Course record ANTH
ANTH 1155
Exploring Global Cultural Diversity
University of Colorado Boulder
1,786 grades38 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score22/100
Below average
Sharon Nell Dewitte 179 grades · 1 term 3.76GPA
179 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dewitte vs. the course average
A
+42.5
B
−21.8
C
−12.6
D
−6.4
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.6% withdrew · 1 of 180 enrolled.
Overall4.36 / 5
104 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.80
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.50
Reflection4.55
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.85
Interaction4.07
Challenge4.45
Questions4.62
Jerry Keith Jacka 81 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
81 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jacka vs. the course average
A
+36.1
B
−15.9
C
−13.6
D
−3.9
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 3 of 84 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.90
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.10
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Fernando Villanea Guevara 115 grades · 1 term 3.59GPA
115 letter grades
Compare with the course
Guevara vs. the course average
A
+37.6
B
−21.2
C
−12.2
D
−5.5
F
+1.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 3 of 118 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
82 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration4.31
Connection4.92
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.66
Reflection4.78
Respect4.77
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.60
Questions4.93
Sarah Jill Kurnick 39 grades · 1 term 3.25GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kurnick vs. the course average
A
+4.6
B
+2.6
C
+3.1
D
−6.4
F
−3.9
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 1 of 40 enrolled.
Overall4.38 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.60
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Caroline S Conzelman 61 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
61 letter grades
Compare with the course
Conzelman vs. the course average
A
+14.9
B
−7.8
C
−5.0
D
−3.1
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 3 of 64 enrolled.
Overall4.41 / 5
56 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.43
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.68
Grading3.79
Reflection4.36
Respect4.52
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.12
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.10
Questions4.45
Lauren Hosek 73 grades · 1 term 3.20GPA
73 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hosek vs. the course average
A
+9.3
B
−6.1
C
−1.1
D
−0.9
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.4% withdrew · 5 of 78 enrolled.
Overall4.27 / 5
153 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.18
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration2.90
Connection4.60
Contribution3.71
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.29
Reflection4.23
Respect4.75
Creativity3.71
Feedback3.58
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.31
Questions4.55
Igor Chechushkov 59 grades · 1 term 3.19GPA
59 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chechushkov vs. the course average
A
+22.0
B
−17.2
C
−11.4
D
+2.1
F
+4.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 2 of 61 enrolled.
Overall3.97 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.30
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.55
Grading3.70
Reflection4.05
Respect4.35
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.65
Interaction3.50
Challenge4.15
Questions4.20
Alison Collier Cool 315 grades · 1 term 3.16GPA
315 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cool vs. the course average
A
+0.3
B
+7.4
C
−4.0
D
−1.9
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.8% withdrew · 9 of 324 enrolled.
Overall3.93 / 5
110 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.05
Technology4.22
Synthesis3.82
Collaboration3.45
Connection4.45
Contribution3.45
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity4.55
Grading3.87
Reflection3.77
Respect4.52
Creativity4.05
Feedback3.39
Interaction4.02
Challenge3.85
Questions4.05
Carla Mae Jones 128 grades · 1 term 3.12GPA
128 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jones vs. the course average
A
−5.8
B
+13.0
C
−0.8
D
−5.6
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
8.6% withdrew · 12 of 140 enrolled.
Overall4.21 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.10
Connection4.70
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect4.90
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
Kathryn Elissa Goldfarb 64 grades · 1 term 2.91GPA
64 letter grades
Compare with the course
Goldfarb vs. the course average
A
+5.9
B
−8.9
C
−0.8
D
−1.7
F
+5.5
Difference in percentage points.
5.9% withdrew · 4 of 68 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.40
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.20
Questions4.50
Kristen Drybread 194 grades · 1 term 2.62GPA
194 letter grades
Compare with the course
Drybread vs. the course average
A
−29.2
B
+14.1
C
+17.6
D
−1.2
F
−1.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.5% withdrew · 7 of 201 enrolled.
Overall3.66 / 5
88 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.72
Technology4.14
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration3.26
Connection3.71
Contribution3.96
Discussion4.11
Inclusivity4.29
Grading3.94
Reflection3.77
Respect4.07
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.72
Interaction3.70
Challenge3.98
Questions3.64
Warren Morgan Thompson 459 grades · 1 term 2.44GPA
459 letter grades
Compare with the course
Thompson vs. the course average
A
−27.3
B
+8.0
C
+8.0
D
+9.3
F
+2.0
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 16 of 475 enrolled.
Overall4.23 / 5
254 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.41
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.61
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.71
Grading4.24
Reflection4.47
Respect4.72
Creativity4.19
Feedback3.86
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.46
Questions4.38
Emily Benton Hite 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.52GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
91 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.51
Collaboration4.08
Connection4.73
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.66
Grading4.57
Reflection4.67
Respect4.78
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.61
Questions4.43
Gregorio Ortiz 46 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.73
Connection4.60
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.43
Reflection4.53
Respect4.83
Creativity3.73
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.57
Questions4.67
Gillian Davenport 30 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration3.65
Connection4.50
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.00
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.50
Questions4.40
Thomas Edward Hanson 29 reported responses 3.62Eval / 5
Overall3.62 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.66
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration1.75
Connection4.86
Contribution4.42
Discussion3.02
Inclusivity4.90
Grading2.74
Reflection3.81
Respect4.95
Creativity3.90
Feedback1.70
Interaction2.76
Challenge4.14
Questions3.50
Kelly Anne Zepelin 33 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.40
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.10
Reflection4.10
Respect4.60
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.70
Challenge3.90
Questions4.30
Conor Lanning 50 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.36
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration4.46
Connection4.32
Contribution4.21
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.36
Reflection4.32
Respect4.80
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.41
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.31
Questions4.75
Patrick Mckenzie 38 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.33
Connection4.73
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.45
Reflection4.47
Respect4.60
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.20
Questions4.60
Camden Paillot 47 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.57
Connection4.87
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.87
Grading4.55
Reflection4.77
Respect4.75
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Orem Ackley 4 reported responses 3.86Eval / 5
Overall3.86 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.50
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.00
Reflection3.50
Respect4.20
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.80
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.80
Questions3.80
Erik Leslie Jurado 16 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.85
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.35
Reflection4.70
Respect4.85
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.85
Questions4.80
Jordan Roubion 5 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.60
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.20
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity3.20
Feedback4.40
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.40
Questions5.00
Lauren Lee Barrett 8 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.50
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.15
Reflection4.15
Respect4.75
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.25
Challenge4.35
Questions4.50
Yuxiang Lin 20 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.30
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.25
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.45
Feedback3.85
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.25
Questions4.70
Stephania Zneimer 11 reported responses 3.69Eval / 5
Overall3.69 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.85
Synthesis3.65
Collaboration3.75
Connection4.20
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.05
Inclusivity4.20
Grading3.10
Reflection4.05
Respect4.05
Creativity3.45
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.55
Questions3.55
Skye Barger 14 reported responses 3.94Eval / 5
Overall3.94 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.30
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity4.45
Grading3.40
Reflection4.10
Respect4.75
Creativity3.25
Feedback3.45
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.95
Questions4.85
Robin James 16 reported responses 4.11Eval / 5
Overall4.11 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.05
Connection4.15
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.20
Reflection4.05
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.45
Challenge3.85
Questions4.55
Shay Sullivan 21 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration3.95
Connection4.15
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.15
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.45
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.10
Questions4.65
Christian Stanford Hammons 150 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5
150 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration3.19
Connection4.72
Contribution4.06
Discussion4.28
Inclusivity4.82
Grading4.32
Reflection4.49
Respect4.76
Creativity4.36
Feedback3.98
Interaction4.12
Challenge4.60
Questions4.40
Chilton Lee Tippin 6 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.75
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.50
Reflection4.75
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.75
Nicholas Alexander Puente 6 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.10
Connection5.00
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.90
Respect4.50
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.75
Questions4.90
Sasha Buckser 7 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.85
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.45
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.75
Questions4.85
Laura M Deluca 7 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.10
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.30
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.30
Meg Hardie 52 reported responses 3.93Eval / 5
Overall3.93 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration2.90
Connection4.60
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.90
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.10
Questions4.50
Emily Opack 52 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration2.90
Connection4.60
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.10
Questions4.50
Garrett Williams 4 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.50
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.00
Reflection4.50
Respect4.75
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.75
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.25
Questions4.00
Isabelle Adnson 1 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity3.00
Feedback3.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.