Course record ECON

ECON 1078

Mathematical Tools for Economists 1

University of Colorado Boulder

907 grades23 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score17/100
Needs work

Professors 23 of 23

Sutianjie Zhou 114 grades · 1 term 3.23GPA
59.6% A
24.6% B
6.1% C
0.9% D
8.8% F

114 letter grades

Compare with the course
Zhou vs. the course average
A +26.1
B −7.0
C −15.2
D −5.6
F +1.7

Difference in percentage points.

4.2% withdrew · 5 of 119 enrolled.

Ge Song 42 grades · 1 term 3.10GPA
42.9% A
42.9% B
4.8% C
2.4% D
7.1% F

42 letter grades

Compare with the course
Song vs. the course average
A +9.3
B +11.3
C −16.6
D −4.1
F +0.1

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 3 of 45 enrolled.

Lauren Schechter 43 grades · 1 term 3.10GPA
30.2% A
48.8% B
16.3% C
4.7% D
0.0% F

43 letter grades

Compare with the course
Schechter vs. the course average
A −3.3
B +17.3
C −5.1
D −1.9
F −7.1

Difference in percentage points.

4.4% withdrew · 2 of 45 enrolled.

Christian Payne Hennigan 31 grades · 1 term 2.97GPA
35.5% A
35.5% B
22.6% C
3.2% D
3.2% F

31 letter grades

Compare with the course
Hennigan vs. the course average
A +2.0
B +4.0
C +1.2
D −3.3
F −3.8

Difference in percentage points.

3.1% withdrew · 1 of 32 enrolled.

Nicole Justine Mundt 44 grades · 1 term 2.89GPA
34.1% A
36.4% B
20.5% C
9.1% D
0.0% F

44 letter grades

Compare with the course
Mundt vs. the course average
A +0.6
B +4.8
C −0.9
D +2.6
F −7.1

Difference in percentage points.

6.4% withdrew · 3 of 47 enrolled.

Anand Butler 44 grades · 1 term 2.80GPA
31.8% A
38.6% B
20.5% C
4.5% D
4.5% F

44 letter grades

Compare with the course
Butler vs. the course average
A −1.7
B +7.1
C −0.9
D −2.0
F −2.5

Difference in percentage points.

4.3% withdrew · 2 of 46 enrolled.

Alexander S Cauley 90 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
32.2% A
32.2% B
24.4% C
4.4% D
6.7% F

90 letter grades

Compare with the course
Cauley vs. the course average
A −1.3
B +0.7
C +3.1
D −2.1
F −0.4

Difference in percentage points.

4.3% withdrew · 4 of 94 enrolled.

Danielle Parks 43 grades · 1 term 2.73GPA
34.9% A
32.6% B
18.6% C
2.3% D
11.6% F

43 letter grades

Compare with the course
Parks vs. the course average
A +1.4
B +1.0
C −2.8
D −4.2
F +4.6

Difference in percentage points.

6.5% withdrew · 3 of 46 enrolled.

Peiyuan Li 39 grades · 1 term 2.69GPA
25.6% A
33.3% B
28.2% C
12.8% D
0.0% F

39 letter grades

Compare with the course
Li vs. the course average
A −7.9
B +1.8
C +6.8
D +6.3
F −7.1

Difference in percentage points.

15.2% withdrew · 7 of 46 enrolled.

Colin L Jareb 38 grades · 1 term 2.67GPA
26.3% A
36.8% B
28.9% C
0.0% D
7.9% F

38 letter grades

Compare with the course
Jareb vs. the course average
A −7.2
B +5.3
C +7.6
D −6.5
F +0.8

Difference in percentage points.

9.5% withdrew · 4 of 42 enrolled.

Matthew R Hurt 40 grades · 1 term 2.60GPA
32.5% A
17.5% B
27.5% C
20.0% D
2.5% F

40 letter grades

Compare with the course
Hurt vs. the course average
A −1.0
B −14.0
C +6.1
D +13.5
F −4.6

Difference in percentage points.

7.0% withdrew · 3 of 43 enrolled.

Alexander Hayes Bentz 88 grades · 1 term 2.56GPA
26.1% A
28.4% B
29.5% C
8.0% D
8.0% F

88 letter grades

Compare with the course
Bentz vs. the course average
A −7.4
B −3.1
C +8.2
D +1.4
F +0.9

Difference in percentage points.

2.2% withdrew · 2 of 90 enrolled.

Lilla Lukacs 124 grades · 1 term 2.54GPA
29.0% A
31.5% B
23.4% C
3.2% D
12.9% F

124 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lukacs vs. the course average
A −4.5
B −0.1
C +2.0
D −3.3
F +5.8

Difference in percentage points.

10.8% withdrew · 15 of 139 enrolled.

Shawn P Swanson 42 grades · 1 term 2.51GPA
19.0% A
38.1% B
26.2% C
11.9% D
4.8% F

42 letter grades

Compare with the course
Swanson vs. the course average
A −14.5
B +6.6
C +4.8
D +5.4
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 3 of 45 enrolled.

Lucas Michael Ladenburger 39 grades · 1 term 2.45GPA
15.4% A
30.8% B
43.6% C
10.3% D
0.0% F

39 letter grades

Compare with the course
Ladenburger vs. the course average
A −18.1
B −0.8
C +22.2
D +3.8
F −7.1

Difference in percentage points.

9.3% withdrew · 4 of 43 enrolled.

Jeong Won Ko 46 grades · 1 term 2.18GPA
32.6% A
13.0% B
15.2% C
21.7% D
17.4% F

46 letter grades

Compare with the course
Ko vs. the course average
A −0.9
B −18.5
C −6.2
D +15.2
F +10.3

Difference in percentage points.

2.1% withdrew · 1 of 47 enrolled.

Lilla Lukacs Marein 28 reported responses 3.92Eval / 5
Overall3.92 / 5

28 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.55
Technology3.96
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration3.12
Connection3.37
Contribution3.04
Discussion3.89
Inclusivity3.79
Grading4.40
Reflection3.82
Respect4.35
Creativity3.11
Feedback3.98
Interaction4.12
Challenge3.84
Questions4.38
Michelle Ko 34 reported responses 3.89Eval / 5
Overall3.89 / 5

34 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.32
Synthesis4.02
Collaboration2.71
Connection4.01
Contribution3.54
Discussion4.22
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.47
Reflection4.21
Respect4.19
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.95
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.30
Questions4.62
Karen Susan Gebhardt 76 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5

76 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology4.74
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration3.37
Connection3.93
Contribution4.21
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.80
Reflection4.55
Respect4.59
Creativity4.16
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.32
Challenge4.58
Questions4.82
Tyler Anderson 14 reported responses 3.74Eval / 5
Overall3.74 / 5

14 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.27
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration2.68
Connection3.43
Contribution3.55
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity3.08
Grading4.12
Reflection3.88
Respect4.53
Creativity3.62
Feedback3.26
Interaction3.88
Challenge3.65
Questions4.43
Jiyun Kim 7 reported responses 3.56Eval / 5
Overall3.56 / 5

7 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.10
Technology4.40
Synthesis2.90
Collaboration2.90
Connection2.90
Contribution2.40
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.60
Reflection3.00
Respect4.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.70
Interaction3.10
Challenge3.40
Questions4.10
Sidonia Mckenzie 12 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5

12 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.50
Respect4.40
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.40
Questions4.20
Jisu Yu 13 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5

13 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.20
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.50
Reflection4.10
Respect4.40
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.20
Questions4.50
Show fewer
Course documents

Syllabi 12

University library ↗

University-published syllabi. Dates apply to these documents, independently of the grade data range.

Fall 2026 · Section 001

Dr. Sidonia McKenzie

Assessment weights
Share of the final grade · this syllabus only
Midterm exams (three)36%
Final exam24%
Assignments18%
Canvas quizzes12%
Engagement and participation10%
Source · PDF page 3
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
9 more syllabi

Spring 2026 · Section not specified

DR. KAREN GEBHARDT

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09

Fall 2024 · Section not specified

DR. KAREN GEBHARDT

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09

Spring 2024 · Section not specified

DR. KAREN GEBHARDT

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Find a course or professor

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