Course record ATOC
ATOC 1060
Our Changing Environment: El Nino, Ozone, and Climate
University of Colorado Boulder
2,197 grades41 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score34/100
Below average
Carl A Hager 86 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
86 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hager vs. the course average
A
+23.1
B
−9.6
C
−9.2
D
−2.4
F
−2.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 86 enrolled.
Overall4.79 / 5
101 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.29
Connection4.92
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.58
Grading4.93
Reflection4.75
Respect4.98
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.72
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.92
Questions4.99
Pedro Nicolas Di Nezio 515 grades · 1 term 3.57GPA
515 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nezio vs. the course average
A
+16.4
B
−8.6
C
−5.9
D
−1.0
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.3% withdrew · 12 of 527 enrolled.
Overall4.07 / 5
246 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.48
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration3.98
Connection4.79
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.38
Grading4.29
Reflection4.39
Respect4.60
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.88
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.19
Questions4.39
Donata Giglio 200 grades · 1 term 3.40GPA
200 letter grades
Compare with the course
Giglio vs. the course average
A
+7.7
B
−5.0
C
−0.3
D
−1.9
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 5 of 205 enrolled.
Elizabeth Noel Cassano 340 grades · 1 term 3.35GPA
340 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cassano vs. the course average
A
−4.6
B
+9.8
C
−4.2
D
−0.6
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.2% withdrew · 4 of 344 enrolled.
Overall4.22 / 5
112 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.18
Collaboration3.43
Connection4.61
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.11
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.41
Reflection4.49
Respect4.79
Creativity4.09
Feedback3.43
Interaction4.11
Challenge4.20
Questions4.70
Alexandra Jahn Hall 158 grades · 1 term 3.29GPA
158 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hall vs. the course average
A
+7.2
B
−11.5
C
+4.2
D
−0.5
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.7% withdrew · 6 of 164 enrolled.
Jennifer E. Kay 193 grades · 1 term 3.23GPA
193 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kay vs. the course average
A
+2.1
B
−8.2
C
+2.1
D
+1.8
F
+2.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 4 of 197 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
97 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.18
Collaboration4.33
Connection4.62
Contribution4.08
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.68
Reflection4.59
Respect4.71
Creativity3.92
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.40
Questions4.68
Kristopher Benson Karnauskas 55 grades · 1 term 3.14GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Karnauskas vs. the course average
A
−5.8
B
+4.0
C
−1.2
D
+1.3
F
+1.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 55 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.97
Technology4.98
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.98
Contribution3.82
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity4.38
Grading4.20
Reflection4.18
Respect4.98
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.34
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.98
Questions4.79
Weiqing Han 61 grades · 1 term 3.08GPA
61 letter grades
Compare with the course
Han vs. the course average
A
−15.5
B
+8.8
C
+6.1
D
+2.6
F
−2.0
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 1 of 62 enrolled.
Julia M Moriarty 121 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
121 letter grades
Compare with the course
Moriarty vs. the course average
A
−7.7
B
−2.4
C
+5.4
D
+3.4
F
+1.3
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 5 of 126 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
83 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.71
Connection4.70
Contribution4.48
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.58
Reflection4.55
Respect4.71
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.21
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.48
Questions4.60
Sara Sanchez 213 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
213 letter grades
Compare with the course
Sanchez vs. the course average
A
−14.9
B
+8.9
C
+4.2
D
+0.9
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.5% withdrew · 1 of 214 enrolled.
Overall4.06 / 5
146 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.10
Connection4.60
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.40
Reflection4.10
Respect4.60
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.20
Questions4.50
Lisa K Barlow 29 grades · 1 term 2.92GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Barlow vs. the course average
A
−27.3
B
+17.8
C
+10.4
D
+1.1
F
−2.0
Difference in percentage points.
6.5% withdrew · 2 of 31 enrolled.
Overall3.96 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.52
Technology3.75
Synthesis3.52
Collaboration3.75
Connection4.05
Contribution3.46
Discussion3.89
Inclusivity3.42
Grading3.98
Reflection3.75
Respect4.18
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.85
Interaction3.89
Challenge3.95
Questions4.18
Darin W Toohey 226 grades · 1 term 2.92GPA
226 letter grades
Compare with the course
Toohey vs. the course average
A
−25.6
B
+15.1
C
+9.1
D
+0.7
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
4.6% withdrew · 11 of 237 enrolled.
Overall3.93 / 5
90 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.08
Technology3.38
Synthesis3.77
Collaboration3.08
Connection4.63
Contribution3.65
Discussion3.97
Inclusivity3.69
Grading3.12
Reflection4.19
Respect4.03
Creativity3.39
Feedback3.06
Interaction3.89
Challenge3.89
Questions4.01
Pedro Maguire Dinezio 246 reported responses 4.07Eval / 5
Overall4.07 / 5
246 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.48
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration3.98
Connection4.79
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.38
Grading4.29
Reflection4.39
Respect4.60
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.88
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.19
Questions4.39
Mikell Pierce Warms 118 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
118 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.57
Connection4.60
Contribution4.24
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.03
Grading4.49
Reflection4.50
Respect4.59
Creativity4.29
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.47
Questions4.67
Alexandra Jahn 148 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5
148 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.61
Connection4.40
Contribution3.41
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.61
Grading4.40
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.10
Questions4.80
Matthew Watwood 15 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.35
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.45
Reflection4.80
Respect4.85
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Brianna Undzis 58 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
58 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.16
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.72
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.24
Grading4.65
Reflection4.53
Respect4.74
Creativity4.31
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.72
Questions4.91
Jeffrey Scott Forrest 55 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.18
Synthesis4.41
Collaboration4.01
Connection4.76
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity4.16
Grading4.43
Reflection4.64
Respect4.52
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.42
Challenge4.82
Questions4.50
Samuel Christoffer Mogen 17 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.70
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.60
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Ziqi Yin 122 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5
122 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.40
Contribution3.20
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.10
Reflection4.10
Respect4.50
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.20
Megan Hannah Collins 26 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.42
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.21
Connection4.37
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity4.21
Grading4.12
Reflection4.40
Respect4.30
Creativity4.46
Feedback3.93
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.34
Questions4.49
Sean Dylan Leister 12 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.50
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.80
Reflection4.65
Respect4.90
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.55
Questions4.90
Genevieve Clow 35 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.99
Connection5.00
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.69
Grading4.99
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.99
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.99
Questions5.00
Christina Geller 21 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.45
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.55
Grading4.75
Reflection4.50
Respect4.75
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.25
Questions4.65
Atreyee Bhattacharya 4 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
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
Gabriella Therese Brinkley 23 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration4.23
Connection3.87
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.23
Grading4.70
Reflection4.57
Respect4.55
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.40
Questions4.55
Arabella Chamberlain 173 reported responses 4.23Eval / 5
Overall4.23 / 5
173 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.01
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.62
Contribution3.92
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity3.92
Grading4.52
Reflection4.39
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.86
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.20
Questions4.60
Anna Lopresti 35 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.80
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.30
Respect4.50
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Megan Thompson-Munson 18 reported responses 4.77Eval / 5
Overall4.77 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.80
Reflection4.75
Respect5.00
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.55
Questions5.00
Tina Geller 28 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.82
Synthesis3.28
Collaboration3.85
Connection4.64
Contribution4.12
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity3.76
Grading4.63
Reflection4.25
Respect5.00
Creativity4.56
Feedback4.85
Interaction2.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.98
Vikas Hanasoge Nataraja 60 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.73
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity4.35
Grading4.53
Reflection4.68
Respect4.85
Creativity4.23
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.58
Questions4.85
Emily Wein 34 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.80
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.20
Questions4.30
Colby Brabec 11 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.25
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.05
Reflection4.00
Respect4.20
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.60
Challenge3.90
Questions4.55
Eleanor Anne Middlemas 109 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
109 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.70
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Dora Shlosberg 10 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.70
Synthesis3.78
Collaboration3.87
Connection4.83
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.13
Grading4.61
Reflection4.26
Respect4.96
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.48
Questions5.00
Maggie Scholer 4 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.20
Questions4.80
Robert Seletsky 34 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.60
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.40
Reflection4.30
Respect4.50
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.30
Questions4.60
Xinyue Wang 82 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
82 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.60
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.50
Reflection4.35
Respect4.60
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.45
Questions4.65
Michela Savignano 48 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.60
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.30
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Aiden Pape 13 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.55
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.95
Connection4.40
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect4.85
Creativity3.60
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.15
Questions4.55
Analiese Terrell 20 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.60
Contribution3.80
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.40
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.30
Questions4.70
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.