Student Culture & Climate Survey 2024

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

The Office for Survey Research Instute for Public Policy and Social Research Michigan State University

Table of Contents Overview and Methodology..........................................................................................................................................5 Populaon ................................................................................................................................................................5 Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Instuonal Data...............................................................6 Table 2. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Self-Reported Data ............................................................7 Data Collecon .........................................................................................................................................................7 Chart 1. Surveys Completed by Each Week During the Data Collecon Period...................................................8 Interpretaon of Tables ............................................................................................................................................8 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................................9 Sasfacon with Climate and Environment..............................................................................................................9 Table 3.1. Sasfacon with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College ...................9 Table 3.2 Sasfacon with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College by Gender Identy, Race-Ethnicity and Sexual Identy.......................................................................................................10 Table 3.3. Sasfacon with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College by Class Level and Academic Level ..................................................................................................................................10 Paired Adjecve 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 (Posive Framed Items) .............................................16 Table 5.2 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave Framed Items)............................................17 Table 5.3 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive Framed Items) by Gender Identy, Race- Ethnicity, and Sexual Identy. ............................................................................................................................18 Table 5.4 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive Framed Items) by Class Level and Academic Level ................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 5.5 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave Framed Items) by Gender Identy, Race- Ethnicity and Sexual Identy. .............................................................................................................................20 Table 5.6 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave Framed Items) by Class Level and Academic Level ................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Meaningful Student Interacons ............................................................................................................................21 Table 6.1. Meaningful Interacons with Others (Somemes-Very Oen) ........................................................22 Table 6.2. Meaningful Interacons with Others (Somemes-Very Oen) by Gender Identy, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Identy ............................................................................................................................................23 Table 6.3. Meaningful Interacons with Others (Somemes-Very Oen) by Class Level and Academic Level.24 Racial and Ethnic Composion of Community and Last School Aended..............................................................25

Table 7.1 Racial and Ethnic Composion of Community and School Last Aended..........................................25 Table 7.2. Racial and Ethnic Composion of Community and Last School Aended by Student Race-Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 7.3. Diversity Sasfacon at MSU and College by Diversity of Last School Aended..............................26 Table 7.4. DEI Measurements in the College by Diversity of Last School Aended ..........................................27 Student Experiences with Bias/Discriminaon 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 Identy, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Identy ............................................................................................................................................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 Identy, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Identy......................33 Table 9.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment by Gender Identy, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Identy......................33 Students Listened to in Classroom Sengs ............................................................................................................34 Table 10.1. Listened to in Classrooms and Classroom Sengs ..........................................................................34 Table 10.2 Listened to in Classrooms and Classroom Sengs by Gender Identy, Race-Ethnicity and Sexual Identy...............................................................................................................................................................35 Table 10.3. Listened to in Classrooms and Classroom Sengs ..........................................................................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 Identy, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Identy .....37 Table 11.3. Feeling Valued Outside of Classrooms by Gender Identy, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Identy .....37 2024 Data Overall Summary........................................................................................................................................38 Results Comparison between 2022 and 2024 .............................................................................................................39 Sasfacon with Climate and Environment............................................................................................................40 Chart 3. Sasfacon with Climate/Environment: 2022 – 2024 Comparison......................................................40 Paired Adjecve 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 (Posive Framed Items): 2022 – 2024 Comparison ......42 Chart 6. College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave Framed Items): 2022 – 2024 Comparison ....43 Meaningful Student Interacons ............................................................................................................................44 Chart 7. Meaningful Interacons with Others (Somemes-Very Oen): 2022 – 2024 Comparison..................44

Racial and Ethnic Composion of Community and Last School Aended ..............................................................45 Chart 8. Racial and Ethnic Composion of Community and Last School Aended: 2022 and 2024 Comparison. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Student Experiences with Bias/Discriminaon 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 Sengs ............................................................................................................47 Chart 11. Listened to in Classrooms and Classroom Sengs: 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: Quesonnaire .........................................................................................................................................50

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 collecon instrument used in 2024 was based on the instrument used in 2022 1 . While efforts were made to maintain the same quesons for comparison between the two periods, slight changes in wording and queson structure were incorporated in 2024 to beer meet the needs of the college. In the secon of this report that compares the 2022 and 2024 results, any deviaons in queson wording or structure are noted. The full version of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. The data collecon instrument contained the following secons: • Introducon and Informed Consent • Climate and Environment – 36 quesons • Bias Incidences – 19 quesons • Student Experiences - 11 quesons • Climate Feedback – 3 open-ended quesons| • Demographics – 8 quesons.

Populaon

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 collecon plaorm. Students were offered a $5 Panera e-card as an incenve to parcipate. All data was submied anonymously. Table 1 presents the demographic profile of The Eli Broad College of Business, based on instuonal data. This informaon is used to assess how representave the collected data is of the overall student populaon. The data is highly representave of the populaon by class level, with the class distribuon within +/-5% of the actual populaon. Addionally, the data is also largely representave of the populaon by race and ethnicity, for American Indian/Alaskan Nave, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Lano, and students who idenfied with two or more races. However, the data slightly underrepresents White students by +6.3% and includes a higher representaon of internaonal students by +7.8%. The largest difference in representaon is males and females with the data overrepresenng 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.

Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Instuonal Data

Respondents

Population

Demographic Group

Difference

Freshman Sophomore

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

2.1%

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

0 1

0.0% 0.1% 9.6% 2.7% 5.2%

0.0% -0.2% 0.5% -1.2% 0.0% 7.8% 0.2% -0.2% -0.6% -6.3%

American Indian/Alaska Native

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

0.3% 1.8% 2.9%

Not Specified

17 28

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 identy, race-ethnicity, and sexual identy. If there was no self-reported data for gender identy or race-ethnicity (respondent chose not to answer the queson), instuonal data was used for those cases. Instuonal data was used for analysis for class level and academic level. To protect the confidenality of students and for analysis, self-reported gender identy was collapsed from 10 categories to three categories: Women, Men, and Another identy. Students who indicated a gender identy other than Man or Women (including those that choose Man or Woman along with another identy) were included in the Another Identy category. Because of the small percentage of students who idenfied as another gender, 1.0%, no separate analysis was done for this group. Sexual identy 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 idenfied as both White and another race or ethnicity, were classified under the Other BIPOC category.

Table 2. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Self-Reported Data

Demographic Group

Undergraduate - Freshman Undergraduate - Sophomore

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

2.2%

Yes

171

18.1%

International

776

81.9%

Yes

9.2%

Disability

840

90.8%

Yes

1.7%

Armed Forces

930

98.3%

Woman

525

54.3%

Gender Identity

Man

431

44.6%

Another Identity

1.0%

LGBTQIA2S+

117 794

12.8% 87.2%

Sexual Identity

Straight

African American or Black

4.4%

Alaskan Native or American Indian

0.3%

Asian

250

26.9%

Race-Ethnicity Identity

Hispanic or Latino/Latinx

6.1%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0.6%

White or Caucasian

616

66.2%

Middle Eastern

2.1%

Data Collecon Data collecon 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 collecon. Nearly half, 46.4% of surveys were completed in the first week of data collecon.

Chart 1. Surveys Completed by Each Week During the Data Collecon Period

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

449

248

117

103

0 50

October 1-6

October 7-13

October 14 -20

October 21-27

October 28-November 7

During the data collecon period, 1,132 students accessed the survey, with 966 compleng it, resulng in a cooperaon 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 collecon ulized the enre populaon 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 populaon 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 disparies in the populaon, provided that the overrepresentaon or underrepresentaon of any group does not bias the results. Interpretaon of Tables The tables displaying the overall results for each item in the quesonnaire show the percentage distribuon across each scale point, the percentage of overall agreement (or in some cases, disagreement) the total number of respondents who answered the queson, the overall mean value, and the standard deviaon for each item where applicable. The means are calculated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 represenng the most negave (unfavorable) posion and 5 the most posive (favorable) unless otherwise specified. The number of respondents may vary for each item, as some individuals may choose not to answer certain quesons. All quesons 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 characteriscs, minor differences between groups should be ancipated and may simply result from non-responses. In contrast, larger differences are more likely to reflect actual variaons in atudes, percepons, and experiences between groups. For interpreng the mean scores on the Likert scale, the ranges are as follows: 1.00-2.49 indicates a negave atude, 2.50-3.49 reflects a neutral atude, and 3.50-5.00 suggests a posive atude, unless otherwise noted.

Mean scores of 4.50 and above can also be considered very posive, while scores of 1.50 and below are viewed as very negave.

Results Sasfacon with Climate and Environment

Students were first asked to rate their level of sasfacon with the climate and environment at Michigan State University and within the college on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represented "very dissasfied" and 5 represented "very sasfied." As shown in Table 3.1 the overall sasfacon levels for the university and the college were nearly idencal, with 86.6% of students sasfied or very sasfied with the college and 86.2% sasfied 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 posive range of the scale. Table 3.1. Sasfacon with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College

Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the climate/environment at

Std. Dev

Mean

0.3%

2.5%

11.0%

53.5%

32.7%

Michigan State University

86.2%

966

4.16

0.73

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

458

379

Results by demographic groups are shown in Table 3.2 and 3.3 When examining sasfacon by demographic group, the data revealed the following: • Men reported slightly higher sasfacon 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 sasfacon rangs, followed by Asian students. Other BIPOC students reported the lowest, yet sll posive, levels of sasfacon, with mean scores of 4.08 for the university and 4.05 for the college.

• Students who idenfied as LGBTQIA2S+ had lower sasfacon rangs for both the university (mean score 4.04) and the college (mean score 4.03) compared to their straight counterparts. Interesngly, LGBTQIA2S+ students and other BIPOC students were the only groups that reported higher sasfacon with the university than with the college.

• Among all demographic subgroups, LGBTQIA2S+ students had the lowest sasfacon rangs.

• Graduate students expressed slightly higher sasfacon 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 sasfied with the university climate (4.24) than undergraduate students (4.12). • Within the undergraduate group, seniors reported the least sasfacon with both the university and the college climates, while freshmen expressed the highest level of sasfacon.

Table 3.2 Sasfacon with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College by Gender Identy, Race-Ethnicity and Sexual Identy

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

4.08

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. Sasfacon 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

Paired Adjecve Comparison

Respondents were presented with 15 pairs of opposite adjecves on a seven-point scale presented in sets of five (5) on three (3) consecuve pages of the survey which assessed specific aspects of the college. For each pair, they were asked to select a point between the two adjecves (negave on the le of the screen, posive on the right) that reflected how well they believed the adjecves described the culture and climate at the college. On this seven-point scale, any score above four is considered posive, while any score below four is viewed as negave. Mean scores closer to 7.00 are the most posive, while scores near 1.00 are the most negave. Six out of the 15 mean scores were 6.00 or higher, and none fell into the negave range. The highest mean scores from students were for the pairs Disrespecul: Respecul (6.12), Hosle: Friendly (6.07), and both Unwelcoming: Welcoming (6.03) and Racist: An-Racist (6.03). The lowest mean scores were for Compeve: Cooperave (5.03), Elist: Non-Elist (5.24), and Individualist : Collaborave (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 Disrespecul: Respecul the highest, with scores of 6.14 and 6.11, respecvely. They rated Compeve: Cooperave 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 Hosle Friendly, mean score 6.15, and Disrespecul : Respecul, 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 Compeve: Cooperave followed by Elist: Non-elist, 4.95, and Homogenous: Diverse, 5.29, • Students who idenfied 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 posive in their rangs 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 Disrespecul: Respecul.

Table 4.1 – Adjective Comparisons

Rating

Mean

Std. Dev

0.1%

0.7%

2.4%

7.3%

13.6%

30.1%

45.8%

Hostile: Friendly

959

6.07

1.11

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

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

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

123

277

467

0.2%

0.8%

2.4%

9.2%

13.5%

30.0%

43.9%

Ableist: Accessible

960

6.00

1.29

130

288

421

0.4%

0.6%

3.9%

17.6%

16.2%

25.7%

35.6%

Contentious: Collegial

950

5.68

1.29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

225

140

219

322

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

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 .

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 contribung to a sense of belonging within the college community. Ten of the statements were framed posively, meaning that higher levels of agreement and mean scores closer to 5.00 indicate favorable percepons. Four statements were framed negavely, where agreement with the statement reflects unfavorable senments, and disagreement indicates a more favorable view. For these items, mean scores closer to 1.00 are favorable. Among the ten posively framed statements, the highest levels of agreement were regarding students' personal connecon to the college (90.4% agreement), feeling respected (87.4%), experiences in the college posively affecng 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 communies or groups within the college where students feel they belong (67.8%). The negavely 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). Addionally, men were slightly more likely than women to consider leaving the college, with means of 1.93 and 1.72, respecvely. These items were framed in the negave. • 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 communies 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 idenfying as straight had more favorable mean scores on all items, except for the one measuring the percepon 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 percepons 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

foster the success of a diverse student body, with undergraduates expressing a more favorable view.

• Across most items, freshmen tended to be the most posive in their assessments, while juniors and seniors showed similar evaluaons. 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 potenal (.24). • Sophomores were most likely to consider leaving college and also felt they had to work harder to be valued.

Table 5.1 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive 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%

Mean

1.7%

4.8%

11.7%

37.6%

81.8%

964

4.11

0.91

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

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

132

398

392

1.3%

1.1%

7.2%

44.3%

46.1%

90.4%

960

4.33

0.76

425

443

2.0%

4.1%

9.4%

45.8%

38.8%

84.6%

961

4.15

0.89

440

373

1.4%

3.2%

8.0%

46.0%

41.4%

87.4%

961

4.23

0.83

442

398

1.6%

8.4%

22.2%

37.2%

30.6%

67.8%

963

3.87

0.99

214

358

295

1.0%

2.8%

18.0%

46.8%

31.4%

78.2%

962

4.05

0.84

173

450

302

0.8%

2.3%

10.3%

48.0%

38.6%

86.6%

963

4.21

0.78

462

372

2.1%

3.7%

23.2%

46.2%

24.8%

71.0%

961

3.88

0.90

223

444

238

Table 5.2 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave 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

Mean

Std.Dev

28.0%

41.8%

17.2%

7.7%

5.3%

13.0%

964

2.20

1.09

270

403

166

52.4%

28.3%

8.4%

6.4%

4.4%

10.8%

963

1.82

1.11

505

273

11.8%

24.6%

37.7%

15.6%

10.3%

25.9%

963

2.88

1.13

114

237

363

150

12.9%

32.8%

30.1%

16.4%

7.7%

24.1%

962

2.73

1.12

124

316

290

158

Table 5.3 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive Framed Items) by Gender Identy, Race-Ethnicity, and Sexual Identy.

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

Table 5.4 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive Framed Items) by Class Level and Academic Level

Class Level

Academic Level

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

4.54

4.18

4.20

4.08

4.15

4.00

4.19

4.14

4.51

4.28

4.31

4.32

4.55

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

4.45

4.22

4.20

3.89

3.95

3.90

3.85

3.87

3.65

3.89

3.85

Table 5.5 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave Framed Items) by Gender Identy, Race-Ethnicity and Sexual Identy.

Gender Identity

Race-Ethnicity

Sexual Identity

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 (Negave Framed Items) by Class Level and Academic Level

Class Level

Academic Level

Under- graduate (682)

Masters ( 264)

Freshman (71)

Sophomore (122)

Junior (228)

PhD (20) 1.95

Graduate (284)

Senior (261)

2.09

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

2.64

2.95

2.82

2.74

2.59

2.55

2.79

2.58

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 74