Course record CSCI

CSCI 7000

Current Topics in Computer Science

University of Colorado Boulder

547 grades61 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score74/100
Strong

Professors 61 of 61

Di Wu 36 grades · 1 term 3.94GPA
97.2% A
0.0% B
2.8% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

36 letter grades

Compare with the course
Wu vs. the course average
A +9.3
B −7.7
C −0.3
D −0.2
F −1.1

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 36 enrolled.

Sriram Sankaranarayanan 29 grades · 1 term 3.88GPA
93.1% A
3.4% B
3.4% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

29 letter grades

Compare with the course
Sankaranarayanan vs. the course average
A +5.2
B −4.2
C +0.3
D −0.2
F −1.1

Difference in percentage points.

17.1% withdrew · 6 of 35 enrolled.

Lijun Chen 28 grades · 1 term 3.87GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Chen vs. the course average
A +12.1
B −7.7
C −3.1
D −0.2
F −1.1

Difference in percentage points.

3.4% withdrew · 1 of 29 enrolled.

Danna Gurari 34 grades · 1 term 3.84GPA
91.2% A
2.9% B
5.9% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

34 letter grades

Compare with the course
Gurari vs. the course average
A +3.2
B −4.7
C +2.8
D −0.2
F −1.1

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 34 enrolled.

Alessandro Roncone 41 grades · 1 term 3.83GPA
92.7% A
2.4% B
2.4% C
2.4% D
0.0% F

41 letter grades

Compare with the course
Roncone vs. the course average
A +4.7
B −5.2
C −0.7
D +2.3
F −1.1

Difference in percentage points.

4.7% withdrew · 2 of 43 enrolled.

Levi D Perigo 37 grades · 1 term 3.76GPA
78.4% A
18.9% B
2.7% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

37 letter grades

Compare with the course
Perigo vs. the course average
A −9.6
B +11.2
C −0.4
D −0.2
F −1.1

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 37 enrolled.

Rebecca Elizabeth Morrison 47 grades · 1 term 3.76GPA
87.2% A
8.5% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
4.3% F

47 letter grades

Compare with the course
Morrison vs. the course average
A −0.7
B +0.8
C −3.1
D −0.2
F +3.2

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 47 enrolled.

Nicolaus J Correll 39 grades · 1 term 3.69GPA
79.5% A
12.8% B
7.7% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

39 letter grades

Compare with the course
Correll vs. the course average
A −8.4
B +5.1
C +4.6
D −0.2
F −1.1

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 39 enrolled.

Maria Pacheco Gonzalez 21 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

21 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 21 enrolled.

Chenhao Tan 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

12 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 12 enrolled.

Aaron Julian Clauset 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

10 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.

Daniel Benjamin Larremore 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

10 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.

Christoffer R Heckman 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

10 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.

Stephen M Kissler 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.98GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

18 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.

Rafael M Frongillo 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.97GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

10 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.

Benjamin F Waggoner 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.93GPA
92.9% A
7.1% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

14 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 14 enrolled.

Katharina Lisa Maria Kann 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.85GPA
90.9% A
9.1% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

11 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 11 enrolled.

Kevin T. Epperson 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.81GPA
95.7% A
4.3% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.

Gowtham Kaki 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.81GPA
90.0% A
10.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

10 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.

Bradley Hamilton Hayes 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.80GPA
95.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
5.0% F

20 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.

Daniel E Acuna 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.72GPA
75.0% A
25.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

12 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 12 enrolled.

Jose Ramon Santos 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.65GPA
72.7% A
22.7% B
4.5% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.

Eric Matthew Lobato 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.34GPA
52.9% A
35.3% B
11.8% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

17 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.

Carey Jay Herman 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.29GPA
70.0% A
15.0% B
5.0% C
0.0% D
10.0% F

20 letter grades · Limited sample

4.8% withdrew · 1 of 21 enrolled.

Walter Nolen Scaife 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.05GPA
56.3% A
12.5% B
25.0% C
0.0% D
6.3% F

16 letter grades · Limited sample

20.0% withdrew · 4 of 20 enrolled.

Nolen Scaife 3 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5

3 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.70
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions5.00
Martha Palmer 4 reported responses 3.90Eval / 5
Overall3.90 / 5

4 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.70
Grading2.80
Reflection4.00
Respect4.30
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.50
Questions3.80
Joshua Abraham Grochow 8 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5

8 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.99
Technology4.99
Synthesis4.99
Collaboration5.00
Connection2.57
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection4.99
Respect5.00
Creativity4.51
Feedback4.99
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.99
Questions4.99
Alexandra Kolla 6 reported responses 4.96Eval / 5
Overall4.96 / 5

6 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.80
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Joseph Izraelevitz 12 reported responses 4.77Eval / 5
Overall4.77 / 5

12 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.99
Collaboration4.99
Connection4.93
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.97
Grading4.96
Reflection5.00
Respect4.95
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.96
Mark D Gross 3 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5

3 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.98
Technology4.96
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.97
Connection4.98
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.97
Inclusivity4.98
Grading3.94
Reflection4.98
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback3.06
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.99
Questions5.00
Claire Elizabeth Monteleoni 1 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5

1 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Nikolaus Correll 14 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5

14 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.96
Technology4.98
Synthesis4.96
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.97
Contribution4.94
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.82
Reflection4.97
Respect4.98
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.73
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.85
Henry Tufo 3 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5

3 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.29
Synthesis4.08
Collaboration2.08
Connection4.54
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.08
Reflection4.08
Respect4.54
Creativity4.46
Feedback3.92
Interaction4.08
Challenge4.08
Questions4.54
Alexis Palmer 14 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5

14 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.99
Technology4.99
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.99
Contribution4.99
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.98
Reflection4.97
Respect5.00
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.93
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.99
Questions5.00
Daniel Dig 33 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5

33 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.61
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.89
Connection4.85
Contribution4.96
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity4.44
Grading3.90
Reflection4.89
Respect4.89
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.54
Interaction4.97
Challenge4.76
Questions4.71
Eric Robert Keller 6 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5

6 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Yueqi Chen 6 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5

6 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.08
Technology3.69
Synthesis3.58
Collaboration2.69
Connection3.46
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity4.00
Grading3.35
Reflection3.62
Respect4.62
Creativity4.38
Feedback3.38
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.38
Questions4.27
Scott R Runnels 2 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Eliana Colunga 2 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.50
Cj Herman 2 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection5.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect4.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Pei Hsiu Yeh 3 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5

3 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection5.00
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.00
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity3.70
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.30
Questions5.00
Ashutosh Trivedi 8 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5

8 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.94
Technology4.97
Synthesis4.94
Collaboration4.92
Connection4.94
Contribution4.97
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.92
Grading2.17
Reflection1.37
Respect4.97
Creativity4.09
Feedback4.85
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.97
Questions4.94
Huxley David Bennett 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5

1 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Michael Rivera 12 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5

12 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration3.86
Connection4.44
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.97
Reflection4.80
Respect4.86
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.57
Questions4.86
Dirk C Grunwald 7 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5

7 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.90
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.30
Reflection5.00
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Esther Rolf 18 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5

18 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.98
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration3.78
Connection4.91
Contribution4.98
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.48
Reflection4.57
Respect4.98
Creativity4.91
Feedback3.75
Interaction4.18
Challenge4.52
Questions4.50
Fruzsina Agocs 5 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5

5 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.60
Reflection3.80
Respect5.00
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.20
Questions5.00
Ramin Ayanzadeh 11 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5

11 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.72
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration3.88
Connection4.31
Contribution4.88
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.62
Grading3.95
Reflection4.58
Respect5.00
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.95
Questions4.77
Ahmed Hamza 9 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5

9 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.69
Connection4.69
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.34
Reflection4.69
Respect4.85
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.65
Questions4.69
James H Martin 9 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5

9 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.60
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.40
Reflection5.00
Respect4.90
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Sangtae Ha 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5

1 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
Mirela Alistar 3 reported responses 3.64Eval / 5
Overall3.64 / 5

3 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology3.38
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.77
Contribution3.77
Discussion3.77
Inclusivity4.38
Grading3.77
Reflection3.38
Respect4.38
Creativity4.77
Feedback3.77
Interaction4.38
Challenge3.00
Questions4.00
Daniel W Rankin 2 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading2.00
Reflection4.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge5.00
Questions4.50
Alvaro Velasquez 7 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5

7 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.30
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading3.90
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Maria Alexandra Antoniak 8 reported responses 4.94Eval / 5
Overall4.94 / 5

8 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.90
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading5.00
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Tamara Silbergleit Lehman 5 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5

5 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.60
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.60
Sharri Zamore 2 reported responses 4.92Eval / 5
Overall4.92 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.50
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.00
Ryo Suzuki 8 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5

8 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.25
Technology4.22
Synthesis3.78
Collaboration3.06
Connection4.28
Contribution3.69
Discussion4.28
Inclusivity2.97
Grading3.78
Reflection3.25
Respect4.69
Creativity3.78
Feedback2.91
Interaction3.97
Challenge3.53
Questions4.78
Mark Zhao 12 reported responses 4.83Eval / 5
Overall4.83 / 5

12 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.80
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Ariel Conn 6 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5

6 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.30
Reflection4.70
Respect4.70
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.30
Questions4.70
Show fewer
Find a course or professor

Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.