Course record EBIO
EBIO 6100
Seminar in Environmental Biology
University of Colorado Boulder
Grade distribution unavailable16 professors
Evaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score63/100
Strong
Alexandra P Rose 23 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.81
Collaboration4.84
Connection4.82
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.59
Grading4.32
Reflection4.74
Respect4.84
Creativity4.68
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.72
Questions4.83
Nolan Coburn Kane 22 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.93
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.99
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.99
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Jingchun Li 17 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.76
Contribution4.81
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.14
Grading4.42
Reflection4.85
Respect4.94
Creativity4.94
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.76
Questions4.94
Rebecca J Safran 17 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.94
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.76
Contribution4.81
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.14
Grading4.42
Reflection4.85
Respect4.61
Creativity4.94
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.78
Questions4.92
Nichole Nannette Barger 14 reported responses 4.88Eval / 5
Overall4.88 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.92
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.88
Reflection4.85
Respect4.92
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.92
Questions5.00
Katharine M Nash 5 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.30
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.40
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Steve Schmidt 1 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity2.00
Grading3.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity3.00
Feedback3.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.00
Questions5.00
Stacey Dewitt Smith 4 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback3.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Noah Fierer 17 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.04
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.03
Contribution4.93
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity3.94
Grading3.92
Reflection4.38
Respect4.43
Creativity4.74
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.21
Questions4.55
Samuel Allen Ramsey 36 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.59
Synthesis4.78
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.84
Contribution4.93
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity4.47
Grading3.77
Reflection4.67
Respect4.94
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.81
Questions4.12
Julian Resasco 3 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.50
Katharine Nash Suding 11 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.97
Collaboration4.41
Connection4.66
Contribution4.86
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.31
Grading4.64
Reflection4.66
Respect5.00
Creativity4.28
Feedback4.95
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.83
Questions4.86
Michael Gil 4 reported responses 4.95Eval / 5
Overall4.95 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading5.00
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Merritt Mcadam 6 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.91
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.91
Connection4.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.23
Grading3.32
Reflection4.86
Respect4.82
Creativity4.95
Feedback4.14
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.86
Questions4.95
Andrew Graham Mcadam 11 reported responses 4.11Eval / 5
Overall4.11 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.09
Synthesis3.91
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.08
Contribution4.18
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.46
Grading3.23
Reflection3.95
Respect4.38
Creativity3.55
Feedback3.75
Interaction4.46
Challenge3.60
Questions4.05
Nancy Christine Emery 2 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.50
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.00
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.