Course record EBIO
EBIO 4460
Special Topics
University of Colorado Boulder
529 grades35 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score62/100
Strong
Kendi F Davies 38 grades · 1 term 3.89GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Davies vs. the course average
A
+27.6
B
−21.9
C
−6.2
D
−0.6
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
5.0% withdrew · 2 of 40 enrolled.
Overall4.96 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.72
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.63
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.82
Reflection4.91
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.91
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Nolan Coburn Kane 160 grades · 1 term 3.88GPA
160 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kane vs. the course average
A
+22.7
B
−16.9
C
−5.0
D
−0.6
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 4 of 164 enrolled.
Overall4.71 / 5
72 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration4.71
Connection4.99
Contribution4.81
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity4.55
Grading3.64
Reflection4.65
Respect4.66
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.04
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.49
Questions4.54
Nichole Nannette Barger 38 grades · 1 term 3.62GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Barger vs. the course average
A
−1.3
B
+1.8
C
+1.7
D
−0.6
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Laura Dee 34 grades · 1 term 3.38GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dee vs. the course average
A
−19.8
B
+13.4
C
+8.5
D
−0.6
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 1 of 35 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.80
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.80
Questions4.40
Merritt Mcadam 37 grades · 1 term 3.35GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mcadam vs. the course average
A
−13.0
B
+13.2
C
−0.8
D
−0.6
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 37 enrolled.
Overall4.77 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.88
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.83
Reflection4.73
Respect4.85
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.85
Questions4.88
Stephanie Susan Mayer 31 grades · 1 term 3.27GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mayer vs. the course average
A
−21.4
B
+16.8
C
+3.4
D
−0.6
F
+1.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 31 enrolled.
Overall4.67 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.10
Grading5.00
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions5.00
Catherine Alisha Quandt 73 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
73 letter grades
Compare with the course
Quandt vs. the course average
A
−23.2
B
+16.4
C
+3.4
D
+2.2
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.4% withdrew · 5 of 78 enrolled.
Matthias Fuchs 43 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
43 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fuchs vs. the course average
A
−27.9
B
+26.9
C
−1.6
D
+1.8
F
+0.8
Difference in percentage points.
4.4% withdrew · 2 of 45 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.71
Connection4.84
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity4.58
Grading4.69
Reflection4.53
Respect4.97
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.57
Questions4.63
David W Stock 34 grades · 1 term 3.18GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stock vs. the course average
A
−25.6
B
+10.4
C
+17.3
D
−0.6
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 2 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.37 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.70
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.30
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.30
Questions4.80
Andrew Martin 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 15 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.70
Reflection5.00
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Scott Anthony Taylor 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.
Overall5.00 / 5
7 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
Questions4.82
Julian Resasco 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.73GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
5.9% withdrew · 1 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection5.00
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.70
April Mary Goebl 13 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.50
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.90
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.80
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Cloe Simone Pogoda 4 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.62
Technology4.62
Synthesis3.77
Collaboration1.00
Connection4.15
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity2.62
Grading5.00
Reflection4.77
Respect4.23
Creativity4.62
Feedback4.62
Interaction1.46
Challenge4.62
Questions4.23
Anna Schwabe 23 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.54
Connection4.85
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.85
Reflection4.90
Respect4.89
Creativity4.39
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.87
Questions4.78
Daniela Vergara 37 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.54
Connection4.85
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.78
Reflection4.90
Respect4.83
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.78
Questions4.77
Zachary Daniel Root 4 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration3.25
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.75
Respect4.50
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.75
Questions4.75
Javan Carter 3 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.70
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Alisha Quandt 22 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.88
Technology4.22
Synthesis3.64
Collaboration4.19
Connection4.31
Contribution4.21
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.44
Grading4.09
Reflection4.01
Respect4.74
Creativity3.49
Feedback3.86
Interaction4.26
Challenge4.26
Questions4.56
Sallie Jane Tucker 6 reported responses 4.88Eval / 5
Overall4.88 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.65
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.15
Grading5.00
Reflection4.65
Respect5.00
Creativity4.90
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.65
Questions4.75
Peter Alexander Innes 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
Caitlin Anne Kelly 32 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.66
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.63
Reflection4.57
Respect4.94
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.80
Questions4.53
Eve-Lyn Hinckley 2 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection5.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.00
Will Cox 9 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.90
Reflection4.00
Respect4.90
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions4.70
Erin Anne Tripp 8 reported responses 4.95Eval / 5
Overall4.95 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology3.60
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.90
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.90
Reflection5.00
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Annie Meeder 15 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.60
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Chelsea Pretz 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
Sam Ahler 4 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.70
Reflection5.00
Respect4.70
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions5.00
Katharine Nash Suding 4 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions5.00
Daniel Klee 4 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.85
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.35
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.85
Grading3.85
Reflection4.50
Respect4.00
Creativity3.50
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.00
Questions4.50
Dawn Michelle Mccomb-Kobza 33 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.80
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity3.70
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Tracy Halward 3 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection5.00
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Eve Bonser Cooper 12 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions5.00
Derek Michael Sweeney 10 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.90
Connection5.00
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Robert Buchwald 1 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology3.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.