Course record ASTR
ASTR 1200
Stars and Galaxies
University of Colorado Boulder
2,305 grades32 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score12/100
Needs work
James C Green 190 grades · 1 term 3.30GPA
190 letter grades
Compare with the course
Green vs. the course average
A
+5.6
B
+17.8
C
−10.8
D
−6.3
F
−6.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.9% withdrew · 14 of 204 enrolled.
Alexandros Chasapis Giannakopoulos 188 grades · 1 term 3.10GPA
188 letter grades
Compare with the course
Giannakopoulos vs. the course average
A
+19.8
B
−14.1
C
−4.9
D
+0.6
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 6 of 194 enrolled.
Overall3.63 / 5
80 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration2.50
Connection3.80
Contribution3.30
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.10
Grading3.70
Reflection3.60
Respect4.30
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.30
Interaction3.60
Challenge3.80
Questions3.90
Leah Simon 111 grades · 1 term 3.03GPA
111 letter grades
Compare with the course
Simon vs. the course average
A
+2.9
B
+3.8
C
+0.9
D
−2.7
F
−5.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 5 of 116 enrolled.
Overall4.04 / 5
84 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.33
Connection4.14
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.44
Inclusivity3.72
Grading4.19
Reflection4.35
Respect4.59
Creativity4.08
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.44
Questions4.55
Marialis Rosario Franco 97 grades · 1 term 3.01GPA
97 letter grades
Compare with the course
Franco vs. the course average
A
+7.3
B
+2.9
C
−8.4
D
−1.1
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.9% withdrew · 5 of 102 enrolled.
David John Wilson 93 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
93 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wilson vs. the course average
A
+25.2
B
−17.1
C
−15.5
D
−0.9
F
+8.3
Difference in percentage points.
11.4% withdrew · 12 of 105 enrolled.
Overall3.02 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.90
Technology3.90
Synthesis2.60
Collaboration1.80
Connection3.20
Contribution2.20
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity2.40
Grading3.00
Reflection3.20
Respect3.80
Creativity3.00
Feedback2.60
Interaction3.40
Challenge3.20
Questions3.50
Shah Mohammad Bahauddin 98 grades · 1 term 2.98GPA
98 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bahauddin vs. the course average
A
+1.8
B
+4.5
C
−0.4
D
−2.2
F
−3.7
Difference in percentage points.
10.1% withdrew · 11 of 109 enrolled.
Overall4.36 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.26
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration3.69
Connection4.27
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity3.92
Grading4.22
Reflection4.34
Respect4.46
Creativity4.42
Feedback3.84
Interaction4.27
Challenge4.46
Questions4.49
Dmitry V Vorobiev 203 grades · 1 term 2.84GPA
203 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vorobiev vs. the course average
A
−2.0
B
+3.8
C
+0.4
D
+0.1
F
−2.3
Difference in percentage points.
12.9% withdrew · 30 of 233 enrolled.
Overall3.82 / 5
77 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration2.40
Connection3.80
Contribution3.20
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.00
Reflection4.10
Respect4.40
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.10
Questions4.30
Nils W Halverson 109 grades · 1 term 2.83GPA
109 letter grades
Compare with the course
Halverson vs. the course average
A
−5.6
B
+10.0
C
−0.5
D
−0.8
F
−3.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.5% withdrew · 4 of 113 enrolled.
Overall4.16 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.20
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.10
Reflection4.30
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.30
Questions4.20
Kevin Christopher France 103 grades · 1 term 2.75GPA
103 letter grades
Compare with the course
France vs. the course average
A
−11.7
B
+10.5
C
+7.4
D
−3.4
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
7.2% withdrew · 8 of 111 enrolled.
Overall4.24 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
Seth D Hornstein 298 grades · 1 term 2.70GPA
298 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hornstein vs. the course average
A
−3.1
B
−3.3
C
+4.4
D
+1.4
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
6.9% withdrew · 22 of 320 enrolled.
Overall4.10 / 5
165 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.19
Technology4.33
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.32
Connection3.92
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.27
Reflection4.30
Respect4.37
Creativity3.89
Feedback3.57
Interaction4.46
Challenge4.36
Questions4.36
Ganna Portyankina 143 grades · 1 term 2.68GPA
143 letter grades
Compare with the course
Portyankina vs. the course average
A
−8.4
B
+4.2
C
+4.0
D
−1.4
F
+1.6
Difference in percentage points.
9.5% withdrew · 15 of 158 enrolled.
Overall2.81 / 5
77 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.80
Technology2.90
Synthesis2.60
Collaboration2.50
Connection2.80
Contribution2.10
Discussion2.60
Inclusivity2.20
Grading3.00
Reflection3.00
Respect2.90
Creativity3.10
Feedback2.30
Interaction3.30
Challenge3.00
Questions2.80
John Michael Keller 121 grades · 1 term 2.63GPA
121 letter grades
Compare with the course
Keller vs. the course average
A
−4.4
B
same
C
+0.9
D
+2.0
F
+1.5
Difference in percentage points.
5.5% withdrew · 7 of 128 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
71 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.50
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Jorge Perez-Gallego 289 grades · 1 term 2.62GPA
289 letter grades
Compare with the course
Perez-Gallego vs. the course average
A
−0.7
B
−6.2
C
+1.7
D
+0.3
F
+5.0
Difference in percentage points.
6.2% withdrew · 19 of 308 enrolled.
Overall4.16 / 5
100 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration3.69
Connection4.05
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity3.81
Grading4.28
Reflection4.18
Respect4.71
Creativity4.35
Feedback3.94
Interaction4.27
Challenge4.39
Questions4.61
Yi Hang Valerie Wong 181 grades · 1 term 2.52GPA
181 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wong vs. the course average
A
−10.1
B
−0.7
C
+6.7
D
+2.0
F
+2.1
Difference in percentage points.
9.5% withdrew · 19 of 200 enrolled.
Leif Eric Robin Ramstad 81 grades · 1 term 2.09GPA
81 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ramstad vs. the course average
A
−17.7
B
−11.2
C
+8.6
D
+15.9
F
+4.3
Difference in percentage points.
16.5% withdrew · 16 of 97 enrolled.
Overall3.25 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.10
Technology3.60
Synthesis2.70
Collaboration2.60
Connection3.20
Contribution2.70
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.30
Reflection3.00
Respect4.30
Creativity3.10
Feedback2.80
Interaction3.60
Challenge3.30
Questions3.60
Aimee Lee Schechter 54 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5
54 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.07
Technology4.57
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.93
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.43
Grading4.17
Reflection4.20
Respect4.73
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.50
Questions4.63
Daniel Glenn Steckhahn 44 reported responses 4.16Eval / 5
Overall4.16 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.75
Technology4.35
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration3.75
Connection3.35
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.05
Grading4.20
Reflection3.90
Respect4.65
Creativity3.95
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Benjamin Short 27 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.43
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.85
Grading3.97
Reflection4.33
Respect4.43
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.22
Questions4.50
Parker Hinton 17 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Valerie Wong 62 reported responses 3.89Eval / 5
Overall3.89 / 5
62 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.70
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.00
Respect4.20
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.80
Questions4.30
Diana Ryder 28 reported responses 3.32Eval / 5
Overall3.32 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.90
Technology4.10
Synthesis2.60
Collaboration1.80
Connection3.20
Contribution2.20
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity2.40
Grading3.80
Reflection3.20
Respect3.80
Creativity3.00
Feedback3.40
Interaction3.40
Challenge3.60
Questions4.00
Michelle Athay 1 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution3.00
Reflection5.00
Interaction4.00
Jane Bright 9 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.60
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Guido Insinger 1 reported responses 3.57Eval / 5
Overall3.57 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Synthesis2.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.00
Contribution1.00
Inclusivity1.00
Reflection4.00
Interaction5.00
Marialis Rosario 62 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
62 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration4.05
Connection4.45
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.18
Reflection4.65
Respect4.87
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.31
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.64
Questions4.57
Adhitya Sripennem 1 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution3.00
Inclusivity4.00
Reflection4.00
Interaction5.00
Patrick Ryan Behr 6 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction5.00
Challenge3.80
Questions5.00
Robert E Ergun 92 reported responses 3.49Eval / 5
Overall3.49 / 5
92 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.45
Technology3.95
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration2.40
Connection3.85
Contribution2.80
Discussion3.45
Inclusivity3.15
Grading3.70
Reflection3.80
Respect4.00
Creativity3.35
Feedback3.05
Interaction3.65
Challenge3.75
Questions3.90
Erica Lynn Nelson 56 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
56 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.50
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity4.25
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.50
Questions4.45
Mikayla Huffman 5 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.20
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.60
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions5.00
Steven Cranmer 35 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.10
Connection4.10
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.60
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Whitney Powers 3 reported responses 4.21Eval / 5
Overall4.21 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.30
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration2.70
Connection3.70
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.50
Grading5.00
Reflection4.30
Respect4.30
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.30
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.