NC State logo

North Carolina State University
2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey
Section I: Post-Tenure Review

College Results
Tenure Track Faculty
(Tenured and Probationary)


The following tables provide results to questions in Section I: Post-Tenure Review, broken down by college for tenure track faculty only. For exact question wording for this section, click here.

Table of Contents | Annotated Questionnaire | College Results for all Faculty


To download a Microsoft Word version of this document (Section I only), click here.

To download a Microsoft Word document with results for all sections of the survey, click here.


I1_1: No experience with PTR

  Has experience
(%)		 No experience
(%) 		Total (N)
Total (N) 65.9 34.1 866

I1_1: No experience with PTR Has experience
(%)		 No experience
(%) 		Total (N)
College of appointment 71.7 28.3 240
..... CALS
..... CED 48.8 51.2 43
..... CHASS 59.3 40.7 145
..... CNR 68.8 31.3 48
..... COE 60.0 40.0 135
..... COM 67.4 32.6 43
..... COT 61.5 38.5 26
..... CVM 71.0 29.0 62
..... Design 66.7 33.3 24
..... PAMS 71.0 29.0 93
..... Student Affairs 100.0 . 5
Back to Top

I1_2: Have had PTR Comprehensive Review

  No (%) Yes (%) Total (N)
Total (N) 46.4 53.6 866

I1_2: Have had PTR Comprehensive Review No (%) Yes (%) Total (N)
College of appointment 39.2 60.8 240
..... CALS
..... CED 76.7 23.3 43
..... CHASS 49.0 51.0 145
..... CNR 45.8 54.2 48
..... COE 56.3 43.7 135
..... COM 48.8 51.2 43
..... COT 50.0 50.0 26
..... CVM 33.9 66.1 62
..... Design 50.0 50.0 24
..... PAMS 40.9 59.1 93
..... Student Affairs 20.0 80.0 5
Back to Top

I1_3: Have served on PTR committee

  No (%) Yes (%) Total (N)
Total (N) 60.6 39.4 866

I1_3: Have served on PTR committee No (%) Yes (%) Total (N)
College of appointment 57.9 42.1 240
..... CALS
..... CED 65.1 34.9 43
..... CHASS 65.5 34.5 145
..... CNR 56.3 43.8 48
..... COE 65.9 34.1 135
..... COM 44.2 55.8 43
..... COT 53.8 46.2 26
..... CVM 58.1 41.9 62
..... Design 50.0 50.0 24
..... PAMS 66.7 33.3 93
..... Student Affairs 60.0 40.0 5
Back to Top

I1_4: Have been dept/college administrator in PTR process

  No (%) Yes (%) Total (N)
Total (N) 91.2 8.8 866

I1_4: Have been dept/college administrator in PTR process No (%) Yes (%) Total (N)
College of appointment 90.8 9.2 240
..... CALS
..... CED 86.0 14.0 43
..... CHASS 92.4 7.6 145
..... CNR 93.8 6.3 48
..... COE 91.9 8.1 135
..... COM 93.0 7.0 43
..... COT 92.3 7.7 26
..... CVM 91.9 8.1 62
..... Design 83.3 16.7 24
..... PAMS 91.4 8.6 93
..... Student Affairs 80.0 20.0 5
Back to Top

I1_5: Had other PTR experience

  No (%) Yes (%) Total (N)
Total (N) 96.5 3.5 866

I1_5: Had other PTR experience No (%) Yes (%) Total (N)
College of appointment 97.5 2.5 240
..... CALS
..... CED 95.3 4.7 43
..... CHASS 97.9 2.1 145
..... CNR 95.8 4.2 48
..... COE 95.6 4.4 135
..... COM 95.3 4.7 43
..... COT 96.2 3.8 26
..... CVM 93.5 6.5 62
..... Design 91.7 8.3 24
..... PAMS 97.8 2.2 93
..... Student Affairs 100.0 . 5
Back to Top

I2a: Easy to find PTR information on NCSU website

  Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
Total (N) 2.9 16.6 62.1 17.9 3.4 643

I2a: Easy to find PTR information on NCSU website Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
College of appointment 3.0 18.5 63.5 14.0 3.9 178
..... CALS
..... CED 2.4 3.1 40.6 46.9 9.4 32
..... CHASS 2.9 12.6 67.0 18.4 1.9 103
..... CNR 3.0 23.1 59.0 12.8 5.1 39
..... COE 3.0 16.7 66.7 15.7 1.0 102
..... COM 2.9 25.0 50.0 18.8 6.3 32
..... COT 2.9 11.8 64.7 23.5 . 17
..... CVM 3.1 27.1 52.1 20.8 . 48
..... Design 2.7 21.1 42.1 26.3 10.5 19
..... PAMS 2.9 10.6 72.7 13.6 3.0 66
..... Student Affairs 2.8 . 80.0 20.0 . 5
Back to Top

I2b: PTR process known/understood in department

  Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
Total (N) 2.8 14.3 52.2 28.1 5.5 694

I2b: PTR process known/understood in department Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
College of appointment 2.9 17.6 54.8 24.1 3.5 199
..... CALS
..... CED 1.9 . 16.1 54.8 29.0 31
..... CHASS 2.6 8.5 53.8 30.8 6.8 117
..... CNR 2.7 12.2 56.1 24.4 7.3 41
..... COE 2.8 13.7 55.9 28.4 2.0 102
..... COM 2.7 16.7 46.7 26.7 10.0 30
..... COT 2.8 10.0 55.0 35.0 . 20
..... CVM 2.9 29.6 38.9 27.8 3.7 54
..... Design 2.4 . 45.5 45.5 9.1 22
..... PAMS 2.9 14.1 64.8 19.7 1.4 71
..... Student Affairs 3.2 40.0 40.0 20.0 . 5
Back to Top

I2c: Departmental PTR procedures are clear

  Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
Total (N) 2.9 18.9 58.7 18.3 4.0 693

I2c: Departmental PTR procedures are clear Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
College of appointment 3.0 23.2 60.1 14.6 2.0 198
..... CALS
..... CED 2.3 13.3 20.0 46.7 20.0 30
..... CHASS 2.9 17.1 63.2 15.4 4.3 117
..... CNR 2.9 16.7 64.3 11.9 7.1 42
..... COE 2.8 13.3 60.0 24.8 1.9 105
..... COM 2.9 23.3 53.3 16.7 6.7 30
..... COT 2.8 10.0 60.0 30.0 . 20
..... CVM 3.1 30.2 54.7 11.3 3.8 53
..... Design 2.4 10.5 31.6 47.4 10.5 19
..... PAMS 3.0 15.3 72.2 11.1 1.4 72
..... Student Affairs 3.2 40.0 40.0 20.0 . 5
Back to Top

I2d: Departmental PTR standards are clear

  Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
Total (N) 2.8 17.2 53.2 24.2 5.4 690

I2d: Departmental PTR standards are clear Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
College of appointment 2.9 20.1 52.8 24.1 3.0 199
..... CALS
..... CED 2.2 12.9 19.4 45.2 22.6 31
..... CHASS 2.9 18.1 56.9 19.8 5.2 116
..... CNR 2.7 4.8 69.0 16.7 9.5 42
..... COE 2.8 15.7 51.0 30.4 2.9 102
..... COM 2.9 19.4 54.8 19.4 6.5 31
..... COT 2.7 10.0 50.0 40.0 . 20
..... CVM 3.1 30.8 50.0 13.5 5.8 52
..... Design 2.5 10.5 36.8 42.1 10.5 19
..... PAMS 2.8 12.7 63.4 19.7 4.2 71
..... Student Affairs 3.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 . 5
Back to Top

I2e: Departmental PTR procedures are followed equitably

  Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
Total (N) 3.0 23.4 62.0 9.5 5.0 577

I2e: Departmental PTR procedures are followed equitably Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
College of appointment 3.2 28.1 62.6 6.4 2.9 171
..... CALS
..... CED 2.6 29.4 23.5 23.5 23.5 17
..... CHASS 2.9 16.7 63.5 12.5 7.3 96
..... CNR 3.0 8.1 83.8 5.4 2.7 37
..... COE 3.1 21.4 65.5 10.7 2.4 84
..... COM 3.0 25.9 59.3 7.4 7.4 27
..... COT 2.8 14.3 57.1 21.4 7.1 14
..... CVM 3.2 40.4 42.6 10.6 6.4 47
..... Design 2.5 17.6 29.4 41.2 11.8 17
..... PAMS 3.2 21.3 77.0 . 1.6 61
..... Student Affairs 3.3 25.0 75.0 . . 4
Back to Top

I2f: Departmental PTR standards are applied fairly

  Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
Total (N) 3.0 23.3 60.9 10.0 5.8 571

I2f: Departmental PTR standards are applied fairly Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
College of appointment 3.1 28.2 60.6 7.6 3.5 170
..... CALS
..... CED 2.7 27.8 33.3 22.2 16.7 18
..... CHASS 2.8 15.3 59.2 17.3 8.2 98
..... CNR 3.0 6.1 87.9 3.0 3.0 33
..... COE 3.0 22.9 61.4 10.8 4.8 83
..... COM 3.1 25.0 64.3 3.6 7.1 28
..... COT 2.6 7.7 61.5 15.4 15.4 13
..... CVM 3.1 38.8 42.9 12.2 6.1 49
..... Design 2.7 20.0 46.7 20.0 13.3 15
..... PAMS 3.2 22.4 74.1 1.7 1.7 58
..... Student Affairs 3.3 25.0 75.0 . . 4
Back to Top

I2g: Dept PTR committee members are well prepared and trained

  Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
Total (N) 2.8 16.4 55.1 20.1 8.5 532

I2g: Dept PTR committee members are well prepared and trained Mean Rating 4: Strongly
agree (%)
 3: Agree
(%)
2: Disagree
(%)
1: Strongly
disagree (%)
 Total (N)
College of appointment 2.9 19.3 57.1 16.8 6.8 161
..... CALS
..... CED 2.5 15.8 31.6 36.8 15.8 19
..... CHASS 2.7 13.2 57.1 19.8 9.9 91
..... CNR 2.6 3.0 66.7 18.2 12.1 33
..... COE 2.8 16.2 56.8 20.3 6.8 74
..... COM 2.6 20.0 36.0 32.0 12.0 25
..... COT 2.4 16.7 33.3 25.0 25.0 12
..... CVM 3.0 24.4 53.3 17.8 4.4 45
..... Design 2.3 7.7 30.8 46.2 15.4 13
..... PAMS 2.9 15.4 65.4 15.4 3.8 52
..... Student Affairs 3.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 . 5
Back to Top

I3: Overall satisfaction with PTR process

  Mean Rating 4: Very
Satisfied
(%) 		3: Satisfied
(%)
2: Dissatisfied
(%)
1: Very dissatisfied
(%) 		Total (N)
Total (N) 2.7 13.2 56.8 20.7 9.3 600

I3: Overall satisfaction with PTR process Mean Rating 4: Very
Satisfied
(%) 		3: Satisfied
(%)
2: Dissatisfied
(%)
1: Very dissatisfied
(%) 		Total (N)
College of appointment 2.9 17.5 60.5 19.2 2.8 177
..... CALS
..... CED 2.3 4.8 38.1 38.1 19.0 21
..... CHASS 2.7 10.5 60.0 17.9 11.6 95
..... CNR 2.6 5.4 67.6 10.8 16.2 37
..... COE 2.7 13.8 57.5 18.4 10.3 87
..... COM 2.6 10.3 51.7 27.6 10.3 29
..... COT 2.6 6.3 50.0 43.8 . 16
..... CVM 2.8 20.4 51.0 16.3 12.2 49
..... Design 2.3 12.5 18.8 56.3 12.5 16
..... PAMS 2.7 9.1 60.6 16.7 13.6 66
..... Student Affairs 3.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 . 5
Back to top

Continue to Section J: Pay and Compensation



For more information on the NC State University 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey contact:
Dr. Nancy Whelchel, Associate Director for Survey Research
Office of Institutional Planning and Research
Box 7002
NCSU
Phone: (919) 515-4184
Email: ncsu_surveys@ncsu.edu

Posted: April, 2007

To download a Microsoft Word version of this document (Section I only), click here.

To download a Microsoft Word document with results for all sections of the survey, click here.

Return to Annotated Questionnaire

Return to 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey Table of Contents Page