poor	0.6%	0.3%	0.2%	0.5%	0.2%	0.2%	0.4%
Total N	1,118	1,166	1,344	1,565	1,214	1,452	1,350

Respect diverse talents/ways of learning	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	2.71	2.74	2.75	2.86	2.93	2.96	3.03
4: Excellent	12.2%	11.3%	11.9%	15.3%	18.2%	19.8%	24.2%
3: Good	50.5%	55.3%	55.8%	57.9%	58.7%	58.3%	56.4%
2: Fair	33.5%	29.6%	27.8%	23.8%	21.0%	20.0%	17.1%
1: Poor	3.9%	3.8%	4.5%	2.9%	2.1%	1.9%	2.2%
Total N	1,106	1,164	1,341	1,564	1,211	1,451	1,347

Encourages actively involved learning	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	2.83	2.84	2.80	2.90	3.03	3.01	3.07
4: Excellent	16.5%	15.8%	14.3%	19.1%	23.6%	22.1%	27.1%
3: Good	52.9%	55.6%	54.4%	53.9%	56.8%	58.0%	53.9%
2: Fair	27.9%	25.6%	28.8%	25.2%	18.6%	18.4%	17.4%
1: Poor	2.7%	3.0%	2.5%	1.9%	1.1%	1.5%	1.6%
Total N	1,114	1,166	1,338	1,561	1,212	1,451	1,350

Encourages student-faculty interaction	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	2.73	2.79	2.78	2.79	2.93	2.95	2.96
4: Excellent	18.9%	17.0%	17.5%	17.5%	22.2%	22.0%	24.5%
3: Good	43.2%	49.0%	47.8%	48.2%	51.2%	53.8%	49.8%
2: Fair	30.1%	30.1%	30.4%	30.4%	23.8%	21.4%	23.0%
1: Poor	7.8%	3.9%	4.3%	4.0%	2.7%	2.8%	2.7%
Total N	1,112	1,166	1,343	1,564	1,210	1,450	1,350

Give you frequent and prompt feedback	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	2.85	2.85	2.84	2.90	2.95	3.01	3.03
4: Excellent	17.4%	15.8%	15.2%	18.5%	19.7%	22.9%	24.8%
3: Good	53.6%	55.9%	55.7%	54.9%	56.9%	56.7%	54.5%
2: Fair	25.4%	25.9%	27.0%	24.4%	22.2%	18.7%	19.2%
1: Poor	3.5%	2.4%	2.1%	2.2%	1.2%	1.6%	1.5%
Total N	1,113	1,164	1,341	1,559	1,211	1,451	1,351

Encourages devoting time/energy to coursework	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.09	3.15	3.13	3.17	3.22	3.21	3.29
4: Excellent	27.9%	29.9%	27.7%	30.3%	32.3%	32.8%	38.4%
3: Good	54.8%	56.1%	58.0%	57.5%	57.8%	56.6%	52.2%
2: Fair	15.4%	13.1%	13.3%	11.6%	9.5%	9.8%	8.8%
1: Poor	2.0%	0.9%	0.9%	0.6%	0.4%	0.9%	0.5%
Total N	1,113	1,164	1,342	1,562	1,212	1,450	1,350

Opportunities to learn cooperatively w/ students	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	2.69	2.76	2.74	2.80	2.89	2.86	2.89
4: Excellent	14.7%	14.8%	12.4%	15.6%	18.1%	17.5%	18.1%
3: Good	46.2%	50.6%	53.1%	52.4%	55.0%	53.4%	55.1%
2: Fair	32.5%	30.7%	30.9%	28.1%	24.9%	26.7%	24.2%
1: Poor	6.7%	3.9%	3.6%	3.9%	2.0%	2.3%	2.6%
Total N	1,105	1,165	1,340	1,564	1,212	1,448	1,347

Care about academic success and welfare	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	2.64	2.69	2.68	2.73	2.86	2.90	2.95
4: Excellent	13.5%	12.7%	13.3%	15.6%	18.6%	20.7%	23.5%
3: Good	45.3%	49.7%	49.0%	48.8%	52.7%	52.5%	52.2%
2: Fair	33.2%	31.4%	30.1%	29.2%	24.4%	23.4%	20.4%
1: Poor	8.0%	6.1%	7.7%	6.4%	4.3%	3.5%	3.9%
Total N	1,104	1,164	1,340	1,556	1,206	1,447	1,346

General evaluation of instructors on 8 items	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	2.88	2.94	2.90	2.96	3.05	3.05	3.10
4: Excellent	12.7%	12.3%	10.7%	14.0%	18.2%	18.1%	21.0%
3: Good	63.9%	69.8%	69.3%	69.0%	68.9%	70.0%	68.9%
2: Fair	22.0%	17.3%	19.1%	15.9%	12.3%	11.0%	9.4%
1: Poor	1.4%	0.6%	0.8%	1.0%	0.6%	0.9%	0.7%
Total N	1,111	1,165	1,343	1,563	1,208	1,445	1,347

Since 1998, over three-quarters of sophomores have reported that a sense of belonging or community at NC State was at least "moderately important." Seventy percent or more said they experienced a sense of belonging or community at NC State to at least "some extent." Over time, consistently larger proportions of sophomores have responded positively about both the importance and extent of a sense of belonging at NC State. Sophomores' belief that it is "very important" to experience a sense of community steadily increased from 35 percent in 1998 to 54 percent in 2008. Their belief that they actually experience such a sense of community "to a great extent" has also steadily increased, going from 20 percent to 34 percent over the course of the survey years.

Table 8: Sense of Belonging at NC State

Importance of sense of community at NCSU (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
4: Very important	38.5%	40.1%	42.2%	41.5%	44.9%	47.1%	53.7%
3: Mod. important	37.8%	39.8%	40.5%	41.2%	39.1%	38.7%	34.3%
2: Slightly import	18.1%	15.0%	13.1%	13.5%	13.3%	10.4%	9.0%
1: Not at all	5.6%	5.2%	4.2%	3.9%	2.7%	3.7%	3.0%
Total N	1,034	1,161	1,338	1,531	1,175	1,436	1,330

Experience sense of community at NCSU (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
4: Great extent	20.2%	25.2%	25.9%	28.3%	29.1%	30.5%	33.5%
3: Some extent	49.5%	49.1%	50.9%	49.3%	49.0%	52.0%	50.4%
2: Small extent	23.6%	20.5%	19.2%	17.6%	18.6%	14.4%	12.9%
1: Not at all	6.8%	5.2%	4.0%	4.8%	3.2%	3.0%	3.3%
Total N	1,037	1,163	1,336	1,531	1,171	1,441	1,336

A large majority of respondents in each survey year agreed that NC State is committed to helping minorities succeed. The proportion of students reporting that they "strongly agree" with this statement increased from nearly 30 percent in 1999 to 48 percent in 2008. Respondents are much less likely to "strongly agree" that NC State's leadership fosters diversity on campus. However, the proportion feeling this way has increased almost four-fold over the survey years, from less than 10 percent in 1998 to 37 percent in 2008.

Table 9: Assessment of Diversity at NC State

NC State committed to helping minority students succeed (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
4: Agree strongly	33.8%	29.6%	33.7%	39.9%	46.0%	41.3%	48.1%
3: Agree somewhat	57.5%	63.0%	59.1%	51.8%	48.8%	53.0%	47.5%
2: Disagree somewhat	7.2%	5.4%	5.3%	6.6%	4.2%	4.8%	3.7%
1: Disagree strongly	1.5%	2.0%	1.8%	1.6%	1.1%	1.0%	0.7%
Total N	871	1,149	1,334	1,521	1,179	1,431	1,323

NC State leadership fosters diversity on campus (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
4: Agree strongly	9.2%	13.4%	21.9%	30.7%	29.6%	31.9%	36.6%
3: Agree somewhat	44.2%	51.4%	53.4%	49.9%	52.9%	51.1%	48.0%
2: Disagree somewhat	29.5%	25.9%	18.6%	15.0%	13.4%	12.7%	12.7%
1: Disagree strongly	17.2%	9.2%	6.0%	4.4%	4.1%	4.2%	2.7%
Total N	892	1,153	1,336	1,518	1,175	1,428	1,326

Beginning with the 2000 survey, respondents were asked to rate the campus environment for various groups of students (e.g., women, African Americans, gay and lesbian students). The perceived supportiveness of the campus has generally increased over time for each of the groups asked about, though there was a drop in mean ratings in 2006 for several groups (African Americans, other minorities, international students, and students with disabilities). In all survey years, respondents were most likely to say the campus is "strongly supportive" of men, and least likely to say the campus is "strongly supportive" of gay and lesbian students. However, beliefs that the campus is at least "mildly supportive" of gay and lesbian students experienced the most noteworthy change, from 26 percent in 2000 to 51 percent in 2008, with a corresponding decline in students feeling the campus was "neutral" in its support of of gay and lesbian students (53% in 2000 to 33% in 2008).

Table 10: Support for Student Groups (Q)

Campus climate for women	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	4.00	4.04	4.13	4.13	4.35
5: Strongly Supportive	33.0%	35.9%	40.2%	39.9%	51.8%
4: Mildly Supportive	38.1%	35.5%	34.8%	35.7%	32.5%
3: Neutral	25.7%	25.9%	23.2%	22.2%	14.6%
2: Mildly Nonsupportive	2.7%	2.2%	1.5%	2.0%	0.8%
1: Strongly Nonsupportive	0.5%	0.5%	0.3%	0.2%	0.4%
Total N	1,344	1,535	1,185	1,439	1,333

Campus climate for men	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	4.07	4.10	4.16	4.18	4.35
5: Strongly Supportive	44.1%	45.7%	48.1%	48.4%	58.6%
4: Mildly Supportive	23.9%	22.6%	23.7%	24.3%	20.4%
3: Neutral	28.2%	28.7%	25.5%	24.8%	19.1%
2: Mildly Nonsupportive	2.5%	1.8%	1.9%	2.0%	1.3%
1: Strongly Nonsupportive	1.3%	1.2%	0.8%	0.6%	0.6%
Total N	1,344	1,534	1,186	1,435	1,332

Campus climate for African-Am	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.95	4.01	4.10	4.00	4.23
5: Strongly Supportive	35.8%	39.0%	41.8%	36.8%	48.5%
4: Mildly Supportive	29.6%	28.1%	29.7%	31.9%	29.7%
3: Neutral	29.8%	28.6%	25.5%	27.0%	18.8%
2: Mildly Nonsupportive	3.3%	3.3%	2.3%	3.2%	2.4%
1: Strongly Nonsupportive	1.6%	1.0%	0.8%	1.0%	0.6%
Total N	1,342	1,533	1,186	1,437	1,333

Campus climate for other minorities	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.74	3.81	3.93	3.88	4.07
5: Strongly Supportive	25.4%	28.7%	34.0%	31.1%	40.0%
4: Mildly Supportive	31.9%	30.5%	30.7%	32.8%	32.4%
3: Neutral	35.9%	34.7%	30.7%	30.5%	23.3%
2: Mildly Nonsupportive	5.4%	5.0%	3.8%	4.7%	3.5%
1: Strongly Nonsupportive	1.4%	1.1%	0.8%	0.9%	0.8%
Total N	1,340	1,535	1,184	1,438	1,329

Campus climate for international stud.	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.81	3.86	3.98	3.93	4.13
5: Strongly Supportive	28.7%	31.4%	35.6%	33.8%	43.1%
4: Mildly Supportive	30.1%	29.2%	30.7%	30.4%	31.0%
3: Neutral	36.0%	34.0%	30.7%	31.4%	22.7%
2: Mildly Nonsupportive	4.0%	4.2%	2.5%	3.1%	2.6%
1: Strongly Nonsupportive	1.1%	1.2%	0.5%	1.2%	0.6%
Total N	1,340	1,534	1,186	1,432	1,328

Campus climate for students with disabilities*	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.70	3.73	3.92	3.81	4.04
5: Strongly Supportive	24.3%	28.0%	34.2%	29.3%	41.2%
4: Mildly Supportive	29.9%	27.2%	28.8%	30.2%	27.3%
3: Neutral	38.5%	36.6%	32.2%	34.0%	26.9%
2: Mildly Nonsupportive	6.1%	6.6%	3.7%	5.0%	4.0%
1: Strongly Nonsupportive	1.2%	1.6%	1.0%	1.5%	0.7%
Total N	1,336	1,534	1,183	1,433	1,332

Campus climate for gays/lesbians	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.06	3.20	3.43	3.44	3.56
5: Strongly Supportive	10.6%	13.5%	20.0%	19.4%	25.5%
4: Mildly Supportive	15.4%	17.5%	22.0%	25.6%	25.8%
3: Neutral	52.8%	50.4%	43.2%	39.6%	32.8%
2: Mildly Nonsupportive	11.8%	12.4%	10.3%	10.8%	10.4%
1: Strongly Nonsupportive	9.3%	6.2%	4.5%	4.7%	5.4%
Total N	1,337	1,533	1,184	1,436	1,327

*Prior to 2008, this item was worded, "Disabled Students"

Back to Top

Student Services

This section examines respondents' perceptions of academic and non-academic campus services and satisfaction with offices that serve students.

Academic Services (Q)

Respondents were asked to rate 31 specific services, divided into 7 categories: library, technology, career-related, academic advising, help labs and tutoring, new student orientation, and the campus bookstore. Each item was rated on a scale from 4="excellent" to 1="poor." "Do not know/Did not use" responses were excluded from the analyses. Prior to 2008, the "Do not know/Did not use" option was the first option displayed - that is, the left-most option. On the 2008 questionnaire the "Do not know/Did not use" was moved to the far right, making it the last option. Because of possible response-order effects, it is not advisable to compare responses on such items from one year to the next. For this reason, only data through 2006 are presented in the following tables. For 2008 results for these items, see the 2008 Sophomore Survey: All Respondents report.

Overall, library services received the highest ratings across categories and years. Orientation for new students and campus bookstore received the lowest ratings.

New Student Orientation: Though still generally positive, students gave some of the lowest average ratings to various aspects of orientation for new students. A clear exception is helpfulness of orientation staff, which rated above 3.0 each year. Although ratings tended to reach all-time highs in 2004, they varied only slightly across the survey years, and in no consistent pattern.

Table 11: New Student Orientation

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Length of orientation session	2.79	2.85	2.81	2.83	2.82	2.78
Quality of orientation programs	2.74	2.77	2.74	2.77	2.82	2.80
Helpfulness of orientation staff	3.07	3.13	3.06	3.12	3.16	3.15
Orientations accomodations	2.85	2.88	2.89	2.88	2.86	2.85
Overall effectiveness of orientation	2.81	2.87	2.86	2.91	2.91	2.89

Frequency distributions

Academic Advising: Students appeared to be impressed with academic advising in their majors, with most items scoring a mean rating of 3.0 or more most years. Ratings for most aspects of academic advising varied only slightly over time, with slightly higher ratings for each given in 2002.

Table 12: Academic Advising

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Access to advisor	3.05	3.08	3.07	3.20	3.12	3.11
Sufficient time with advisor	2.94	2.97	2.94	3.05	2.99	3.01
Accurate info on req/course sequencing	3.04	3.08	3.07	3.12	2.99	3.06
Advisor knowledge of policies/procedures	3.03	3.04	3.03	3.08	3.05	3.04
Academic advising services overall	3.01	3.03	3.02	3.12	3.03	3.08

Frequency Distributions

Tutoring and Help Labs: Students seemed satisfied with tutoring and help labs in various academic areas. Mathematics received the highest mean ratings in each year. Reading generally received the lowest mean ratings each year except 2002, when study skills received the lowest ratings. In general, ratings for the various tutoring/help labs varied only slightly and with no consistent patterns from year to year.

Table 13: Academic Assistance/Tutoring/Help Labs

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	1998	1999	2000	2002*	2004	2006
Lab/tutoring writing	2.91	3.00	2.83	3.11	3.05	3.00
Lab/tutoring reading	2.74	2.87	2.77	2.94	2.83	2.87
Lab/tutoring mathematics	3.09	3.10	3.10	3.13	3.13	3.11
Lab/tutoring study skills	2.85	2.92	2.87	2.93	2.92	2.96
Assistance/tutoring foreign language	.	.	.	2.99	2.96	2.96
Assistance/tutoring computer science	.	.	.	2.96	2.97	2.98
Assistance/tutoring science	.	.	.	3.27	3.24	3.22
Labs/tutoring services overall	3.05	3.07	3.05	3.16	3.14	3.09

*In 2002, the wording on these items changed from "Academic skills labs or tutoring if you needed extra help" to "Academic assistance or tutoring if you needed extra help."
Frequency Distributions

Library: Students were very satisfied with library services. Ratings were particularly high for library hours of operation, which scored among the highest of every item in every category each year. Ratings were much lower for training to use the library, which scored among the lowest of every item in every year.

Table 14: Library

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Library hours of operation	3.72	3.77	3.79	3.72	3.66	3.67
Access to databases and collections	3.40	3.50	3.56	3.54	3.50	3.42
Training to use library	2.74	2.75	2.80	2.89	2.97	3.03
Library services overall	3.37	3.45	3.47	3.49	3.46	3.43

Frequency Distributions

Technology: Ratings were more varied among items in this category, though students are generally more satisfied with NC State's technology services than with other service areas asked about. In each year, access to the Internet received the highest overall rating, while services involving access to trained staff for help received the lowest overall ratings.

Table 15: Technology

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Access to the Internet	3.61	3.65	3.75	3.75	3.70	3.64
Hrs. of ops for computer center labs and help	3.35	3.38	3.43	3.50	3.46	3.48
Access to up-to-date facilities	3.33	3.34	3.40	3.46	3.45	3.45
Access to trained staff for help	2.71	2.75	2.80	3.02	3.06	3.16
Technology training classes	2.91	2.85	2.95	3.08	3.11	3.19
Technology services overall	3.26	3.29	3.35	3.43	3.41	3.42

Frequency Distributions

Career-related Services: Students had a positive overall impression of career services, shown by mean ratings above 3.0 for each item and year. Students were most satisfied with information available through computers/Internet. Ratings for all items saw decreases in 2000 and 2002, and increases in 2004 and 2006.

Table 16: Career Services

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Opportunity for career assistance	3.17	3.19	3.18	3.10	3.15	3.24
Info on internships/co-op/other	3.17	3.20	3.14	3.08	3.10	3.18
Resources to explore career options	3.15	3.16	3.13	3.06	3.10	3.18
Info available through computers/Internet	3.26	3.29	3.26	3.17	3.21	3.26
Career-related services overall	3.15	3.21	3.16	3.10	3.14	3.20

Frequency Distributions

Bookstore: Although ratings have notably increased on this item over time with the exception of a dip in the 2006 data, students gave some of the lowest average ratings across all items and years to timely availability of books/supplies at bookstore.

Table 17: Bookstore

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Availability of books/supplies at bookstore	2.68	2.77	2.72	2.92	3.07	3.00

Frequency Distributions
Back to Top

Non-Academic Services

Campus Safety: At least two-thirds of respondents in each year felt that the campus had taken sufficient steps to ensure their safety, peaking at a high of 84 percent in 2002. This percentage dropped sharply - by ten percentage points - from 2004 to 2006, but rose nine percentage points in 2008. However, a sizable number in each year were "not sure" or believed that the campus had not taken sufficient steps to ensure their safety.

Table 18: Campus Safety

Campus taken sufficient steps to ensure safety (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Yes	73.9%	65.5%	76.5%	83.8%	81.9%	71.9%	80.9%
No	8.3%	11.7%	6.5%	3.9%	2.8%	13.3%	7.4%
Not sure	17.8%	22.7%	17.0%	12.4%	15.3%	14.7%	11.7%
Total N	1,101	1,158	1,339	1,554	1,203	1,447	1,342

Respondents were asked to rate various non-academic service areas, and when relevant, the responsiveness of the staff connected with these services. Each item was rated on a scale from 4="excellent" to 1="poor. " "Do not know/Did not use" responses were excluded from the analyses. Prior to 2008, the "Do not know/Did not use" option was the first one displayed - that is, the left-most option. On the 2008 questionnaire the "Do not know/Did not use" was moved to the far right, making it the last option. Because of possible response-order effects, it is not advisable to compare responses on such items from one year to the next. For this reason, only data through 2006 are presented in the following tables. For 2008 results for these items, see the 2008 Sophomore Survey: All Respondents report.

Ratings of non-academic services varied a great deal. Across years, opportunities in extra-curricular activities and health services rated highest while food services rated lowest, although ratings have generally increased for this item since 1999. The percentage of students rating campus food services as "excellent" has more than doubled, from 6% in 1998 to 14% in 2006. Also seeing a fairly consistent increase in positive ratings over time are opportunities to participate in community service projects and residence life programs. Changes in ratings for other non-academic service areas have been inconsistent over the years.

In general, respondents' ratings of staff responsiveness were similar to the relevant service. The one exception is that food services staff - though still generally rated lowest among the staff asked about - received consistently higher ratings than food services. Staff responsiveness for campus counseling was rated most favorably in 1998 and 1999, while health services' staff responsiveness has ranked highest since 2000.

Table 19: Evaluation of Non-Academic Service Areas (Q)

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Service Area: Registration Process	2.81	2.98	2.95	3.12	3.03	3.11
Service Area: Financial Aid Services	2.86	2.83	2.58	.	.	.
Service Area: Finaid app/award process	.	.	.	2.80	2.90	2.90
Service Area: Finaid disbursement process	.	.	.	2.81	2.90	2.90
Service Area: Food Services	2.33	2.26	2.37	2.47	2.67	2.59
Service Area: Health Services	2.85	3.00	3.13	3.10	3.06	3.11
Service Area: Counseling (not career)	3.00	3.00	2.85	3.05	2.98	3.13
Service Area: Business Services/Cashier	2.91	2.84	2.77	2.90	3.03	3.09
Service Area: Residence Life Programs	2.69	2.66	2.70	2.74	2.88	2.92
Service Area: Opps. in Ex-Curric Activities	3.20	3.19	3.12	3.16	3.22	3.18
Service Area: Opps. in Commun Service Projs	2.74	2.71	2.76	2.87	3.02	2.97
Service Area: Opps. to Develop Ldrshp Skills	2.86	2.95	2.89	2.93	3.04	3.05

Frequency Distributions
Back to Top

Table 20: Evaluation of Non-Academic Services’ Staff Responsiveness(Q)

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Staff Responsiveness: Registration Process	2.84	2.91	2.89	2.98	2.97	2.97
Staff Responsiveness: Financial Aid Services	2.73	2.74	2.54	.	.	.
Staff Resp: Finaid app/award process	.	.	.	2.76	2.94	2.84
Staff Resp: Finaid disbursement process	.	.	.	2.75	2.93	2.86
Staff Responsiveness: Food Services	2.37	2.47	2.56	2.65	2.83	2.77
Staff Responsiveness: Health Services	2.92	2.99	3.07	3.09	3.05	3.10
Staff Responsiveness: Counseling (not career)	2.98	3.08	2.83	2.96	2.94	3.00
Staff Responsiveness: Business Services/Cashier	2.83	2.78	2.72	2.85	3.00	3.01
Staff Responsiveness: Residence Life Programs	2.74	2.76	2.77	2.80	2.92	2.92

Frequency Distributions
Back to Top

Financial Aid (Tables 21-23)

Beginning in 2002, a series of questions regarding financial aid were asked on the Sophomore Survey. Results inducate that a generally increasing majority of students received financial aid in all survey years, and that more were at least moderately satisfied with their aid package. Ratings for financial aid staff have moderately but steadily increased over the years. Although financial aid advising staff consistently receives slightly higher ratings than phone or and reception staff, positive ratings for both phone and reception staff have experienced slightly larger gains, thereby nearly closing the gap between the staff groups in 2008.

Table 21: Received Financial Aid (Q)

Receive Financial Aid	2002	2004	2006	2008
Yes	54.7%	54.3%	56.9%	58.2%
No	45.3%	45.7%	43.1%	41.8%
Total N	1,526	1,188	1,435	1,331

Table 22: Satisfaction with Financial Aid Package (Q)

Satisfaction with aid package	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.14	3.14	3.12	3.20
4: Very satisfied	31.8%	34.1%	32.7%	36.8%
3: Moderately satisfied	53.4%	50.3%	51.9%	49.5%
2: Moderately dissatisfied	11.4%	11.4%	10.0%	10.0%
1: Very dissatisfied	3.4%	4.2%	5.4%	3.6%
Total N	831	640	811	771

Table 23: Financial Aid Staff (Q)

	Mean Rating Scale: 4="excellent," 3="good," 2="fair," 1="poor"
	2002	2004	2006	2008
Finaid staff: Advisor	3.02	3.12	3.13	3.21
Finaid staff: Phone	2.82	2.95	3.02	3.10
Finaid staff: Reception	2.92	2.99	3.10	3.19

Frequency Distributions
Back to Top

Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development

This section of the 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, skill, and personal development in general education, personal development, and world view goals.

NC State Meeting Student Needs (Table 24)

Students were satisfied with how well NC State met their intellectual, personal, and career training needs. While intellectual growth needs were rated most favorably among the three areas in each year, mean ratings on all items were at or above 3.0 on a scale from 1="poorly" to 4="very well." In addition, ratings for all three items have consistently increased across survey years, most notably for the extent to which NC State met intellectual growth needs, with 55 percent saying "very well" in 2008 compared to 40 percent in 1999.

Table 24: Student Needs (Q)

NCSU meeting your int. growth needs	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.27	3.29	3.34	3.37	3.40	3.48
4: Very well	40.3%	41.5%	45.9%	48.2%	48.3%	55.1%
3: Adequately	48.0%	47.6%	44.2%	41.8%	44.8%	39.0%
2: Somewhat Adequately	10.4%	9.2%	8.5%	8.2%	5.7%	4.8%
1: Poorly	1.3%	1.7%	1.4%	1.8%	1.3%	1.1%
Total N	1,162	1,348	1,544	1,196	1,432	1,333

NCSU meeting your career training needs	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.04	3.02	3.05	3.08	3.13	3.18
4: Very well	32.9%	31.9%	34.1%	35.5%	37.5%	41.8%
3: Adequately	42.3%	43.3%	42.2%	41.3%	42.1%	39.2%
2: Somewhat Adequately	20.4%	19.1%	18.8%	18.6%	16.6%	14.6%
1: Poorly	4.4%	5.6%	4.9%	4.7%	3.9%	4.4%
Total N	1,162	1,346	1,544	1,195	1,431	1,334

NCSU meeting your personal growth needs	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Mean Rating	3.06	3.10	3.14	3.20	3.20	3.28
4: Very well	34.8%	36.6%	37.6%	41.9%	39.9%	45.7%
3: Adequately	41.1%	41.4%	43.1%	40.3%	43.8%	39.5%
2: Somewhat Adequately	19.9%	17.2%	14.6%	13.6%	12.8%	11.9%
1: Poorly	4.2%	4.8%	4.7%	4.2%	3.5%	2.9%
Total N	1,157	1,343	1,540	1,192	1,425	1,331

Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which their college had contributed to their development of various educational goals. The 35 goals listed related to either personal development, general education, or world views. The colleges' contribution was rated on a scale from 4="very much" to 1="not at all." "Do not know" responses were excluded from the analyses. Prior to 2008, the "Do not know/Did not use" option was the first one displayed - that is, the left-most option. On the 2008 questionnaire the "Do not know/Did not use" was moved to the far right, making it the last option. Because of possible response-order effects, it is not advisable to compare responses on such items from one year to the next. For this reason, only data through 2006 are presented in the following tables. For 2008 results for these items, see the 2008 Sophomore Survey: All Respondents report.

General Education Goals:
Overall, respondents were satisfied with the extent to which NC State colleges met their general education goals. All but one item, speaking skills in this section received a mean rating above 3.0 in every year. Items related to more technical or analytic aspects of students' education received the highest mean ratings, while items relating to communication (speaking, writing, listening, comprehension) had relatively lower ratings. Highest average ratings were given to developing computer skills in 1998 through 2000, to enhancing analytical skills in 2002 and 2006, and to ability to critically analyze ideas and information in 2004. Lowest average ratings were given to speaking skills, although ratings for this item increased somewhat in 2006. Average ratings of each of these items, excluding developing computer skills, were fairly stable over time, both in ranking and in mean score. The mean rating of developing computer skills decreased substantially from 1998 (3.60) to 2006 (3.24).

Personal Development Goals:
Respondents also gave high ratings to the extent to which NC State met their personal development goals. All but one aspect, exercising public responsibility and community service, received mean ratings at or above 3.0 each year, and this item's ratings increased markedly in 2006. The highest ranking item was independence and self-reliance. Average ratings of these personal development goals were stable over time, varying only about one-tenth or less over the survey years. The notable exception is with respect to recognizing and acting upon ethical principles, with average ratings fairly steadily increasing from 2.96 in 1998 to 3.21 in 2006.

World View Goals:
Students gave some of the lowest mean ratings to questions pertaining to NC State's contribution to their world view goals. Ratings were highest for ability to work with diverse backgrounds and developing tolerance for divergent views. Although ratings for advancing appreciation of the arts have steadily increased over the years, this item continues to receive the lowest average ratings. Average ratings for the other world view goal items have also increased, though less notably so.

Table 25: Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development (Q)

General Education Goals	Mean Rating Scale: 4="very much," 3="somewhat," 2="very little," 1="not at all"
General Education Goals	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Ability to carry out proj indeptly	3.44	3.43	3.39	3.42	3.41	3.39
Ability to critically analyze ideas/info	3.43	3.37	3.37	3.36	3.36	3.41
Applying sci inquiry	3.35	3.32	3.34	3.30	3.33	3.39
Comprehension skills	3.33	3.29	3.30	3.30	3.30	3.37
Develop computer skills	3.60	3.57	3.52	3.37	3.24	3.24
Enhancing analytical skills	.	3.45	3.45	3.44	3.42	3.43
Listening skills	3.21	3.26	3.24	3.26	3.30	3.30
Speaking skills	2.90	2.98	2.94	2.98	2.99	3.05
Understanding of diverse values	3.10	3.11	3.13	3.20	3.19	3.26
Understanding sci/tech influence everyday life	3.47	3.39	3.39	3.34	3.34	3.33
Using math skills	3.42	3.38	3.39	3.34	3.34	3.39
Writing skills	3.12	3.11	3.11	3.11	3.09	3.19

Personal Development Goals	Mean Rating Scale: 4="very much," 3="somewhat," 2="very little," 1="not at all"
Personal Development Goals	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Ability to function as part of a team	3.33	3.33	3.29	3.31	3.32	3.35
Ability to handle stress	3.17	3.19	3.15	3.25	3.21	3.30
Ability to lead or guide others	3.10	3.15	3.13	3.17	3.17	3.21
Commitment to fitness	3.08	3.11	3.08	3.12	3.13	3.16
Coping with change	3.41	3.41	3.36	3.43	3.39	3.45
Independence and self-reliance	3.54	3.54	3.51	3.53	3.48	3.58
Personal growth	.	3.45	3.41	3.47	3.44	3.50
Potential for success	3.52	3.48	3.44	3.49	3.46	3.52
Public respons and commun. service	2.81	2.81	2.85	2.89	2.95	3.35
Recog and acting ethical	2.96	3.09	3.04	3.10	3.17	3.21
Self discipline	.	3.39	3.39	3.43	3.41	3.46
Self-confidence	3.20	3.26	3.20	3.25	3.25	3.28
Sense of personal identity	3.24	3.25	3.25	3.30	3.29	3.28
Taking responsibility for behavior	3.42	3.43	3.41	3.43	3.42	3.41
Time management skills	3.26	3.33	3.29	3.36	3.35	3.42
Valuing learning as lifelong	3.40	3.37	3.39	3.42	3.41	3.36

World View Goals	Mean Rating Scale: 4="very much," 3="somewhat," 2="very little," 1="not at all"
World View Goals	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006
Ability to work w diverse backgrounds	3.29	3.26	3.24	3.27	3.29	3.30
Advancing appreciation of arts	2.64	2.66	2.70	2.81	2.86	2.91
Appreciating gender equity	2.99	2.94	3.00	3.07	3.10	3.18
Appreciating racial equity	2.95	2.93	2.98	3.06	3.09	3.18
Develop tolerance for divergent views	3.19	3.20	3.19	3.24	3.22	3.25
Understanding present as relates to history	2.85	2.92	2.95	2.96	3.01	3.08
Understanding world issues	2.96	2.94	2.98	3.10	3.15	3.18

*In 1999, results for this question were incorrectly captured by the Web survey. The data presented reflect only students who responded to the paper and pencil version of the survey (N=180).
Frequency Distributions
Back to Top

Employment and Extracurricular Activities

Student Employment (Tables 26-30)

A majority of respondents in each year indicated they were employed during the academic year. The percentage of employed sophomores, however, has fairly steadily declined from 67 percent in 1998 to 52 percent in 2008. Tables 27-29 present informartion on the average number of hours worked per week. Starting in 2004, respondents were asked to specify hours worked at both on - and off-campus jobs. Regardless of location, an increasing number of employed sophomores are working more than 20 hours per week. The data indicate that off-campus jobs are where students are working more hours, with the percentage of respondents working at least 20 hours per week hovering around 40 percent for off-campus jobs, versus between 10 and 20 percent for on-campus jobs.

Table 26: Student Employment

	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Total Employed Respondents (Q)	67.3%	60.5%	61.7%	59.2%	51.8% (620)	56.4% (805)	51.5% (683)
Employed on-campus	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	26.8%	33.7%	28.2%
Employed off-campus	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	64.0%	58.4%	61.6%
Employed both on- and off-campus	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	9.2%	8.0%	10.1%

Table 27: Average Hours Worked Per Week during the Academic Year (Q)
(Among Employed Respondents)

Average hours per week worked	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004*	2006*	2008*
<10 hrs/wk	38.3%	29.9%	35.7%	38.7%	26.4%	22.0%	22.1%
10-19 hrs/wk	37.4%	41.2%	39.4%	38.3%	41.8%	39.8%	42.2%
20-29 hrs/wk	16.3%	22.5%	19.0%	17.1%	21.1%	25.8%	24.1%
30+ hrs/wk	7.9%	6.4%	5.8%	5.8%	10.6%	12.4%	11.5%
Total N	772	708	842	958	592	744	651

*Starting in 2004, respondents were asked about hours worked in on-campus and off-campus jobs. The hours listed for 2004-2008 represent the total hours worked at either on-, off-, or both types of jobs.

Table 28: Hours Worked Per Week On Campus

Avg hours worked-on campus job	2004	2006	2008
<10 hrs/wk	44.6%	40.6%	37.2%
10-19 hrs/wk	43.9%	40.6%	42.0%
20-29 hrs/wk	8.3%	13.1%	15.4%
30+ hrs/wk	3.2%	5.7%	5.3%
Total N	157	244	188

Table 29: Hours Worked Per Week Off Campus

Avg hours worked-off campus job	2004	2006	2008
<10 hrs/wk	16.9%	14.2%	18.3%
10-19 hrs/wk	44.4%	42.4%	42.9%
20-29 hrs/wk	25.9%	31.0%	27.4%
30+ hrs/wk	12.7%	12.4%	11.4%
Total N	378	436	394

Between 1998 and 2002, about 40 percent of employed sophomores reported that their jobs were at least "somewhat related" to their major. Of those who reported that their job was "not related" to their major, about 70 percent reported that this was by choice. Beginning in 2004, respondents were asked specifically about on-campus versus off-campus employment. Those working on campus were rather more likely to report their job being at least "somewhat related" to their major (52% versus 30% for those employed off-campus) in 2004, but since then that gap has narrowed as on-campus jobs are less related to major and, to a lesser extent, off-campus ones, more so.

Table 30: Job Relation to Academic Major

Job relationship to academic major (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004*		2006		2008
Job relationship to academic major (Q)	1998	1999	2000	2002	On Campus	Off Campus	On Campus	Off Campus	On Campus	Off Campus
Directly related	14.5%	14.8%	14.7%	14.5%	25.6%	9.1%	17.6%	16.8%	13.5%	14.7%
Somewhat related	28.9%	26.0%	24.7%	25.9%	26.9%	20.5%	28.8%	19.3%	21.9%	18.8%
Not related	56.5%	59.2%	60.6%	59.6%	47.5%	70.4%	53.6%	63.9%	64.5%	66.5%
Job not related by choice (among those saying "not related")	NA	67.5%	71.3%	70.6%	76.0%	59.6%	69.0%	61.9%	73.5%	62.5%

*Starting in 2004, respondents were asked about both on-campus and off-campus job relationship to major.
Back to Top

Involvement with Campus Activities (Table 31)

Since 1999, sophomores have been asked in which campus activities they were involved. For the most part, there has been little change over the years in the proportion of sophomores participating in the various activities. Since 1999, the top three activities have been intramurals/recreational sports/club teams, organizations or clubs related to major, and academic (Honors Program, etc.). Across all years, students have been least likely to be involved in student judicial board, student government, UAB/student media, and varsity athletic teams. In 2006, the list of activities presented in the survey changed significantly. Trend data for the new items will be available after the 2010 Sophomore Survey administration.

Table 31: Involvement with Campus Activities (Q)

	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
Honors program	33.8%	32.2%	31.2%	31.5%	NA	NA
Org/clubs related to major	39.4%	36.6%	37.9%	36.8%	40.9%	40.3%
Honor/svc/prof fraternity	21.5%	16.6%	20.4%	15.6%	NA	NA
Residence hall council	8.0%	7.8%	7.0%	7.2%	5.3%	5.5%
Social fraternity/sorority	13.6%	13.5%	14.2%	12.3%	12.0%	14.0%
Intramurals/rec sports/club team	40.5%	38.5%	38.9%	35.7%	39.8%	39.8%
Varsity athletic teams	3.8%	4.8%	3.1%	2.9%	3.6%	3.6%
Student government	2.7%	2.3%	4.1%	2.3%	2.2%	2.7%
Student judicial board	1.1%	1.3%	1.7%	0.4%	NA	NA
UAB/ student media	3.8%	3.4%	4.6%	2.8%	NA	NA
Vis/perform arts/music gp	8.6%	8.4%	7.5%	7.7%	5.7%	7.1%
Minority student groups	9.1%	7.4%	7.8%	6.0%	10.7%	9.7%
Relig/political/issue gp	19.1%	19.1%	20.3%	20.6%	NA	NA
Other	0.9%	8.6%	6.6%	6.0%	NA	NA
Academic scholarship program	NA	NA	NA	NA	5.7%	5.0%
Religious groups	NA	NA	NA	NA	25.5%	21.4%
Political/issue groups	NA	NA	NA	NA	6.5%	4.5%
ROTC	NA	NA	NA	NA	2.1%	2.4%
Service groups	NA	NA	NA	NA	12.9%	14.9%
Student media/publications	NA	NA	NA	NA	2.2%	2.6%
UAB groups	NA	NA	NA	NA	1.6%	1.0%
University honors program	NA	NA	NA	NA	3.9%	4.0%
University Scholars program	NA	NA	NA	NA	19.2%	18.2%
Total N	1,170	1,365	1,569	1,215	1,454	1,353

For more information on trends in the 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: May 2010

Download a Microsoft Word Version of this report.

Return to Sophomore Student Survey Trends Table of Contents Page

Return to OIRP Survey Page

Return to OIRP Home Page

North Carolina State University Sophomore Student Survey Trends, 1998-2008: Overview of Results

North Carolina State University
Sophomore Student Survey Trends, 1998-2008:
Overview of Results