Course record MGT
MGT 3310
Marketing Research: Analytics
Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus
51 sections10 professors
Grades: 2010–2025Evaluations: 2012–2024
Flunk Score25/100
Below average
Michael Lowe 3 sections · 3 terms · 2023–2025 3.93GPA
Published grade shares · 3 sections · 2023–2025
Compare with the course
Lowe vs. the course average
A
+31.4
B
−23.6
C
−6.6
D
−0.8
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
Zhu Chen 2 sections · 2 terms · 2013–2014 3.70GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2013–2014
Compare with the course
Chen vs. the course average
A
+16.6
B
−14.5
C
−1.9
D
+0.3
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.76 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.30
Instructor clarity4.65
Course effectiveness4.75
Instructor enthusiasm4.80
Instructor helpfulness4.80
Instructor availability4.70
Instructor communication4.95
Instructor effectiveness4.80
Instructor respectfulness4.95
Assignment measured knowledge4.60
Instructor stimulates interest4.40
Adithya Pattabhiramaiah 5 sections · 5 terms · 2021–2025 3.70GPA
Published grade shares · 5 sections · 2021–2025
Compare with the course
Pattabhiramaiah vs. the course average
A
+13.8
B
−10.2
C
−3.0
D
−0.8
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
Each term against the course average
Spring 2021Spring 2025
Overall4.37 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned3.84
Instructor clarity3.92
Course effectiveness4.04
Instructor enthusiasm4.72
Instructor helpfulness4.36
Instructor availability4.66
Instructor communication4.43
Instructor effectiveness4.42
Instructor respectfulness4.68
Assignment measured knowledge3.46
Instructor stimulates interest3.77
Merve Uzunogullari 2 sections · 2 terms · 2022–2023 3.58GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2022–2023
Compare with the course
Uzunogullari vs. the course average
A
+6.5
B
−7.9
C
+2.6
D
−0.8
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.40 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned3.77
Instructor clarity3.92
Course effectiveness4.01
Instructor enthusiasm4.30
Instructor helpfulness4.64
Instructor availability4.85
Instructor communication4.32
Instructor effectiveness4.53
Instructor respectfulness4.86
Assignment measured knowledge3.84
Instructor stimulates interest3.80
Cheng He 2 sections · 2 terms · 2018 3.55GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2018
Compare with the course
He vs. the course average
A
+2.9
B
−3.7
C
+2.0
D
−0.8
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.31 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.25
Instructor clarity3.50
Course effectiveness4.15
Instructor enthusiasm4.90
Instructor helpfulness4.65
Instructor availability4.40
Instructor communication4.40
Instructor effectiveness4.05
Instructor respectfulness4.75
Assignment measured knowledge4.40
Instructor stimulates interest3.85
Omer Ozturk 3 sections · 3 terms · 2014–2016 3.55GPA
Published grade shares · 3 sections · 2014–2016
Compare with the course
Ozturk vs. the course average
A
+7.5
B
−9.4
C
−0.7
D
+2.3
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.68 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.47
Instructor clarity4.43
Course effectiveness4.57
Instructor enthusiasm4.97
Instructor helpfulness4.70
Instructor availability4.73
Instructor communication4.70
Instructor effectiveness4.83
Instructor respectfulness4.90
Assignment measured knowledge4.60
Instructor stimulates interest4.17
Donna Kantak 30 sections · 26 terms · 2010–2020 3.45GPA
Published grade shares · 30 sections · 2010–2020
Compare with the course
Kantak vs. the course average
A
−6.4
B
+6.6
C
−0.3
D
+0.2
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
Each term against the course average
Summer 2010Spring 2020
Overall4.54 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned3.97
Instructor clarity4.39
Course effectiveness4.20
Instructor enthusiasm4.82
Instructor helpfulness4.55
Instructor availability4.60
Instructor communication4.67
Instructor effectiveness4.48
Instructor respectfulness4.84
Assignment measured knowledge4.29
Instructor stimulates interest4.01
Jun Kim 2 sections · 2 terms · 2011–2012 3.09GPA
Published grade shares · 2 sections · 2011–2012
Compare with the course
Kim vs. the course average
A
−26.1
B
+10.5
C
+15.1
D
−0.8
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
Overall4.06 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.00
Instructor clarity3.80
Course effectiveness3.90
Instructor enthusiasm4.10
Instructor helpfulness4.30
Instructor availability4.50
Instructor communication3.90
Instructor effectiveness4.10
Instructor respectfulness4.80
Assignment measured knowledge4.10
Instructor stimulates interest3.00
Deborah Abrams 1 sections · 1 term · 2019 · Limited sample 3.72GPA
Published grade shares · 1 section · 2019 · Limited sample
Overall4.55 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.30
Instructor clarity4.50
Course effectiveness4.30
Instructor enthusiasm4.10
Instructor helpfulness4.90
Instructor availability4.90
Instructor communication4.70
Instructor effectiveness4.80
Instructor respectfulness4.90
Assignment measured knowledge4.60
Instructor stimulates interest3.60
Timothy Halloran 1 sections · 1 term · 2020 · Limited sample 3.23GPA
Published grade shares · 1 section · 2020 · Limited sample
Overall4.78 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Amount learned4.70
Instructor clarity4.90
Course effectiveness4.70
Instructor enthusiasm4.90
Instructor helpfulness4.50
Instructor availability4.90
Instructor communication4.70
Instructor effectiveness4.80
Instructor respectfulness4.80
Assignment measured knowledge4.30
Instructor stimulates interest4.70
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.