Course record APPM
APPM 1235
Pre-Calculus for Engineers
University of Colorado Boulder
914 grades28 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score17/100
Needs work
Lilac T Intrater 72 grades · 1 term 2.53GPA
72 letter grades
Compare with the course
Intrater vs. the course average
A
+3.8
B
+8.9
C
−6.7
D
−4.3
F
−1.8
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 1 of 73 enrolled.
Overall4.24 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.85
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.65
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.25
Respect4.15
Creativity4.05
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.55
Questions4.35
Grant T Kellogg 70 grades · 1 term 2.51GPA
70 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kellogg vs. the course average
A
+5.9
B
+1.4
C
−0.3
D
−2.7
F
−4.3
Difference in percentage points.
6.7% withdrew · 5 of 75 enrolled.
Overall4.53 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.74
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.69
Connection3.85
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.33
Reflection4.59
Respect4.86
Creativity4.08
Feedback4.71
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.52
Questions4.74
Lyndsey Julia Wong 31 grades · 1 term 2.29GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wong vs. the course average
A
+1.0
B
+3.7
C
−3.1
D
−6.6
F
+5.0
Difference in percentage points.
11.4% withdrew · 4 of 35 enrolled.
Overall3.22 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.60
Technology2.50
Synthesis2.30
Collaboration4.10
Connection1.40
Contribution3.10
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity2.20
Grading2.90
Reflection3.10
Respect4.30
Creativity3.60
Feedback2.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.40
Questions4.00
Daniel Seneca Lindsey 446 grades · 1 term 2.28GPA
446 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lindsey vs. the course average
A
+0.9
B
−1.2
C
−0.2
D
+0.2
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
9.3% withdrew · 46 of 492 enrolled.
Overall4.38 / 5
133 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.29
Technology3.97
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.47
Connection3.89
Contribution4.14
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.74
Grading4.46
Reflection4.43
Respect4.80
Creativity3.97
Feedback4.26
Interaction4.89
Challenge4.57
Questions4.64
Richard C Mcnamara 103 grades · 1 term 2.26GPA
103 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mcnamara vs. the course average
A
−3.8
B
+3.5
C
+0.2
D
−0.1
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
8.0% withdrew · 9 of 112 enrolled.
Overall4.11 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.56
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.86
Collaboration2.72
Connection3.79
Contribution3.52
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity3.05
Grading4.40
Reflection3.94
Respect4.83
Creativity3.74
Feedback3.71
Interaction3.88
Challenge4.32
Questions4.75
Byanka Estudillo 69 grades · 1 term 2.26GPA
69 letter grades
Compare with the course
Estudillo vs. the course average
A
−3.9
B
+3.3
C
+1.6
D
+0.3
F
−1.3
Difference in percentage points.
9.2% withdrew · 7 of 76 enrolled.
Overall3.85 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.35
Technology3.40
Synthesis3.25
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.10
Contribution3.65
Discussion4.05
Inclusivity2.90
Grading4.00
Reflection3.60
Respect4.40
Creativity3.35
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.85
Questions4.00
Colin J Mitchell 31 grades · 1 term 2.17GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mitchell vs. the course average
A
−5.5
B
+0.5
C
+3.4
D
+3.1
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
16.2% withdrew · 6 of 37 enrolled.
Overall4.10 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.41
Technology3.83
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration3.98
Connection3.48
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.28
Inclusivity2.63
Grading3.62
Reflection4.18
Respect4.55
Creativity3.66
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.34
Questions4.36
Samik Dasgupta 92 grades · 1 term 1.99GPA
92 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dasgupta vs. the course average
A
−3.2
B
−10.1
C
+4.8
D
+5.4
F
+3.1
Difference in percentage points.
8.9% withdrew · 9 of 101 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
79 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology3.81
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.61
Connection3.70
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity3.63
Grading4.54
Reflection4.33
Respect4.71
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.64
Challenge4.65
Questions4.75
Saige Rose Drecksler 39 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.29
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration4.29
Connection3.73
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.95
Grading4.45
Reflection4.35
Respect4.46
Creativity4.05
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Alex Mcmanus 10 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection3.60
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.80
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.90
Katerina Frances Winters 12 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.05
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.85
Connection2.75
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity2.95
Grading4.70
Reflection4.45
Respect5.00
Creativity3.95
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.45
Questions4.85
Jose Armando Delgado 21 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.73
Technology3.93
Synthesis3.67
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.30
Contribution3.63
Discussion4.03
Inclusivity4.23
Grading4.33
Reflection3.80
Respect4.47
Creativity3.87
Feedback3.57
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.03
Questions4.10
Alex Paradise 14 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.45
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection3.30
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.05
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.90
Reflection4.55
Respect4.85
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.10
Questions4.75
Ellery Galvin 10 reported responses 3.92Eval / 5
Overall3.92 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.85
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.65
Collaboration4.30
Connection2.65
Contribution3.75
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.25
Grading3.85
Reflection3.50
Respect4.30
Creativity4.35
Feedback3.85
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.90
Questions4.35
Ben Freid 4 reported responses 4.77Eval / 5
Overall4.77 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.25
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.75
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.75
Questions5.00
David Armendariz 17 reported responses 4.04Eval / 5
Overall4.04 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.27
Technology3.93
Synthesis3.33
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.03
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity3.17
Grading4.03
Reflection3.83
Respect4.10
Creativity3.50
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.17
Questions4.43
Meilan Jess 34 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.39
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration4.77
Connection3.88
Contribution4.24
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity3.61
Grading4.36
Reflection4.50
Respect4.54
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.67
Questions4.81
Antonio Yervez 20 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.97
Technology3.93
Synthesis4.07
Collaboration4.77
Connection3.47
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.20
Reflection4.03
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.43
Questions4.53
Katie Spencer 46 reported responses 4.23Eval / 5
Overall4.23 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.66
Technology3.56
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.54
Connection3.08
Contribution3.84
Discussion4.03
Inclusivity3.78
Grading4.22
Reflection4.22
Respect4.69
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.41
Challenge4.46
Questions4.08
Mostafa Mohammadian 14 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology3.60
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.70
Connection3.65
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.75
Grading4.35
Reflection4.30
Respect4.90
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Anna Kinne Granquist 21 reported responses 4.03Eval / 5
Overall4.03 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology2.95
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.35
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity2.30
Grading3.70
Reflection4.15
Respect4.30
Creativity3.35
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.35
Questions4.20
Anna Hirschmann 21 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.03
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration3.72
Connection3.99
Contribution4.01
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity2.81
Grading4.18
Reflection4.25
Respect4.70
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.48
Questions4.31
Molly Mcfaul 8 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology3.20
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.90
Connection3.50
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.90
Reflection4.50
Respect4.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.90
Questions4.10
Ali Abbasi 9 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.45
Connection3.35
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.30
Grading4.25
Reflection4.45
Respect4.55
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.25
Questions4.20
Ethan Shade 13 reported responses 3.90Eval / 5
Overall3.90 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.35
Synthesis3.85
Collaboration4.05
Connection3.45
Contribution3.75
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.25
Grading3.85
Reflection4.05
Respect4.00
Creativity3.85
Feedback3.95
Interaction3.95
Challenge3.85
Questions4.00
Sabina Adhikari 6 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.20
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.30
Connection2.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.20
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Immie Cresswell 9 reported responses 4.84Eval / 5
Overall4.84 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.10
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.70
Respect4.70
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Victor Martinez Gil 29 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.30
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.65
Reflection4.80
Respect4.95
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.