Course record EBIO
EBIO 3080
Evolutionary Biology
University of Colorado Boulder
1,021 grades35 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score51/100
Mixed record
Elizabeth L Paulson 52 grades · 1 term 3.77GPA
52 letter grades
Compare with the course
Paulson vs. the course average
A
+22.0
B
−17.0
C
−4.4
D
+0.8
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 53 enrolled.
Luke M Evans 398 grades · 1 term 3.62GPA
398 letter grades
Compare with the course
Evans vs. the course average
A
+6.6
B
−2.4
C
−3.0
D
−0.8
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 10 of 408 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
194 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.28
Technology4.38
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.44
Connection4.33
Contribution4.09
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity4.06
Grading4.15
Reflection4.38
Respect4.56
Creativity3.72
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.07
Questions4.34
Nolan Coburn Kane 129 grades · 1 term 3.51GPA
129 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kane vs. the course average
A
+0.9
B
−1.8
C
−1.3
D
+2.0
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
5.1% withdrew · 7 of 136 enrolled.
Overall4.56 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.51
Synthesis4.51
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.61
Contribution4.71
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.21
Reflection4.61
Respect4.80
Creativity4.32
Feedback3.82
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.41
Questions4.70
Nancy Christine Emery 258 grades · 1 term 3.47GPA
258 letter grades
Compare with the course
Emery vs. the course average
A
−3.3
B
+4.0
C
−1.3
D
+0.5
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.1% withdrew · 3 of 261 enrolled.
Overall4.66 / 5
130 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.68
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity4.37
Grading4.59
Reflection4.69
Respect4.88
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.18
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.78
Questions4.79
Andrew Graham Mcadam 98 grades · 1 term 3.21GPA
98 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mcadam vs. the course average
A
−16.5
B
+7.9
C
+10.1
D
−0.1
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.0% withdrew · 1 of 99 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.65
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.05
Reflection4.80
Respect4.95
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.75
Questions4.65
Andrew Martin 86 grades · 1 term 3.13GPA
86 letter grades
Compare with the course
Martin vs. the course average
A
−16.5
B
+2.9
C
+10.4
D
−1.1
F
+4.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.3% withdrew · 2 of 88 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
143 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.42
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.65
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.23
Grading3.90
Reflection4.69
Respect4.68
Creativity4.39
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.68
Questions4.49
Sean Patrick Streich 22 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.42
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity4.16
Grading4.57
Reflection4.35
Respect4.89
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.34
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.34
Questions4.79
Amy Elisabeth Benefield 51 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.62
Technology4.74
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.66
Connection4.43
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.79
Reflection4.66
Respect4.86
Creativity4.59
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.68
Questions4.76
Kelly Anne Carscadden 18 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.83
Connection4.47
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.67
Reflection4.60
Respect4.77
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.43
Peter Alexander Innes 9 reported responses 4.94Eval / 5
Overall4.94 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.83
Reflection4.82
Respect4.87
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
William Jeffrey Reed 35 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.09
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration4.89
Connection3.64
Contribution4.56
Discussion4.17
Inclusivity3.68
Grading4.22
Reflection4.14
Respect4.45
Creativity4.17
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.16
Questions4.63
Maria Valerie Cattell 4 reported responses 2.67Eval / 5
Overall2.67 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.12
Technology1.46
Synthesis3.12
Collaboration4.88
Connection3.35
Contribution3.23
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity1.69
Grading1.12
Reflection3.23
Respect1.92
Creativity2.77
Feedback1.23
Interaction4.23
Challenge1.46
Questions1.69
Katherine Joyce Kariatsumari 18 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.51
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.86
Connection4.32
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.47
Grading4.34
Reflection4.38
Respect4.58
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.68
Challenge4.38
Questions4.61
Austin Leonard Nash 19 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.55
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.85
Reflection4.55
Respect4.80
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.95
Abbey Paulson 40 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.40
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.20
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Skylar Montana Lynch 13 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration4.57
Connection4.03
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.57
Reflection4.40
Respect4.63
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.63
Questions4.73
Katie Kariatsumari 33 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.85
Synthesis3.07
Collaboration3.55
Connection4.50
Contribution3.06
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity3.04
Grading4.36
Reflection4.51
Respect5.00
Creativity3.54
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.99
Questions5.00
Alec John Chiono 24 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology4.99
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.21
Connection4.82
Contribution4.44
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.13
Grading4.41
Reflection4.42
Respect4.25
Creativity4.16
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.50
Questions4.98
Sara Garcia 13 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.67
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity4.13
Grading4.37
Reflection4.40
Respect4.33
Creativity4.07
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.43
Questions4.30
Maizy Brasher 14 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.67
Contribution4.93
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.87
Reflection4.80
Respect4.93
Creativity4.87
Feedback4.83
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.93
Questions4.93
Cheryl Ann Pinzone 14 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.30
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.60
Reflection4.50
Respect4.60
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.30
Micaela Marie Seaver 16 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.91
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.84
Collaboration4.93
Connection4.93
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.43
Reflection4.93
Respect4.72
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.91
Questions4.93
Samantha Rothberg 37 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.86
Technology4.74
Synthesis4.78
Collaboration4.76
Connection4.89
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.70
Reflection4.84
Respect4.67
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.54
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.91
Questions4.91
Ajay Patel 35 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.94
Connection4.05
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity4.14
Grading4.33
Reflection4.29
Respect4.79
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.14
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.62
Questions4.64
Chelsea Pretz 15 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.43
Connection4.84
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.97
Reflection4.77
Respect4.97
Creativity4.73
Feedback4.53
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.81
Questions4.76
Rachel Billings 17 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.43
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.52
Inclusivity4.17
Grading3.83
Reflection4.30
Respect4.54
Creativity4.35
Feedback3.78
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.46
Questions4.11
Daniel Klee 14 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.69
Connection4.57
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.36
Grading4.84
Reflection4.43
Respect4.74
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.50
Questions4.84
Jacob Watts 11 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.00
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.50
Grading3.85
Reflection3.85
Respect4.55
Creativity4.35
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.00
Questions4.35
Anna Poslednik 9 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.88
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.44
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity3.73
Grading4.69
Reflection4.52
Respect4.67
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.35
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.52
Questions4.69
Robert Buchwald 17 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.70
Reflection4.75
Respect4.98
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Sara Padula 6 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.70
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.30
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Giugi Carminati 8 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.35
Connection4.60
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity3.15
Grading4.10
Reflection4.15
Respect4.50
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.00
Questions4.75
Ella Henry 4 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.85
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.85
Reflection5.00
Respect4.85
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.85
Questions5.00
Chris Arehart 14 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.45
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.95
Grading4.45
Reflection4.75
Respect4.45
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.55
Questions4.65
Charlotte Sue 8 reported responses 4.97Eval / 5
Overall4.97 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.50
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.