PBA Home > Institutional Research & Analysis > Surveys > Community Survey 1998 > Variability Within Groups

CU-Boulder 1998 Community Survey

Variability Within Racial/Ethnic Groups

In addition to the differences between ethnic groups discussed in most other sections of this report, we also observe substantial variation within particular groups on several items. Here, we present information on differences within each ethnic group on six scales, or composites of several items.

Overall, within-group variability is highest for students' ratings of "financial worries" and the "situation for you" at UCB. Particularly for financial worries, every group had some respondents at every possible response level (of nine), with no more than 25% of any group at any one response level. For the "situation for you," variability is most marked for African American respondents, of whom fewer than 20% are at any one response and whose responses range from near the lowest possible up to the highest end of the scale. Though other groups, particularly Hispanics, are also variable on this item, Asian-American respondents are much more in agreement that the situation for them is fairly positive.

Variability within racial/ethnic groups is lowest when students rate their experiences of stereotyping and their comfort in 25 campus and Boulder settings. With the exception of African Americans, more than half of the members of all groups indicate very low to low stereotyping experiences, and few, if any, group members indicate high levels of stereotyping. For African American respondents, there is much more disagreement. Though again few group members indicate that they are subject to high levels of stereotyping, African Americans are as likely to report experiencing moderate stereotyping as very low stereotyping. Similarly, when rating comfort in various settings, African Americans are as likely to report very low as very high comfort, and their responses are widely distributed across the middle response levels. Other groups' responses cluster fairly tightly around the group average, with most students giving moderate to high comfort ratings.

Across the board, African Americans tend to show the greatest variability, and white and Asian-American students tend to show the least. The former point is very important, especially given the consistent differences that emerge between African American and other group responses throughout this report. Although the average responses for African Americans look substantially different from those of other groups, there are still considerable numbers of African Americans whose responses are not reflected by the averages.

For details about the scales used in the following displays, click here.

Differences across groups: On all six scales presented here, there are some differences (not all significant) from one racial/ethnic group to another. These differences are presented and discussed at length in other sections of this report. See "Overall Experiences at UCB" for details on the situation for you, situation for your group, situation for you as a group member, and financial worries differences. See "Experiences with Racial/Ethnic Stereotyping" for information on group differences on the perceived stereotyping scale.

Correlates of differences within groups: On the 1994 Community Survey, a number of demographic variables predicted whether a student gave positive or negative responses to each of the scales presented in this section. Note that "predict" does not mean "cause": if X predicts Y, it could be true that X causes Y, that Y causes X or that Z causes both X and Y. In 1998, however, few variables are related to differences in ratings within groups.

The demographic variables examined in 1998 are gender, the student's class level (freshman, sophomore, etc.), residency, number of years spent at the university, cumulative GPA, and racial/ethnic identity. In all analyses reported here, each possible predictor was analyzed along with all other predictors. This enables us to separate out the effects of one predictor from possible effects of others. For example, class level and years at the university are related: A freshman will have spent fewer years at UCB than a senior. However, some students may spend more than four years at UCB and still be classified as "seniors." Let's say we found that seniors were more dissatisfied; we would then need to determine whether this is because there is something about being a senior that causes dissatisfaction, or if the dissatisfaction is related to being on campus longer (in which case, all students who had been here longer would tend to be more dissatisfied regardless of their class standing). Our analysis approach tells us whether differences are due to, for example, class levels alone or years at UCB alone.

Significant within-group differences were found only as follows:

• Among Asian-American respondents, students who report that their racial/ethnic heritage is more important to their identity also report being less satisfied with the situation at CU for themselves and for their group, and less comfortable at CU overall. The more years Asian-American respondents are enrolled, the lower they rate the situation for their group and for themselves as group members, and this is true regardless of class level.
• Among African American students,those with higher GPAs report fewer financial worries.
• Among Hispanic students, residents tend to rate the situation for their group lower than do nonresidents. Females tend to report that their racial/ethnic heritage is more important to their identity than do males.
• Among Native American students, those with higher GPAs report lower perceived stereotyping. Further, as students' class level increases, they tend to report greater financial worries.
• Among white students, residents rate the situation for their group lower than do nonresidents. Interestingly, white students who report that their racial/ethnic heritage is more important to their identity also report both greater perceived stereotyping and greater comfort at CU overall. White students with higher GPAs are less likely to report that their racial/ethnic heritage is important to their identity.

Because the number of students in each group is relatively small, it is possible that we do not have the ability to detect other meaningful relationships between demographic characteristics and students' survey responses. It is important to note that variability within racial groups clearly does exist, and that there are many features of students' backgrounds and experiences that can contribute to this variability.

Finally, we must note that the scales themselves are strongly related to one another. Respondents who rate the situation for themselves highly also tend to rate the situation for their group and for themselves as group members highly. These participants also report high comfort on campus, low perceived stereotyping, and lower levels of financial worry. We examined how participants' responses may be affected by the degree to which they identify with their racial/ethnic group. The more students say that their racial/ethnic heritage is an important part of their identity, the lower their ratings of the situation for themselves, their group, and themselves as group members, and the higher their perceptions of being stereotyped. A note on this last result: when these relationships are calculated for white students only, group identity no longer predicts the "situation" ratings, although it does predict perceived stereotyping and comfort on campus. Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that identity is a more useful predictor for students of color.

Changes over time: Both scale responses and the items that predict those responses have changed over time. The table below captures many of these changes. Specifically, by ethnic group, we find that:

Asian-American students in 1994 with stronger racial/ethnic identities also reported higher ratings of the situation for Asian-American students on campus. In 1998, this relationship had lessened so that stronger identity was less likely to predict higher ratings of the situation for the group.

Among Hispanic respondents in 1994, students with higher GPAs tended to rate the situation for their racial/ethnic group on campus more negatively; in 1998, we find no evidence this tendency. Also, in 1994 Hispanic students' reported comfort on campus declined as their class standing increased. However, in 1998 this trend has lessened so that now upper- and lower-class members are equally likely to report being very comfortable at CU. Hispanic students with financial worries in 1994 tended to be students who felt strongly identified with their racial/ethnic backgrounds, but by 1998 this trend had lessened. All of these trends seem to indicate that the situation for Hispanic students may have improved between 1994 and 1998; however, when all these demographic variables are taken into account, we also learn that Hispanic respondents in 1998 rate the situation for their group lower than did respondents in 1994. Finally, for Hispanic respondents, racial identity is related to gender. In 1994, both males and females were most likely to report that their racial identity was strong, somewhat less likely to report that it was moderate, and still less likely to report that it was weak. In 1998, only females retain this pattern. Male Hispanic respondents in 1998 are equally likely to report a strong, moderate, or weak racial identity.

Among Native American respondents in 1994, students with higher GPAs tended to rate the situation for their racial/ethnic group on campus more negatively; by 1998, this trend had reversed, so that now students with higher GPAs tend to see the situation more positively.

Finally, among white respondents in 1994, GPA was unrelated to the degree to which racial/ethnic heritage was an important part of respondents' identity. However, by 1998, we find that students with higher GPAs report that their racial/ethnic heritage is a less important part of their identity.

Table of Contents for 1998 Community Survey

jo - l:\ir\survey\comm\cm98\report\sectn11.doc
hm - last updated 6/9/2000

Last revision 07/23/02