Course record CHEM
CHEM 4171
Instrumental Analysis - Lecture and Laboratory 1
University of Colorado Boulder
128 grades21 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2025
Flunk Score44/100
Mixed record
Jozef Antonius De Gouw 35 grades · 1 term 3.37GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gouw vs. the course average
A
+5.8
B
−4.2
C
−1.9
D
+0.5
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
7.9% withdrew · 3 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.70
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.30
Reflection4.40
Respect4.90
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Rainer Volkamer 30 grades · 1 term 3.33GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Volkamer vs. the course average
A
+13.0
B
−14.2
C
+0.1
D
−2.3
F
+3.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.2% withdrew · 1 of 31 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.75
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.40
Reflection4.65
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Eleanor Carol Browne 63 grades · 1 term 3.21GPA
63 letter grades
Compare with the course
Browne vs. the course average
A
−9.4
B
+9.1
C
+1.0
D
+0.8
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
6.0% withdrew · 4 of 67 enrolled.
Overall4.58 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.44
Connection4.52
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.49
Inclusivity4.18
Grading4.54
Reflection4.44
Respect4.69
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.42
Questions4.65
Aroob Abdelhamid 4 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration2.50
Connection4.80
Contribution3.30
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.80
Grading5.00
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction3.30
Challenge4.70
Questions4.00
Andrew Chomas 3 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
3 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
Alexander Clayton Bradley 14 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.64
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration3.85
Connection4.45
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.52
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.27
Reflection4.55
Respect4.79
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.15
Challenge4.76
Questions4.70
Daniel J Katz 8 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.92
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.92
Collaboration4.82
Connection4.98
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.92
Reflection4.98
Respect5.00
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.92
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.92
Questions4.98
James Spencer Stewart 20 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.70
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.50
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Emmaline Reed Longnecker 9 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.37
Contribution3.93
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.35
Grading4.67
Reflection4.33
Respect4.83
Creativity3.87
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.57
Questions4.73
Lindsey Davis Anderson 11 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration3.93
Connection4.30
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.43
Reflection4.43
Respect4.83
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.67
Questions4.67
Guy Symonds 2 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
2 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
Kevin Jansen 3 reported responses 4.83Eval / 5
Overall4.83 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity1.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Molly Larsen 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Reflection5.00
Interaction5.00
Rebecca Mesburis 4 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology3.70
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity3.70
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.00
Questions3.80
Max Lee 8 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Nathan Sweet 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
Heinrich Johannes Salzmann 3 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Will Dresser 5 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Nell Schafer 2 reported responses 4.92Eval / 5
Overall4.92 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Valentina Osorio 2 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Seonsik Yun 3 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Grading5.00
Reflection4.30
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.00
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.