Course record ASTR
ASTR 1000
The Solar System
University of Colorado Boulder
3,432 grades30 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score19/100
Needs work
Shannon Curry 201 grades · 1 term 3.46GPA
201 letter grades
Compare with the course
Curry vs. the course average
A
+23.4
B
−14.1
C
−6.0
D
−3.7
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 5 of 206 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.60
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.60
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Christopher Alan Lowder 660 grades · 1 term 3.20GPA
660 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lowder vs. the course average
A
+1.6
B
+5.8
C
−3.9
D
−2.0
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 21 of 681 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
137 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration3.96
Connection4.28
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.34
Reflection4.32
Respect4.53
Creativity4.04
Feedback3.76
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.47
Questions4.52
Michelle Wooten 641 grades · 1 term 3.17GPA
641 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wooten vs. the course average
A
+8.3
B
−9.4
C
+1.8
D
−0.6
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 19 of 660 enrolled.
Overall4.14 / 5
211 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.48
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.22
Contribution3.91
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.00
Reflection4.23
Respect4.70
Creativity4.07
Feedback3.68
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.17
Questions4.36
Yaxue Dong 404 grades · 1 term 3.16GPA
404 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dong vs. the course average
A
+1.3
B
+2.4
C
−1.6
D
−0.3
F
−1.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 18 of 422 enrolled.
Overall3.82 / 5
107 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.72
Technology4.02
Synthesis3.58
Collaboration3.43
Connection3.93
Contribution3.49
Discussion4.18
Inclusivity3.55
Grading3.82
Reflection3.90
Respect4.27
Creativity3.68
Feedback3.61
Interaction4.13
Challenge3.72
Questions4.15
Marialis Rosario Franco 957 grades · 1 term 3.06GPA
957 letter grades
Compare with the course
Franco vs. the course average
A
−3.5
B
+5.4
C
−2.2
D
−0.5
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
5.5% withdrew · 56 of 1,013 enrolled.
Edward M Thiemann 200 grades · 1 term 2.89GPA
200 letter grades
Compare with the course
Thiemann vs. the course average
A
−6.7
B
+1.0
C
+3.6
D
−0.2
F
+2.4
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 10 of 210 enrolled.
Overall3.35 / 5
95 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.30
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.10
Collaboration2.80
Connection3.50
Contribution2.90
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity2.70
Grading3.60
Reflection3.30
Respect3.80
Creativity3.30
Feedback2.80
Interaction3.60
Challenge3.50
Questions3.90
Seth D Hornstein 194 grades · 1 term 2.74GPA
194 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hornstein vs. the course average
A
−12.8
B
−4.1
C
+12.9
D
+3.5
F
+0.5
Difference in percentage points.
8.1% withdrew · 17 of 211 enrolled.
Overall4.16 / 5
150 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.20
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity3.45
Grading4.35
Reflection4.30
Respect4.35
Creativity3.95
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.45
Questions4.50
Nicholas M Schneider 175 grades · 1 term 2.33GPA
175 letter grades
Compare with the course
Schneider vs. the course average
A
−25.9
B
−3.3
C
+11.9
D
+13.5
F
+3.8
Difference in percentage points.
7.9% withdrew · 15 of 190 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
77 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.40
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.30
Respect4.50
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Rydell Stottlemyer 18 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.97
Technology4.45
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.43
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity3.83
Grading4.18
Reflection4.52
Respect4.58
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.18
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.15
Questions4.43
Sajal Gupta 21 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.45
Connection4.28
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.18
Grading4.13
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.43
Questions4.58
Allyson Leffler 7 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.70
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Ryan Daniel Skoletsky 72 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
72 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.47
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.20
Contribution4.19
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity3.97
Grading4.08
Reflection4.35
Respect4.64
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.86
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.21
Questions4.55
Sungoh Park 9 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.75
Technology4.75
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.60
Connection3.60
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.25
Grading4.85
Reflection4.45
Respect4.35
Creativity4.05
Feedback3.95
Interaction4.15
Challenge3.95
Questions4.45
Piyush Agrawal 8 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.05
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.65
Grading3.60
Reflection4.90
Respect4.65
Creativity3.50
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.65
Kelly Slater Cline 12 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.94
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.93
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.94
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.93
Reflection4.95
Respect4.21
Creativity4.93
Feedback4.94
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.94
Questions4.94
Illa Rivero Losada 7 reported responses 3.80Eval / 5
Overall3.80 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.60
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.90
Reflection4.00
Respect4.80
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.70
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Robert William Stevens 60 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.20
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.40
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.30
Questions4.60
Hsiang-Wen Hsu 10 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.50
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.80
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions5.00
Daniel Mendoza 61 reported responses 3.60Eval / 5
Overall3.60 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.20
Contribution3.10
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.60
Reflection3.40
Respect4.10
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.30
Interaction3.90
Challenge3.70
Questions3.80
Marialis Rosario 380 reported responses 3.65Eval / 5
Overall3.65 / 5
380 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.53
Technology3.95
Synthesis3.53
Collaboration4.09
Connection3.69
Contribution3.24
Discussion3.94
Inclusivity3.21
Grading3.91
Reflection3.97
Respect4.20
Creativity3.77
Feedback3.11
Interaction4.24
Challenge3.88
Questions3.98
Praneetha Kishore Kumar 59 reported responses 3.30Eval / 5
Overall3.30 / 5
59 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.80
Technology3.20
Synthesis2.70
Collaboration3.40
Connection3.10
Contribution2.40
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity2.80
Grading3.60
Reflection3.20
Respect4.10
Creativity3.00
Feedback2.70
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.20
Questions3.70
Adhitya Sripennem 1 reported responses 3.00Eval / 5
Overall3.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Synthesis2.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection2.00
Contribution2.00
Inclusivity4.00
Reflection1.00
Interaction4.00
Abhishek Lohith Kumar 28 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.09
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration4.04
Connection4.26
Contribution3.93
Discussion4.05
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.00
Reflection4.15
Respect4.48
Creativity3.66
Feedback3.78
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.07
Questions4.71
Jay Srikar Chittidi 1 reported responses 2.14Eval / 5
Overall2.14 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Synthesis2.00
Collaboration1.00
Connection1.00
Contribution3.00
Inclusivity3.00
Reflection1.00
Interaction3.00
David A Brain 55 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Benjamin P Brown 65 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
65 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.30
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.80
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.30
Questions4.30
Tatsuya Akiba 88 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
88 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.18
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration4.51
Connection4.28
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.88
Grading4.32
Reflection4.45
Respect4.70
Creativity4.33
Feedback3.83
Interaction4.68
Challenge4.45
Questions4.55
Camille Adeene Denton 41 reported responses 3.90Eval / 5
Overall3.90 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.10
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.10
Reflection4.10
Respect4.20
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.20
Questions4.20
Emily Farr 2 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.50
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Mikayla Huffman 11 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.70
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.