Course record ATOC
ATOC 1050
Weather and the Atmosphere
University of Colorado Boulder
6,115 grades31 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score38/100
Below average
Jan Lenaerts 341 grades · 1 term 3.60GPA
341 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lenaerts vs. the course average
A
+18.1
B
−13.0
C
−4.4
D
−0.6
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 6 of 347 enrolled.
Overall4.27 / 5
123 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.70
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Carl A Hager 1,558 grades · 1 term 3.50GPA
1,558 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hager vs. the course average
A
+8.2
B
−5.8
C
−1.6
D
−0.9
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 20 of 1,578 enrolled.
Overall4.70 / 5
735 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.90
Contribution4.41
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.28
Grading4.78
Reflection4.71
Respect4.85
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.80
Questions4.76
Sebastian K. Schmidt 1,334 grades · 1 term 3.45GPA
1,334 letter grades
Compare with the course
Schmidt vs. the course average
A
+3.3
B
−0.1
C
−2.0
D
−0.5
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
1.8% withdrew · 25 of 1,359 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
278 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration3.85
Connection4.49
Contribution3.92
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.97
Grading4.46
Reflection4.31
Respect4.70
Creativity4.13
Feedback3.88
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.40
Questions4.69
Derek Philip Brown 334 grades · 1 term 3.32GPA
334 letter grades
Compare with the course
Brown vs. the course average
A
−7.0
B
+5.6
C
+2.6
D
−0.8
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 5 of 339 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
80 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.70
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.40
Questions4.80
Aneesh Chamakuzhi Subramanian 336 grades · 1 term 3.31GPA
336 letter grades
Compare with the course
Subramanian vs. the course average
A
−3.7
B
+3.3
C
−0.8
D
+0.7
F
+0.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 9 of 345 enrolled.
Overall4.14 / 5
150 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.50
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.50
Reflection4.20
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.20
Questions4.40
Elizabeth Noel Cassano 1,274 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
1,274 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cassano vs. the course average
A
−10.3
B
+8.0
C
+1.8
D
+0.2
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 25 of 1,299 enrolled.
Overall4.12 / 5
530 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration3.93
Connection4.52
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.31
Inclusivity3.39
Grading4.30
Reflection4.24
Respect4.63
Creativity4.03
Feedback4.04
Interaction4.39
Challenge4.18
Questions4.54
Andrew Winters 641 grades · 1 term 3.20GPA
641 letter grades
Compare with the course
Winters vs. the course average
A
−5.3
B
−1.9
C
+4.2
D
+2.8
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.1% withdrew · 14 of 655 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
436 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.59
Contribution3.89
Discussion4.39
Inclusivity4.06
Grading4.49
Reflection4.39
Respect4.68
Creativity4.28
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.39
Questions4.50
Katja Friedrich 297 grades · 1 term 3.17GPA
297 letter grades
Compare with the course
Friedrich vs. the course average
A
−11.1
B
+5.4
C
+3.4
D
+1.0
F
+1.4
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 5 of 302 enrolled.
Overall3.80 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.80
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.40
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.60
Grading3.90
Reflection4.00
Respect4.20
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.40
Interaction3.90
Challenge3.90
Questions3.80
Cheng Lu 225 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
225 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration3.94
Connection4.70
Contribution4.06
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity4.26
Grading4.55
Reflection4.55
Respect4.75
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.45
Questions4.65
Jacopo Sala 116 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
116 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.50
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Jeffrey Scott Forrest 68 reported responses 4.03Eval / 5
Overall4.03 / 5
68 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.08
Technology4.09
Synthesis3.65
Collaboration3.01
Connection4.34
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.14
Inclusivity3.25
Grading3.59
Reflection4.13
Respect4.48
Creativity4.24
Feedback3.22
Interaction3.79
Challenge4.16
Questions3.54
Sarah Margaret Anderson 124 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
124 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.70
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Elina Sofia Valkonen 97 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5
97 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.40
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.30
Reflection4.10
Respect4.60
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.20
Questions4.50
Yu-Wen Chen 81 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
81 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.50
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Gregory P Byrd 52 reported responses 3.93Eval / 5
Overall3.93 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.10
Connection4.40
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.40
Reflection4.00
Respect4.50
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.30
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.10
Questions4.30
Brandon Ricardo Antonio Molina 48 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.40
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.50
Reflection4.00
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.20
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Michelle Laura Maclennan 63 reported responses 3.66Eval / 5
Overall3.66 / 5
63 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration2.90
Connection4.00
Contribution3.20
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.20
Grading3.80
Reflection3.70
Respect4.30
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.40
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.60
Questions4.10
Zhixing Xie 82 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
82 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.50
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.20
Questions4.40
Zach Michael 115 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
115 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.91
Technology4.24
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration4.47
Connection4.24
Contribution3.93
Discussion4.18
Inclusivity3.65
Grading4.14
Reflection4.23
Respect4.38
Creativity3.74
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.09
Questions4.42
Arabella Chamberlain 172 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
172 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.26
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration4.64
Connection4.48
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.16
Grading4.50
Reflection4.54
Respect4.64
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.44
Questions4.70
Clairy Reiher 47 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.58
Connection4.43
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.13
Grading4.57
Reflection4.62
Respect4.50
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.22
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.40
Questions4.65
Cole Frederick Persch 5 reported responses 4.99Eval / 5
Overall4.99 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Kiley Beckwith 97 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
97 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.26
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.54
Contribution4.42
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity3.96
Grading4.59
Reflection4.59
Respect4.82
Creativity4.24
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.59
Questions4.80
Alex Greimann 101 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
101 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.26
Connection4.50
Contribution4.24
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.58
Reflection4.49
Respect4.67
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.49
Questions4.79
Jennie Fleurant 75 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
75 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration4.08
Connection4.14
Contribution3.87
Discussion4.36
Inclusivity3.82
Grading4.19
Reflection4.19
Respect4.52
Creativity3.82
Feedback4.04
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.38
Questions4.58
Ufuk Turuncoglu 91 reported responses 3.56Eval / 5
Overall3.56 / 5
91 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration2.60
Connection4.10
Contribution2.80
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity3.30
Grading3.90
Reflection3.70
Respect4.30
Creativity3.60
Feedback2.90
Interaction3.70
Challenge3.70
Questions4.10
Kevin Rozmiarek 27 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.38
Connection4.75
Contribution4.28
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity4.18
Grading4.97
Reflection4.70
Respect4.95
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.88
Questions4.90
Marc Sailer 79 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
79 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.70
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.50
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Natalie Aranda 52 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.70
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.60
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Rudolf Hansen 52 reported responses 4.16Eval / 5
Overall4.16 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.50
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.40
Reflection4.20
Respect4.50
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.20
Questions4.40
Hari Surya Shashank Sekhar 75 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
75 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.80
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.60
Reflection4.70
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.50
Questions4.80
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.