The 2024 Student Culture & Climate Survey from the Broad College of Business at Michigan State University.
2024 Eli Broad College of Business Student Climate and Culture Survey
Conducted on Behalf of The Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University
By
The Office for Survey Research Ins tute for Public Policy and Social Research Michigan State University
1
Table of Contents Overview and Methodology..........................................................................................................................................5 Popula on ................................................................................................................................................................5 Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Ins tu onal Data...............................................................6 Table 2. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Self-Reported Data ............................................................7 Data Collec on .........................................................................................................................................................7 Chart 1. Surveys Completed by Each Week During the Data Collec on Period...................................................8 Interpreta on of Tables ............................................................................................................................................8 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................................9 Sa sfac on with Climate and Environment..............................................................................................................9 Table 3.1. Sa sfac on with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College ...................9 Table 3.2 Sa sfac on with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity and Sexual Iden ty.......................................................................................................10 Table 3.3. Sa sfac on with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College by Class Level and Academic Level ..................................................................................................................................10 Paired Adjec ve Comparison..................................................................................................................................11 Table 4.1 – Adjective Comparisons....................................................................................................................12 Table 4.2. Adjective Comparisons by Gender Identity, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Identity .............................13 Table 4.3. Adjective Comparisons by Class Level and Academic Level ..............................................................13 College Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Aspects and Sense of Belonging ...............................................................14 Table 5.1 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posi ve Framed Items) .............................................16 Table 5.2 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Nega ve Framed Items)............................................17 Table 5.3 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posi ve Framed Items) by Gender Iden ty, Race- Ethnicity, and Sexual Iden ty. ............................................................................................................................18 Table 5.4 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posi ve Framed Items) by Class Level and Academic Level ................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 5.5 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Nega ve Framed Items) by Gender Iden ty, Race- Ethnicity and Sexual Iden ty. .............................................................................................................................20 Table 5.6 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Nega ve Framed Items) by Class Level and Academic Level ................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Meaningful Student Interac ons ............................................................................................................................21 Table 6.1. Meaningful Interac ons with Others (Some mes-Very O en) ........................................................22 Table 6.2. Meaningful Interac ons with Others (Some mes-Very O en) by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Iden ty ............................................................................................................................................23 Table 6.3. Meaningful Interac ons with Others (Some mes-Very O en) by Class Level and Academic Level.24 Racial and Ethnic Composi on of Community and Last School A ended..............................................................25
2
Table 7.1 Racial and Ethnic Composi on of Community and School Last A ended..........................................25 Table 7.2. Racial and Ethnic Composi on of Community and Last School A ended by Student Race-Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 7.3. Diversity Sa sfac on at MSU and College by Diversity of Last School A ended..............................26 Table 7.4. DEI Measurements in the College by Diversity of Last School A ended ..........................................27 Student Experiences with Bias/Discrimina on Events ...........................................................................................27 Table 8.1. Type and Frequency of Bias/Discriminatory Events Experienced......................................................29 Table 8.2. Type and Frequency of Bias/Discriminatory Events Experienced by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Iden ty ............................................................................................................................................30 Table 8.3. Type and Frequency of Bias/Discriminatory Events Experienced by Class Level and Academic Level ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Experiences with Equitable Treatment ...................................................................................................................32 Table 9.1. Fair and Equitable Treatment ............................................................................................................32 Table 9.2 Fair and Equitable Treatment by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Iden ty......................33 Table 9.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Iden ty......................33 Students Listened to in Classroom Se ngs ............................................................................................................34 Table 10.1. Listened to in Classrooms and Classroom Se ngs ..........................................................................34 Table 10.2 Listened to in Classrooms and Classroom Se ngs by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity and Sexual Iden ty...............................................................................................................................................................35 Table 10.3. Listened to in Classrooms and Classroom Se ngs ..........................................................................35 Students Feeling Valued Outside Classroom ..........................................................................................................35 Table 11.1. Feeling Valued Outside of Classrooms.............................................................................................36 Table 11.2. Feeling Valued Outside of Classrooms by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Iden ty .....37 Table 11.3. Feeling Valued Outside of Classrooms by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Iden ty .....37 2024 Data Overall Summary........................................................................................................................................38 Results Comparison between 2022 and 2024 .............................................................................................................39 Sa sfac on with Climate and Environment............................................................................................................40 Chart 3. Sa sfac on with Climate/Environment: 2022 – 2024 Comparison......................................................40 Paired Adjec ve Comparison..................................................................................................................................41 Chart 4. Adjective Comparisons : 2022 – 2024 Comparison.............................................................................41 College Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Aspects and Sense of Belonging ...............................................................42 Chart 5, College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posi ve Framed Items): 2022 – 2024 Comparison ......42 Chart 6. College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Nega ve Framed Items): 2022 – 2024 Comparison ....43 Meaningful Student Interac ons ............................................................................................................................44 Chart 7. Meaningful Interac ons with Others (Some mes-Very O en): 2022 – 2024 Comparison..................44
3
Racial and Ethnic Composi on of Community and Last School A ended ..............................................................45 Chart 8. Racial and Ethnic Composi on of Community and Last School A ended: 2022 and 2024 Comparison. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Student Experiences with Bias/Discrimina on Events ...........................................................................................45 Chart 9. Type of Bias/Discriminatory Events Experienced: 2022 – 2024 Comparison .......................................46 Fair and Equitable Treatment .................................................................................................................................46 Chart 1O. Fair and Equitable Treatment: 2022 – 2024 Comparison ..................................................................47 Students Listened to in Classroom Se ngs ............................................................................................................47 Chart 11. Listened to in Classrooms and Classroom Se ngs: 2022 – 2024 Comparison...................................48 Students Feeling Valued Outside Classroom ..........................................................................................................48 Chart 12. Feeling Valued Outside of Classrooms: 2022 – 2024 Comparison .....................................................49 Comparison Summary ............................................................................................................................................49 Appendix A: Ques onnaire .........................................................................................................................................50
4
Overview and Methodology \In the fall of 2024, Michigan State University’s Eli Broad College of Business invited all current faculty, academic staff, university support staff, and students to evaluate the climate and culture within the college. This report focuses on the results of the student survey. The data collec on instrument used in 2024 was based on the instrument used in 2022 1 . While efforts were made to maintain the same ques ons for comparison between the two periods, slight changes in wording and ques on structure were incorporated in 2024 to be er meet the needs of the college. In the sec on of this report that compares the 2022 and 2024 results, any devia ons in ques on wording or structure are noted. The full version of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. The data collec on instrument contained the following sec ons: • Introduc on and Informed Consent • Climate and Environment – 36 ques ons • Bias Incidences – 19 ques ons • Student Experiences - 11 ques ons • Climate Feedback – 3 open-ended ques ons| • Demographics – 8 ques ons.
Popula on
The survey was administered to 4,699 2 Eli Broad College of Business students - 3,545 undergraduate students, 1,108 master level students, and 48 doctoral students enrolled as of Fall 2024 using a web-based data collec on pla orm. Students were offered a $5 Panera e-card as an incen ve to par cipate. All data was submi ed anonymously. Table 1 presents the demographic profile of The Eli Broad College of Business, based on ins tu onal data. This informa on is used to assess how representa ve the collected data is of the overall student popula on. The data is highly representa ve of the popula on by class level, with the class distribu on within +/-5% of the actual popula on. Addi onally, the data is also largely representa ve of the popula on by race and ethnicity, for American Indian/Alaskan Na ve, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/La no, and students who iden fied with two or more races. However, the data slightly underrepresents White students by +6.3% and includes a higher representa on of interna onal students by +7.8%. The largest difference in representa on is males and females with the data overrepresen ng women by 15.5%.
1 The 2022 study was conducted by SoundRocket,LLC. 2 The sample file received from the college contained 4,703 students of which four (4) were also college employees who were dropped from the student sample and received the employee survey.
5
Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Ins tu onal Data
Respondents
Population
N
%
Demographic Group
N
%
Difference
Freshman Sophomore
71
7.3%
368 714
7.8%
-0.5% -2.6% -2.7% 0.9% 3.7% 1.1% 4.8%
122 228 261 264
12.6% 23.6% 27.0% 27.3%
15.2% 26.3% 26.1% 23.6%
Junior Senior
1235 1228 1108
Masters
PhD
20
2.1%
46
1.0%
GRAD
284
29.4%
1154
24.6%
UGRD
682 533 433
70.6% 55.2% 44.8%
3545 1865 2833
75.4% 39.7% 60.3% 0.0002
-4.8% 15.5% -15.5%
Female
Male
X
0 1
0.0% 0.1% 9.6% 2.7% 5.2%
1
0.0% -0.2% 0.5% -1.2% 0.0% 7.8% 0.2% -0.2% -0.6% -6.3%
American Indian/Alaska Native
14
0.3% 9.1% 3.9% 5.2% 8.8% 0.1% 2.0% 3.5%
Asian
93 26 50
429 181 242 413
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino International
160
16.6%
Native Hawaiian/Oth Pac Island
3
0.3% 1.8% 2.9%
4
Not Specified
17 28
93
Two or More Races
166
White
588
60.9%
3157
67.2%
Table 2 shows respondents’ self-reported demographics. For analysis purposes, self-reported data was used for gender iden ty, race-ethnicity, and sexual iden ty. If there was no self-reported data for gender iden ty or race-ethnicity (respondent chose not to answer the ques on), ins tu onal data was used for those cases. Ins tu onal data was used for analysis for class level and academic level. To protect the confiden ality of students and for analysis, self-reported gender iden ty was collapsed from 10 categories to three categories: Women, Men, and Another iden ty. Students who indicated a gender iden ty other than Man or Women (including those that choose Man or Woman along with another iden ty) were included in the Another Iden ty category. Because of the small percentage of students who iden fied as another gender, 1.0%, no separate analysis was done for this group. Sexual iden ty was condensed from eleven categories into two: LGBTQIA2S+ and straight. For race, the categories were simplified into three groups for analysis: White, Other BIPOC, and Asian. Respondents who indicated a race or ethnicity other than White or Asian, including those who iden fied as both White and another race or ethnicity, were classified under the Other BIPOC category.
6
Table 2. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Self-Reported Data
N
%
Demographic Group
Undergraduate - Freshman Undergraduate - Sophomore
73
7.6%
126 228 251 155 108
13.1% 23.7% 26.1% 16.1% 11.2%
Undergraduate - Junior Undergraduate - Senior
Class Level
Masters - Primarily on Campus
Masters – Primarily Hybrid/Online/Off-Campus
Doctoral
21
2.2%
Yes
171
18.1%
International
No
776
81.9%
Yes
85
9.2%
Disability
No
840
90.8%
Yes
16
1.7%
Armed Forces
No
930
98.3%
Woman
525
54.3%
Gender Identity
Man
431
44.6%
Another Identity
10
1.0%
LGBTQIA2S+
117 794
12.8% 87.2%
Sexual Identity
Straight
African American or Black
41
4.4%
Alaskan Native or American Indian
3
0.3%
Asian
250
26.9%
Race-Ethnicity Identity
Hispanic or Latino/Latinx
57
6.1%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
6
0.6%
White or Caucasian
616
66.2%
Middle Eastern
20
2.1%
Data Collec on Data collec on was conducted from October 1, 2024, to November 7, 2024. Reminder emails were sent on October 7, October 10, October 15, October 18, October 24, and October 29. Chart 1 shows the number of surveys completed during each week of data collec on. Nearly half, 46.4% of surveys were completed in the first week of data collec on.
7
Chart 1. Surveys Completed by Each Week During the Data Collec on Period
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
449
248
117
103
50
0 50
October 1-6
October 7-13
October 14 -20
October 21-27
October 28-November 7
During the data collec on period, 1,132 students accessed the survey, with 966 comple ng it, resul ng in a coopera on rate of 85.3%. Three students declined to give consent. The overall response rate for students was 20.6%. Specifically, the response rates were as follows: 19.2% for undergraduate students, 23.8% for master’s degree students, and 43.5% for PhD students. For this study, data collec on u lized the en re popula on rather than random samples. Tests of significance, such as Chi-Square and t-tests, are designed to assess whether the observed differences between groups during analysis exist in the popula on or are simply due to sampling error. Since no samples were used, there is no possibility of sampling error. Any differences between groups observed in this study's analysis reflect actual dispari es in the popula on, provided that the overrepresenta on or underrepresenta on of any group does not bias the results. Interpreta on of Tables The tables displaying the overall results for each item in the ques onnaire show the percentage distribu on across each scale point, the percentage of overall agreement (or in some cases, disagreement) the total number of respondents who answered the ques on, the overall mean value, and the standard devia on for each item where applicable. The means are calculated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 represen ng the most nega ve (unfavorable) posi on and 5 the most posi ve (favorable) unless otherwise specified. The number of respondents may vary for each item, as some individuals may choose not to answer certain ques ons. All ques ons within matrices were presented to respondents in a random order to eliminate order effects. The tables that show results by demographic subgroups indicate the mean score (and, in some cases, the percentage of individuals experiencing certain behaviors) for each subgroup, along with the maximum number of respondents within each category. When comparing groups based on demographic characteris cs, minor differences between groups should be an cipated and may simply result from non-responses. In contrast, larger differences are more likely to reflect actual varia ons in a tudes, percep ons, and experiences between groups. For interpre ng the mean scores on the Likert scale, the ranges are as follows: 1.00-2.49 indicates a nega ve a tude, 2.50-3.49 reflects a neutral a tude, and 3.50-5.00 suggests a posi ve a tude, unless otherwise noted.
8
Mean scores of 4.50 and above can also be considered very posi ve, while scores of 1.50 and below are viewed as very nega ve.
Results Sa sfac on with Climate and Environment
Students were first asked to rate their level of sa sfac on with the climate and environment at Michigan State University and within the college on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represented "very dissa sfied" and 5 represented "very sa sfied." As shown in Table 3.1 the overall sa sfac on levels for the university and the college were nearly iden cal, with 86.6% of students sa sfied or very sa sfied with the college and 86.2% sa sfied with the university. On average, students rated the climate and environment within the college slightly higher, with mean scores of 4.22 for the college and 4.16 for the university. Both mean scores fell into the posi ve range of the scale. Table 3.1. Sa sfac on with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the climate/environment at
Std. Dev
N
Mean
0.3%
2.5%
11.0%
53.5%
32.7%
Michigan State University
86.2%
966
4.16
0.73
3
24
106
517
316
0.1%
3.4%
9.8%
47.4%
39.2%
Eli Broad College of Business
86.6%
966
4.22
0.77
1
33
95
458
379
Results by demographic groups are shown in Table 3.2 and 3.3 When examining sa sfac on by demographic group, the data revealed the following: • Men reported slightly higher sa sfac on levels for both the university (mean score 4.21) and the college (mean score 4.29) compared to women, whose scores were 4.13 for the university and 4.18 for the college. • White students had the highest sa sfac on ra ngs, followed by Asian students. Other BIPOC students reported the lowest, yet s ll posi ve, levels of sa sfac on, with mean scores of 4.08 for the university and 4.05 for the college.
• Students who iden fied as LGBTQIA2S+ had lower sa sfac on ra ngs for both the university (mean score 4.04) and the college (mean score 4.03) compared to their straight counterparts. Interes ngly, LGBTQIA2S+ students and other BIPOC students were the only groups that reported higher sa sfac on with the university than with the college.
• Among all demographic subgroups, LGBTQIA2S+ students had the lowest sa sfac on ra ngs.
9
• Graduate students expressed slightly higher sa sfac on with the climate and environment in the college (mean score 4.25) compared to undergraduate students (mean score 4.21), and they were much more sa sfied with the university climate (4.24) than undergraduate students (4.12). • Within the undergraduate group, seniors reported the least sa sfac on with both the university and the college climates, while freshmen expressed the highest level of sa sfac on.
Table 3.2 Sa sfac on with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity and Sexual Iden ty
Gender Identity
Race-Ethnicity
Sexual Identity
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the climate/environment at
Woman (525)
Man (431)
White (565)
BIPOC (122)
Asian (244)
Straight (784)
LBGTQ2S+ (117)
Michigan State University
4.13
4.21
4.21
4.08
4.13
4.19
4.04
Eli Broad College of Business
4.18
4.29
4.30
4.05
4.19
4.27
4.03
Table 3.3. Sa sfac on with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College by Class Level and Academic Level
Class Level
Academic Level
Under- graduate (682)
Freshman (71)
Sophomore (122)
Junior (228)
Senior (261)
Masters (264)
PhD (20) 4.20
Graduate (284)
Michigan State University Eli Broad College of Business
4.21
4.11
4.17
4.07
4.25
4.12
4.24
4.32
4.21
4.25
4.14
4.25
4.35
4.21
4.25
10
Paired Adjec ve Comparison
Respondents were presented with 15 pairs of opposite adjec ves on a seven-point scale presented in sets of five (5) on three (3) consecu ve pages of the survey which assessed specific aspects of the college. For each pair, they were asked to select a point between the two adjec ves (nega ve on the le of the screen, posi ve on the right) that reflected how well they believed the adjec ves described the culture and climate at the college. On this seven-point scale, any score above four is considered posi ve, while any score below four is viewed as nega ve. Mean scores closer to 7.00 are the most posi ve, while scores near 1.00 are the most nega ve. Six out of the 15 mean scores were 6.00 or higher, and none fell into the nega ve range. The highest mean scores from students were for the pairs Disrespec ul: Respec ul (6.12), Hos le: Friendly (6.07), and both Unwelcoming: Welcoming (6.03) and Racist: An -Racist (6.03). The lowest mean scores were for Compe ve: Coopera ve (5.03), Eli st: Non-Eli st (5.24), and Individualist : Collabora ve (5.57).
Table 4.1 shows the overall results and Table 4.2 the results by demographic group.
Findings among demographic groups include:
• Men had higher mean scores than women on all 15 items. Both men and women rated Disrespec ul: Respec ul the highest, with scores of 6.14 and 6.11, respec vely. They rated Compe ve: Coopera ve the lowest, scoring 4.93 for women and 5.16 for men. Men had seven (7) mean scores above 6.00, while women had four (4). • White students had the highest mean scores on 13 out of the 15 items, while Asian students had the highest scores on the remaining two categories: Transphobic: Trans-Inclusive and Ageist: Age-Diverse. Asian students rated Hos le Friendly, mean score 6.15, and Disrespec ul : Respec ul, mean score 6.00, the highest. • Other BIPOC students had the lowest mean scores across all items, with no score exceeding 6.00. Their lowest mean score, 4.92, was on Compe ve: Coopera ve followed by Eli st: Non-eli st, 4.95, and Homogenous: Diverse, 5.29, • Students who iden fied as straight had higher mean scores on all items compared to LGBTQIA2S+ students, with no mean score for LGBTQIA2S+ students above 6.00. • Graduate students had overall higher mean scores than undergraduates, with master’s students much more posi ve in their ra ngs than PhD students. • As students progressed through their undergraduate studies, mean scores tended to decrease. Freshmen had the highest scores on 13 of the 15 measurements, while seniors recorded the lowest scores on 12 of the 15.
• The highest mean scores for both freshmen and juniors were related to the item Racist: An -Racist. For sophomores and seniors, the highest scores were on the item Disrespec ul: Respec ul.
11
Table 4.1 – Adjective Comparisons
Rating
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
N
Mean
Std. Dev
0.1%
0.7%
2.4%
7.3%
13.6%
30.1%
45.8%
Hostile: Friendly
959
6.07
1.11
1
7
23
70
130
289
439
0.3%
0.7%
2.5%
10.9%
11.3%
26.6%
47.6%
Racist: Anti-racist
957
6.03
1.20
3
7
24
104
108
255
456
0.7%
2.8%
2.9%
11.0%
18.2%
27.3%
37.1%
Homogenous: Diverse
958
5.73
1.35
7
27
28
105
174
262
355
0.5%
0.9%
2.0%
6.0%
12.9%
28.9%
48.8%
Disrespectful: Respectful
957
6.12
1.14
5
9
19
57
123
277
467
0.2%
0.8%
2.4%
9.2%
13.5%
30.0%
43.9%
Ableist: Accessible
960
6.00
1.29
2
8
23
88
130
288
421
0.4%
0.6%
3.9%
17.6%
16.2%
25.7%
35.6%
Contentious: Collegial
950
5.68
1.29
4
6
37
167
154
244
338
0.6%
0.4%
3.8%
11.9%
13.7%
25.7%
43.9%
Sexist:Gender inclusive
955
5.90
1.27
6
4
36
114
131
245
419
0.9%
3.1%
5.0%
14.0%
18.1%
24.3%
34.6%
Individualistic: Collaborative
958
5.56
1.44
9
30
48
134
173
233
331
3.2%
6.0%
10.6%
19.0%
16.3%
16.6%
28.4%
Competitive: Cooperative
952
5.03
1.72
30
57
101
181
155
158
270
0.5%
0.9%
2.6%
21.4%
15.8%
26.0%
32.7%
Homophobic: Queer Positive
950
5.60
1.30
5
9
25
203
150
247
311
0.4%
1.6%
1.7%
7.8%
14.2%
29.5%
45.0%
Unsupportive: Supportive
954
6.02
1.19
4
15
16
74
135
281
429
0.2%
2.3%
5.0%
16.8%
18.3%
22.7%
34.7%
Ageist: Age diverse
953
5.58
1.38
2
22
48
160
174
216
331
0.6%
0.7%
1.9%
8.1%
14.9%
28.1%
45.8%
Unwelcoming: Welcoming
955
6.03
1.17
6
7
18
77
142
268
437
1.4%
3.9%
9.1%
19.0%
17.0%
20.8%
28.7%
Elitist: Non-elitist
951
5.24
1.56
13
37
87
181
162
198
273
0.6%
1.2%
2.1%
23.9%
14.8%
23.2%
34.1%
Transphobic: Trans-inclusive
943
5.57
1.34
6
11
20
225
140
219
322
12
Table 4.2. Adjective Comparisons by Gender Identity, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Identity
Gender Identity
Race-Ethnicity
Sexual Identity
Woman ( 525)
Man (431) 6.13 6.12 5.77 6.14 6.05 5.73 6.04 5.62 5.16 5.59 6.04 5.60 6.05 5.35 5.55
White (565)
BIPOC (122)
Asian (244)
Straight (784)
LBGTQ2S+ (117)
Hostile: Friendly Racist: Anti-racist
6.02 5.97 5.75 6.11 5.99 5.66 5.81 5.54 4.93 5.64 6.03 5.56 6.03 5.17 5.63
6.13 6.24 5.87 6.22 6.10 5.72 6.02 5.60 4.98 5.66 6.10 5.55 6.13 5.31 5.61
5.83 5.54 5.29 5.96 5.77 5.58 5.62 5.55 4.92 5.36 5.86 5.56 5.83 4.95 5.39
6.15 5.80 5.64 6.00 5.93 5.67 5.81 5.50 5.20 5.60 5.98 5.62 5.97 5.26 5.64
6.11 6.10 5.80 6.18 6.08 5.71 5.97 5.61 5.03 5.66 6.09 5.57 6.10 5.28 5.65
5.87 5.55 5.14 5.78 5.61 5.47 5.52 5.26 4.93 5.24 5.69 5.53 5.72 5.02 5.17
Homogenous: Diverse Disrespectful: Respectful Ableist: Accessible Contentious: Collegial Sexist:Gender inclusive Individualistic: Collaborative Competitive: Cooperative Homophobic: Queer Positive Unsupportive: Supportive
Ageist: Age diverse
Unwelcoming: Welcoming
Elitist: Non-elitist
Transphobic: Trans-inclusive
Means are calculated on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the most negative position and 7 the most positive position .
Table 4.3. Adjective Comparisons by Class Level and Academic Level
Class Level
Academic Level
Under- graduate (682)
Masters ( 264)
Freshman (71)
Sophomore (122)
Junior (228)
PhD (20) 5.90 5.60 4.80 6.15 5.80 5.55 5.55 4.75 5.00 5.70 6.00 5.45 5.75 5.55 5.45
Graduate (284)
Senior (261)
6.27 6.34 6.10 6.20 6.18 5.81 6.11 5.77 5.10 5.83 6.24 5.76 6.28 5.54 5.66
6.08 6.07 5.78 6.12 6.06 5.81 5.99 5.74 4.94 5.70 6.06 5.62 6.03 5.25 5.68
6.01 6.11 5.70 6.04 5.95 5.54 5.86 5.37 4.73 5.52 6.01 5.50 5.95 5.05 5.49
5.86 5.82 5.54 5.97 5.85 5.46 5.67 5.45 4.85 5.39 5.83 5.09 5.84 5.06 5.36
6.29 6.09 5.90 6.30 6.15 5.93 6.10 5.77 5.49 5.76 6.13 6.05 6.24 5.47 5.81
5.99 6.01 5.70 6.04 5.95 5.58 5.84 5.51 4.85 5.53 5.97 5.39 5.96 5.14 5.49
6.26 6.06 5.82 6.29 6.13 5.91 6.06 5.70 5.45 5.76 6.13 6.01 6.20 5.47 5.78
Hostile: Friendly Racist: Anti-racist
Homogenous: Diverse Disrespectful: Respectful Ableist: Accessible Contentious: Collegial Sexist:Gender inclusive Individualistic: Collaborative Competitive: Cooperative Homophobic: Queer Positive Unsupportive: Supportive
Ageist: Age diverse
Unwelcoming: Welcoming
Elitist: Non-elitist
Transphobic: Trans-inclusive
Means are calculated on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the most negative position and 7 the most positive position .
13
College Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Aspects and Sense of Belonging
Students were asked to express their level of agreement on a series of fourteen statements focusing on specific aspects of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), as well as factors contribu ng to a sense of belonging within the college community. Ten of the statements were framed posi vely, meaning that higher levels of agreement and mean scores closer to 5.00 indicate favorable percep ons. Four statements were framed nega vely, where agreement with the statement reflects unfavorable sen ments, and disagreement indicates a more favorable view. For these items, mean scores closer to 1.00 are favorable. Among the ten posi vely framed statements, the highest levels of agreement were regarding students' personal connec on to the college (90.4% agreement), feeling respected (87.4%), experiences in the college posi vely affec ng academic growth (86.6%), a sense of belonging at the college (84.4%), and feeling valued (81.8%). Overall results for these items are in Table 5.1. The statements with the lowest levels of agreement revolved around the college placing appropriate emphasis on DEI issues (70.1% agreement) and finding communi es or groups within the college where students feel they belong (67.8%). The nega vely framed statements addressed leaving the college, feeling valued and whether or not the college is placing too much emphasis on DEI. Only a small percentage of students (10.8% level of agreement, 80.8% disagreement) considered leaving the college because they felt isolated or unwelcomed and 13.0% agreed that they did not feel their opinions were valued in the college. The level of disagreement on this item was 69.8%.The results for these items are in Table 5.2. However, about one in four students (25.9% agreement) felt that there is too much emphasis on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) at the college and nearly the same percentage, 24.1%, felt they needed to work harder to be valued equally. There were notable differences in responses by demographic groups. Full results can be found in Tables 5.3 through 5.6. • While men and women had fairly similar assessments across most items, men were more likely to agree that the college places too much emphasis on DEI (mean score of 3.16) compared to women (mean score of 2.67). Addi onally, men were slightly more likely than women to consider leaving the college, with means of 1.93 and 1.72, respec vely. These items were framed in the nega ve. • White students had the highest mean scores on the majority of items. In contrast, other BIPOC students rated their experiences regarding being treated with respect the highest (4.40), and Asian students scored 4.00 on finding communi es or groups, and 3.97 on feeling valued. Asian students were more likely to consider leaving the college and felt that others do not value their opinions. • Students iden fying as straight had more favorable mean scores on all items, except for the one measuring the percep on of placing too much emphasis on DEI, which showed the largest difference in mean scores, .46 points, between straight (mean score 2.91) and LGBTQIA2S+ students (mean score 2.45). LGBTQIA2S+ students were also more likely to consider leaving the college. • Graduate and undergraduate students had similar mean scores on most items. The largest differences were seen in the percep ons of having to work harder to be valued, with undergraduates feeling this more than graduate students, and in the assessment of whether the college has sufficient programs to
14
foster the success of a diverse student body, with undergraduates expressing a more favorable view.
• Across most items, freshmen tended to be the most posi ve in their assessments, while juniors and seniors showed similar evalua ons. Generally, as academic levels increased, mean scores tended to decrease. The largest differences between freshmen and seniors were found regarding the college's commitment to DEI (.46) and whether the college is a place where students can perform to their full poten al (.24). • Sophomores were most likely to consider leaving college and also felt they had to work harder to be valued.
15
Table 5.1 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posi ve Framed Items)
Thinking about your experiences in the college over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. I feel valued as an individual at the Broad College of Business.
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
% Agreement
Std.Dev
Disagree
Agree 44.3%
N
Mean
1.7%
4.8%
11.7%
37.6%
81.8%
964
4.11
0.91
16
46
113
427
362
0.9%
3.4%
11.2%
41.5%
42.9%
I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business.
84.4%
963
4.22
0.85
9
33
108
400
413
1.5%
2.7%
13.7%
41.4%
40.7%
The Broad College of Business has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. I am treated with respect at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business is a place where I am able to perform up to my full potential. I have opportunities at the Broad College of Business for academic success that are similar to those of my peers. I have found one or more communities or groups where I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business provides sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse student body. My experience at the Broad College of Business has had a positive influence on my academic growth. The Broad College of Business places appropriate emphasis on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
82.1%
962
4.17
0.87
14
26
132
398
392
1.3%
1.1%
7.2%
44.3%
46.1%
90.4%
960
4.33
0.76
12
11
69
425
443
2.0%
4.1%
9.4%
45.8%
38.8%
84.6%
961
4.15
0.89
19
39
90
440
373
1.4%
3.2%
8.0%
46.0%
41.4%
87.4%
961
4.23
0.83
13
31
77
442
398
1.6%
8.4%
22.2%
37.2%
30.6%
67.8%
963
3.87
0.99
15
81
214
358
295
1.0%
2.8%
18.0%
46.8%
31.4%
78.2%
962
4.05
0.84
10
27
173
450
302
0.8%
2.3%
10.3%
48.0%
38.6%
86.6%
963
4.21
0.78
8
22
99
462
372
2.1%
3.7%
23.2%
46.2%
24.8%
71.0%
961
3.88
0.90
20
36
223
444
238
16
Table 5.2 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Nega ve Framed Items)
Thinking about your experiences in the college over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. I feel others don’t value my opinions at the Broad College of Business. I have considered leaving the Broad College of Business because I felt isolated or unwelcomed. There is too much emphasis put on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion here at the Broad College of Business. I have to work harder than others to be valued equally at the Broad College of Business.
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
% Agreement
Disagree
Agree
N
Mean
Std.Dev
28.0%
41.8%
17.2%
7.7%
5.3%
13.0%
964
2.20
1.09
270
403
166
74
51
52.4%
28.3%
8.4%
6.4%
4.4%
10.8%
963
1.82
1.11
505
273
81
62
42
11.8%
24.6%
37.7%
15.6%
10.3%
25.9%
963
2.88
1.13
114
237
363
150
99
12.9%
32.8%
30.1%
16.4%
7.7%
24.1%
962
2.73
1.12
124
316
290
158
74
17
Table 5.3 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posi ve Framed Items) by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Iden ty.
Gender Identity
Race-Ethnicity
Sexual Identity
Thinking about your experiences in the college over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements.
Woman ( 525)
Man (431) 4.14
White (565)
BIPOC (122)
Asian (244)
Straight (784)
LBGTQ2S+ (117)
I feel valued as an individual at the Broad College of Business.
4.10
4.14
4.11
4.09
4.14
3.97
I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business.
4.20
4.27
4.26
4.17
4.16
4.24
4.06
The Broad College of Business has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
4.19
4.18
4.23
4.08
4.12
4.21
3.92
I am treated with respect at the Broad College of Business.
4.34
4.33
4.36
4.40
4.26
4.36
4.19
The Broad College of Business is a place where I am able to perform up to my full potential. I have opportunities at the Broad College of Business for academic success that are similar to those of my peers. I have found one or more communities or groups where I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business provides sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse student body. My experience at the Broad College of Business has had a positive influence on my academic growth. The Broad College of Business places appropriate emphasis on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
4.14
4.18
4.20
4.17
4.10
4.17
4.12
4.22
4.25
4.32
4.19
4.08
4.26
4.13
3.81
3.97
3.83
3.82
4.00
3.90
3.70
4.03
4.09
4.08
4.01
4.02
4.08
3.83
4.23
4.21
4.27
4.20
4.13
4.24
4.15
3.92
3.82
3.87
3.88
3.97
3.89
3.89
18
Table 5.4 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posi ve Framed Items) by Class Level and Academic Level
Class Level
Academic Level
Thinking about your experiences in the college over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. I feel valued as an individual at the Broad College of Business.
Under- graduate (682)
Masters ( 264)
Freshman (71)
Sophomore (122)
Junior (228)
PhD (20) 4.25
Graduate (284)
Senior (261)
4.36
4.12
4.07
4.03
4.16
4.09
4.17
I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business.
4.44
4.22
4.18
4.22
4.19
4.30
4.23
4.20
The Broad College of Business has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. I am treated with respect at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business is a place where I am able to perform up to my full potential. I have opportunities at the Broad College of Business for academic success that are similar to those of my peers. I have found one or more communities or groups where I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business provides sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse student body. My experience at the Broad College of Business has had a positive influence on my academic growth. The Broad College of Business places appropriate emphasis on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
4.54
4.18
4.20
4.08
4.15
4.00
4.19
4.14
4.51
4.28
4.31
4.32
4.32
4.55
4.33
4.33
4.35
4.19
4.18
4.11
4.10
4.30
4.17
4.11
4.40
4.26
4.19
4.18
4.24
4.40
4.22
4.25
3.99
3.84
3.85
3.98
3.77
3.85
3.91
3.77
4.24
4.11
4.10
4.05
3.95
3.65
4.10
3.93
4.24
4.22
4.24
4.19
4.19
4.45
4.22
4.20
3.89
3.95
3.90
3.85
3.87
3.65
3.89
3.85
19
Table 5.5 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Nega ve Framed Items) by Gender Iden ty, Race-Ethnicity and Sexual Iden ty.
Gender Identity
Race-Ethnicity
Sexual Identity
Thinking about your experiences in the college over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. I feel others don’t value my opinions at the Broad College of Business. I have considered leaving the Broad College of Business because I felt isolated or unwelcomed. There is too much emphasis put on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion here at the Broad College of Business. I have to work harder than others to be valued equally at the Broad College of Business.
Woman ( 525)
White (565)
Asian (244)
LBGTQ2S+ (117)
Man (431)
BIPOC (122)
Straight (784)
2.12
2.29
2.08
2.31
2.39
2.17
2.26
1.72
1.93
1.68
1.84
2.06
1.78
1.97
2.67
3.16
2.79
2.85
3.03
2.91
2.45
2.70
2.76
2.51
2.71
3.18
2.70
2.73
Table 5.6 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Nega ve Framed Items) by Class Level and Academic Level
Class Level
Academic Level
Thinking about your experiences in the college over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. I feel others don’t value my opinions at the Broad College of Business. I have considered leaving the Broad College of Business because I felt isolated or unwelcomed. There is too much emphasis put on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion here at the Broad College of Business. I have to work harder than others to be valued equally at the Broad College of Business.
Under- graduate (682)
Masters ( 264)
Freshman (71)
Sophomore (122)
Junior (228)
PhD (20) 1.95
Graduate (284)
Senior (261)
2.09
2.34
2.34
2.13
2.14
2.24
2.13
1.60
2.04
1.83
1.78
1.80
1.85
1.82
1.81
3.10
2.83
2.88
2.83
2.91
2.60
2.88
2.88
2.64
2.95
2.82
2.74
2.59
2.55
2.79
2.58
20
Page i Page ii Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10-11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16-17 Page 18-19 Page 20-21 Page 22-23 Page 24-25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28-29 Page 30-31 Page 32-33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74Powered by FlippingBook