Course record MATH
MATH 1554
Linear Algebra
Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus
258 sections55 professors
Grades: 2015–2025Evaluations: 2015–2024
Flunk Score4/100
Needs work
Chunmei Wang 2 sections · 1 term · 2015 3.90GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2015
Compare with the course
Wang vs. the course average
A
+47.4
B
−23.1
C
−15.3
D
−5.4
F
−3.6
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.29 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.15
Instructor clarity3.90
Course effectiveness4.45
Instructor enthusiasm4.70
Instructor helpfulness3.90
Instructor availability4.45
Instructor communication4.45
Instructor effectiveness4.25
Instructor respectfulness4.75
Assignment measured knowledge4.30
Instructor stimulates interest3.90
Philippe Bonneau 5 sections · 5 terms · 2021–2025 3.76GPA
Published grade shares · 5 sections · 2021–2025
Compare with the course
Bonneau vs. the course average
A
+36.1
B
−15.0
C
−12.0
D
−5.4
F
−3.6
Difference in percentage points.
Each term against the course average
Fall 2021Fall 2025
Galyna Livshyts 3 sections · 1 term · 2018 3.72GPA
Published grade shares · 3 sections · 2018
Compare with the course
Livshyts vs. the course average
A
+37.1
B
−21.0
C
−7.0
D
−5.4
F
−3.6
Difference in percentage points.
Overall3.71 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.43
Instructor clarity3.17
Course effectiveness4.17
Instructor enthusiasm3.57
Instructor helpfulness3.60
Instructor availability4.20
Instructor communication4.13
Instructor effectiveness3.67
Instructor respectfulness4.10
Assignment measured knowledge4.57
Instructor stimulates interest3.27
Geng Chen 3 sections · 1 term · 2016 3.32GPA
Published grade shares · 3 sections · 2016
Compare with the course
Chen vs. the course average
A
+10.4
B
−1.6
C
−4.8
D
−1.4
F
−2.6
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.49 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.47
Instructor clarity4.13
Course effectiveness4.63
Instructor enthusiasm4.57
Instructor helpfulness4.63
Instructor availability4.67
Instructor communication4.53
Instructor effectiveness4.57
Instructor respectfulness4.77
Assignment measured knowledge4.63
Instructor stimulates interest4.07
Gregory Mayer 44 sections · 13 terms · 2016–2025 3.30GPA
Published grade shares · 44 sections · 2016–2025
Compare with the course
Mayer vs. the course average
A
+9.4
B
−1.3
C
−3.4
D
−2.4
F
−2.2
Difference in percentage points.
Each term against the course average
Fall 2016Fall 2025
Overall4.54 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.26
Instructor clarity4.35
Course effectiveness4.34
Instructor enthusiasm4.75
Instructor helpfulness4.26
Instructor availability4.72
Instructor communication4.64
Instructor effectiveness4.62
Instructor respectfulness4.79
Assignment measured knowledge4.14
Instructor stimulates interest4.15
Laura Eslava 4 sections · 1 term · 2018 3.25GPA
Published grade shares · 4 sections · 2018
Compare with the course
Eslava vs. the course average
A
+6.1
B
+0.2
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−2.8
Difference in percentage points.
Overall3.39 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned3.52
Instructor clarity2.25
Course effectiveness3.15
Instructor enthusiasm4.58
Instructor helpfulness3.05
Instructor availability4.00
Instructor communication3.30
Instructor effectiveness2.58
Instructor respectfulness4.72
Assignment measured knowledge3.33
Instructor stimulates interest2.67
Sudipta Kolay 4 sections · 1 term · 2018 3.24GPA
Published grade shares · 4 sections · 2018
Compare with the course
Kolay vs. the course average
A
−0.1
B
+10.4
C
−4.5
D
−3.8
F
−2.0
Difference in percentage points.
Overall3.23 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned3.88
Instructor clarity2.83
Course effectiveness3.52
Instructor enthusiasm3.10
Instructor helpfulness3.08
Instructor availability4.20
Instructor communication3.13
Instructor effectiveness3.05
Instructor respectfulness3.90
Assignment measured knowledge3.58
Instructor stimulates interest2.58
Rui Han 3 sections · 1 term · 2018 3.24GPA
Published grade shares · 3 sections · 2018
Compare with the course
Han vs. the course average
A
+4.6
B
+3.7
C
−4.5
D
−3.4
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.38 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.40
Instructor clarity4.30
Course effectiveness4.33
Instructor enthusiasm4.33
Instructor helpfulness4.33
Instructor availability4.63
Instructor communication4.33
Instructor effectiveness4.57
Instructor respectfulness4.70
Assignment measured knowledge4.43
Instructor stimulates interest3.83
Michael Lacey 30 sections · 4 terms · 2016–2019 3.20GPA
Published grade shares · 30 sections · 2016–2019
Compare with the course
Lacey vs. the course average
A
+0.1
B
+5.5
C
−0.1
D
−2.9
F
−2.6
Difference in percentage points.
Each term against the course average
Fall 2016Fall 2019
Overall3.85 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.10
Instructor clarity3.36
Course effectiveness4.01
Instructor enthusiasm4.23
Instructor helpfulness3.72
Instructor availability4.20
Instructor communication4.00
Instructor effectiveness3.59
Instructor respectfulness4.46
Assignment measured knowledge4.10
Instructor stimulates interest3.27
Wade Bloomquist 3 sections · 1 term · 2019 3.18GPA
Published grade shares · 3 sections · 2019
Compare with the course
Bloomquist vs. the course average
A
+7.0
B
−1.6
C
−6.0
D
+0.4
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.53 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.53
Instructor clarity4.17
Course effectiveness4.47
Instructor enthusiasm4.77
Instructor helpfulness4.47
Instructor availability4.80
Instructor communication4.43
Instructor effectiveness4.53
Instructor respectfulness4.83
Assignment measured knowledge4.27
Instructor stimulates interest4.20
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.