Course record ISYE
ISYE 4106
Senior Design
Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus
589 sections54 professors
Grades: 2010–2025Evaluations: 2012–2024
Flunk Score5/100
Needs work
Craig Forest 2 sections · 1 term · 2024 3.90GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2024
Compare with the course
Forest vs. the course average
A
+54.7
B
−35.2
C
−16.6
D
−2.6
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.23 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.00
Instructor enthusiasm4.17
Instructor helpfulness4.50
Instructor availability4.00
Instructor communication4.42
Instructor effectiveness4.25
Instructor respectfulness4.17
Instructor stimulates interest4.33
Shabbir Ahmed 2 sections · 1 term · 2013 3.42GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2013
Compare with the course
Ahmed vs. the course average
A
+6.7
B
+12.8
C
−16.6
D
−2.6
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.48 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.00
Instructor clarity4.59
Course effectiveness4.20
Instructor enthusiasm4.36
Instructor helpfulness4.56
Instructor availability4.45
Instructor communication4.56
Instructor effectiveness4.42
Instructor respectfulness4.52
Assignment measured knowledge4.90
Instructor stimulates interest4.38
Leon Mcginnis 44 sections · 4 terms · 2015–2023 3.37GPA
Published grade shares · 44 sections · 2015–2023
Compare with the course
Mcginnis vs. the course average
A
+14.5
B
−7.7
C
−3.9
D
−2.6
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Each term against the course average
Spring 2015Spring 2023
Overall3.52 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.39
Instructor clarity3.55
Course effectiveness4.25
Instructor enthusiasm3.48
Instructor helpfulness3.63
Instructor availability3.74
Instructor communication3.77
Instructor effectiveness3.56
Instructor respectfulness3.17
Assignment measured knowledge3.83
Instructor stimulates interest3.27
George Nemhauser 26 sections · 3 terms · 2018–2020 3.33GPA
Published grade shares · 26 sections · 2018–2020
Compare with the course
Nemhauser vs. the course average
A
+10.8
B
−4.3
C
−4.2
D
−2.1
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.21 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.39
Instructor clarity4.28
Course effectiveness4.25
Instructor enthusiasm4.32
Instructor helpfulness4.03
Instructor availability4.17
Instructor communication4.39
Instructor effectiveness4.09
Instructor respectfulness4.29
Assignment measured knowledge4.26
Instructor stimulates interest4.13
Pinar Keskinocak 2 sections · 2 terms · 2013–2014 3.31GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2013–2014
Compare with the course
Keskinocak vs. the course average
A
+31.2
B
−30.7
C
−14.1
D
+13.9
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.69 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.70
Instructor clarity4.66
Course effectiveness4.70
Instructor enthusiasm4.69
Instructor helpfulness4.64
Instructor availability4.70
Instructor communication4.71
Instructor effectiveness4.72
Instructor respectfulness4.76
Assignment measured knowledge4.60
Instructor stimulates interest4.65
Douglas Bodner 3 sections · 2 terms · 2013–2014 3.30GPA
Published grade shares · 3 sections · 2013–2014
Compare with the course
Bodner vs. the course average
A
+7.0
B
+0.8
C
−4.9
D
−2.6
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Sebastian Pokutta 3 sections · 2 terms · 2013–2014 3.18GPA
Published grade shares · 3 sections · 2013–2014
Compare with the course
Pokutta vs. the course average
A
+0.3
B
+10.1
C
−16.6
D
+6.4
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.36 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.60
Instructor clarity4.56
Course effectiveness4.60
Instructor enthusiasm4.04
Instructor helpfulness4.26
Instructor availability4.23
Instructor communication4.57
Instructor effectiveness4.41
Instructor respectfulness4.49
Assignment measured knowledge3.95
Instructor stimulates interest4.31
Dima Nazzal 312 sections · 15 terms · 2013–2025 3.17GPA
Published grade shares · 312 sections · 2013–2025
Compare with the course
Nazzal vs. the course average
A
+1.3
B
+1.8
C
−2.7
D
−0.5
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
Each term against the course average
Spring 2013Fall 2025
Overall4.47 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.45
Instructor clarity4.47
Course effectiveness4.41
Instructor enthusiasm4.62
Instructor helpfulness4.41
Instructor availability4.38
Instructor communication4.51
Instructor effectiveness4.59
Instructor respectfulness4.55
Assignment measured knowledge4.04
Instructor stimulates interest4.23
John Vande Vate 56 sections · 3 terms · 2016–2018 3.06GPA
Published grade shares · 56 sections · 2016–2018
Compare with the course
Vate vs. the course average
A
−1.8
B
−3.3
C
+5.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
Overall3.85 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.20
Instructor clarity3.82
Course effectiveness4.05
Instructor enthusiasm4.28
Instructor helpfulness3.79
Instructor availability3.93
Instructor communication3.83
Instructor effectiveness3.81
Instructor respectfulness3.62
Assignment measured knowledge3.75
Instructor stimulates interest3.73
Gamze Tokol-Goldsman 2 sections · 1 term · 2025 3.00GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2025
Compare with the course
Tokol-Goldsman vs. the course average
A
−35.3
B
+54.8
C
−16.6
D
−2.6
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.69 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.61
Instructor enthusiasm4.72
Instructor helpfulness4.43
Instructor availability4.84
Instructor communication4.79
Instructor effectiveness4.71
Instructor respectfulness4.78
Instructor stimulates interest4.64
Joel Sokol 60 sections · 8 terms · 2010–2015 2.98GPA
Published grade shares · 60 sections · 2010–2015
Compare with the course
Sokol vs. the course average
A
−3.9
B
−4.3
C
+6.2
D
+1.3
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
Each term against the course average
Fall 2010Fall 2015
Overall4.34 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.56
Instructor clarity4.33
Course effectiveness4.46
Instructor enthusiasm4.54
Instructor helpfulness4.45
Instructor availability4.09
Instructor communication4.49
Instructor effectiveness4.37
Instructor respectfulness4.28
Assignment measured knowledge4.20
Instructor stimulates interest4.18
Chen Zhou 52 sections · 13 terms · 2011–2023 2.94GPA
Published grade shares · 52 sections · 2011–2023
Compare with the course
Zhou vs. the course average
A
−14.7
B
+10.1
C
+5.3
D
−0.6
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
Each term against the course average
Spring 2011Spring 2023
Overall4.12 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.27
Instructor clarity4.00
Course effectiveness4.24
Instructor enthusiasm4.35
Instructor helpfulness4.03
Instructor availability4.12
Instructor communication4.05
Instructor effectiveness4.18
Instructor respectfulness4.30
Assignment measured knowledge4.09
Instructor stimulates interest3.94
Julie Swann 14 sections · 3 terms · 2013–2016 2.72GPA
Published grade shares · 14 sections · 2013–2016
Compare with the course
Swann vs. the course average
A
−13.9
B
−11.4
C
+23.1
D
+2.5
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.23 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.41
Instructor clarity4.20
Course effectiveness4.37
Instructor enthusiasm4.35
Instructor helpfulness4.40
Instructor availability4.15
Instructor communication4.23
Instructor effectiveness4.34
Instructor respectfulness4.15
Assignment measured knowledge4.27
Instructor stimulates interest4.06
Antonius Dieker 2 sections · 2 terms · 2013–2014 2.63GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2013–2014
Compare with the course
Dieker vs. the course average
A
−10.3
B
−20.2
C
+20.9
D
+9.9
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.53 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.78
Instructor clarity4.38
Course effectiveness4.50
Instructor enthusiasm4.58
Instructor helpfulness4.67
Instructor availability4.45
Instructor communication4.55
Instructor effectiveness4.67
Instructor respectfulness4.33
Assignment measured knowledge4.45
Instructor stimulates interest4.60
Valerie Thomas 2 sections · 1 term · 2013 2.46GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2013
Compare with the course
Thomas vs. the course average
A
−28.3
B
+1.8
C
+13.9
D
+12.9
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.02 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.25
Instructor clarity3.77
Course effectiveness4.05
Instructor enthusiasm4.22
Instructor helpfulness3.90
Instructor availability4.15
Instructor communication3.87
Instructor effectiveness3.90
Instructor respectfulness4.47
Assignment measured knowledge3.90
Instructor stimulates interest3.90
Ozlem Ergun 1 sections · 1 term · 2014 · Limited sample 3.55GPA
Published grade shares · 1 section · 2014 · Limited sample
Overall4.85 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.83
Instructor enthusiasm4.80
Instructor helpfulness4.90
Instructor availability4.87
Instructor communication4.83
Instructor effectiveness4.93
Instructor respectfulness4.93
Instructor stimulates interest4.70
Andrea Laliberte 1 sections · 1 term · 2014 · Limited sample 3.40GPA
Published grade shares · 1 section · 2014 · Limited sample
Overall3.85 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.70
Instructor clarity3.66
Course effectiveness4.70
Instructor enthusiasm3.97
Instructor helpfulness3.66
Instructor availability4.52
Instructor communication3.67
Instructor effectiveness3.87
Instructor respectfulness3.75
Assignment measured knowledge4.50
Instructor stimulates interest3.73
Renato Monteiro 1 sections · 1 term · 2014 · Limited sample 3.15GPA
Published grade shares · 1 section · 2014 · Limited sample
Overall3.24 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity2.95
Instructor enthusiasm3.31
Instructor helpfulness2.92
Instructor availability4.02
Instructor communication2.99
Instructor effectiveness3.02
Instructor respectfulness3.62
Instructor stimulates interest3.08
Akane Fujimoto Wakabayashi 1 sections · 1 term · 2025 · Limited sample 2.88GPA
Published grade shares · 1 section · 2025 · Limited sample
Ying Li 1 sections · 1 term · 2025 · Limited sample 2.86GPA
Published grade shares · 1 section · 2025 · Limited sample
Overall4.47 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.25
Instructor enthusiasm4.75
Instructor helpfulness3.88
Instructor availability4.38
Instructor communication4.13
Instructor effectiveness4.75
Instructor respectfulness4.88
Instructor stimulates interest4.75
Oktay Gunluk 1 sections · 1 term · 2024 · Limited sample 1.20GPA
Published grade shares · 1 section · 2024 · Limited sample
Craig Tovey 3 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.66
Instructor enthusiasm4.79
Instructor helpfulness4.81
Instructor availability4.63
Instructor communication4.84
Instructor effectiveness4.83
Instructor respectfulness4.77
Instructor stimulates interest4.77
Jonathan Lowe 4 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity5.00
Instructor enthusiasm4.80
Instructor helpfulness4.30
Instructor availability5.00
Instructor communication4.80
Instructor effectiveness5.00
Instructor respectfulness4.80
Instructor stimulates interest4.80
Pascal Van Hentenryck 4 reported responses 4.77Eval / 5
Overall4.77 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.65
Instructor enthusiasm5.00
Instructor helpfulness4.55
Instructor availability4.50
Instructor communication4.90
Instructor effectiveness4.65
Instructor respectfulness5.00
Instructor stimulates interest4.90
Nagi Gebraeel 5 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.75
Instructor enthusiasm4.50
Instructor helpfulness4.66
Instructor availability4.64
Instructor communication4.91
Instructor effectiveness4.91
Instructor respectfulness4.95
Instructor stimulates interest4.50
Nicoleta Serban 3 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.00
Instructor enthusiasm4.37
Instructor helpfulness4.31
Instructor availability4.42
Instructor communication3.91
Instructor effectiveness4.38
Instructor respectfulness4.57
Instructor stimulates interest4.36
Guanghui Lan 4 reported responses 3.64Eval / 5
Overall3.64 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity3.60
Instructor enthusiasm3.49
Instructor helpfulness3.42
Instructor availability3.62
Instructor communication3.57
Instructor effectiveness3.64
Instructor respectfulness4.21
Instructor stimulates interest3.55
Xin Chen 4 reported responses 3.54Eval / 5
Overall3.54 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity3.02
Instructor enthusiasm3.76
Instructor helpfulness2.67
Instructor availability3.75
Instructor communication3.38
Instructor effectiveness3.83
Instructor respectfulness4.19
Instructor stimulates interest3.72
Turgay Ayer 4 reported responses 3.88Eval / 5
Overall3.88 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity3.89
Instructor enthusiasm3.58
Instructor helpfulness3.91
Instructor availability3.67
Instructor communication3.94
Instructor effectiveness3.89
Instructor respectfulness4.14
Instructor stimulates interest4.04
Alejandro Toriello 4 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.76
Instructor enthusiasm4.81
Instructor helpfulness4.84
Instructor availability4.82
Instructor communication4.78
Instructor effectiveness4.88
Instructor respectfulness4.88
Instructor stimulates interest4.69
Alexander Shapiro 5 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity3.75
Instructor enthusiasm3.69
Instructor helpfulness3.88
Instructor availability4.43
Instructor communication3.82
Instructor effectiveness3.96
Instructor respectfulness4.19
Instructor stimulates interest3.59
Steven Hackman 6 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity3.99
Instructor enthusiasm4.61
Instructor helpfulness4.28
Instructor availability4.61
Instructor communication4.37
Instructor effectiveness4.15
Instructor respectfulness3.65
Instructor stimulates interest3.95
Maurice Trebuchon 6 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.78
Instructor enthusiasm4.88
Instructor helpfulness4.88
Instructor availability4.93
Instructor communication4.57
Instructor effectiveness4.92
Instructor respectfulness4.88
Instructor stimulates interest4.73
Anton Kleywegt 3 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.60
Instructor enthusiasm4.60
Instructor helpfulness4.83
Instructor availability4.77
Instructor communication4.60
Instructor effectiveness4.60
Instructor respectfulness4.43
Instructor stimulates interest4.60
Hsu-Pin Wang 6 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.30
Instructor clarity4.28
Course effectiveness4.40
Instructor enthusiasm4.50
Instructor helpfulness4.15
Instructor availability4.38
Instructor communication4.08
Instructor effectiveness4.47
Instructor respectfulness4.75
Assignment measured knowledge4.70
Instructor stimulates interest4.38
Gunter Sharp 7 reported responses 4.04Eval / 5
Overall4.04 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.46
Instructor clarity4.00
Course effectiveness4.28
Instructor enthusiasm3.95
Instructor helpfulness4.18
Instructor availability4.28
Instructor communication3.97
Instructor effectiveness4.13
Instructor respectfulness4.06
Assignment measured knowledge4.16
Instructor stimulates interest3.74
Enlu Zhou 6 reported responses 3.85Eval / 5
Overall3.85 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity3.79
Instructor enthusiasm3.66
Instructor helpfulness3.89
Instructor availability4.07
Instructor communication3.78
Instructor effectiveness4.07
Instructor respectfulness4.03
Instructor stimulates interest3.47
Dawn Strickland 4 reported responses 4.94Eval / 5
Overall4.94 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.83
Instructor enthusiasm4.83
Instructor helpfulness4.93
Instructor availability5.00
Instructor communication4.90
Instructor effectiveness5.00
Instructor respectfulness5.00
Instructor stimulates interest5.00
Natashia Boland 5 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.36
Instructor enthusiasm4.35
Instructor helpfulness4.13
Instructor availability4.41
Instructor communication4.16
Instructor effectiveness4.31
Instructor respectfulness4.26
Instructor stimulates interest4.01
Seong-Hee Kim 4 reported responses 4.95Eval / 5
Overall4.95 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity5.00
Instructor enthusiasm5.00
Instructor helpfulness5.00
Instructor availability5.00
Instructor communication4.80
Instructor effectiveness4.80
Instructor respectfulness5.00
Instructor stimulates interest5.00
Shijie Deng 4 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity3.74
Instructor enthusiasm3.66
Instructor helpfulness3.75
Instructor availability4.15
Instructor communication3.76
Instructor effectiveness3.79
Instructor respectfulness4.21
Instructor stimulates interest3.56
Kamran Paynabar 6 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.55
Instructor enthusiasm4.38
Instructor helpfulness4.22
Instructor availability4.05
Instructor communication4.10
Instructor effectiveness4.30
Instructor respectfulness4.65
Instructor stimulates interest4.25
Yajun Mei 6 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.19
Instructor enthusiasm4.24
Instructor helpfulness4.27
Instructor availability4.44
Instructor communication4.49
Instructor effectiveness4.37
Instructor respectfulness4.51
Instructor stimulates interest4.23
Santanu Dey 7 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.21
Instructor enthusiasm4.64
Instructor helpfulness4.30
Instructor availability4.69
Instructor communication4.21
Instructor effectiveness4.50
Instructor respectfulness4.84
Instructor stimulates interest4.47
Damon Williams 7 reported responses 3.68Eval / 5
Overall3.68 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity3.90
Instructor enthusiasm3.90
Instructor helpfulness3.33
Instructor availability3.42
Instructor communication3.88
Instructor effectiveness3.83
Instructor respectfulness3.65
Instructor stimulates interest3.55
Benoit Montreuil 6 reported responses 2.85Eval / 5
Overall2.85 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity3.17
Instructor enthusiasm2.84
Instructor helpfulness3.04
Instructor availability1.93
Instructor communication3.29
Instructor effectiveness2.83
Instructor respectfulness2.89
Instructor stimulates interest2.83
Mathieu Savelsbergh 5 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.72
Instructor enthusiasm4.47
Instructor helpfulness4.70
Instructor availability4.63
Instructor communication4.62
Instructor effectiveness4.68
Instructor respectfulness4.67
Instructor stimulates interest4.43
Paul Griffin 6 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.78
Instructor enthusiasm4.92
Instructor helpfulness4.72
Instructor availability4.93
Instructor communication4.47
Instructor effectiveness4.83
Instructor respectfulness4.93
Instructor stimulates interest4.70
Marc Goetschalckx 9 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.65
Instructor enthusiasm4.05
Instructor helpfulness4.30
Instructor availability4.15
Instructor communication4.50
Instructor effectiveness3.90
Instructor respectfulness4.30
Instructor stimulates interest4.40
Alan Erera 55 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.70
Instructor clarity4.55
Course effectiveness4.65
Instructor enthusiasm4.50
Instructor helpfulness4.55
Instructor availability4.00
Instructor communication4.70
Instructor effectiveness4.60
Instructor respectfulness4.55
Assignment measured knowledge4.40
Instructor stimulates interest4.55
William Rouse 55 reported responses 3.67Eval / 5
Overall3.67 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.00
Instructor enthusiasm3.65
Instructor helpfulness2.40
Instructor availability4.10
Instructor communication3.65
Instructor effectiveness3.45
Instructor respectfulness4.35
Instructor stimulates interest3.75
Donna Llewellyn 55 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.65
Instructor enthusiasm4.60
Instructor helpfulness4.65
Instructor availability4.70
Instructor communication4.65
Instructor effectiveness4.65
Instructor respectfulness4.65
Instructor stimulates interest4.55
Siva Maguluri 8 reported responses 4.83Eval / 5
Overall4.83 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity4.92
Instructor enthusiasm4.87
Instructor helpfulness4.87
Instructor availability4.48
Instructor communication4.87
Instructor effectiveness4.92
Instructor respectfulness4.92
Instructor stimulates interest4.82
Jovan Julien 5 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Instructor clarity5.00
Instructor enthusiasm5.00
Instructor helpfulness5.00
Instructor availability5.00
Instructor communication5.00
Instructor effectiveness5.00
Instructor respectfulness5.00
Instructor stimulates interest5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.