Course record ECON

ECON 2010

Principles of Microeconomics

University of Colorado Boulder

11,704 grades104 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score13/100
Needs work

Professors 104 of 104

Dan J Zuchegno 114 grades · 1 term 3.43GPA
59.6% A
26.3% B
13.2% C
0.9% D
0.0% F

114 letter grades

Compare with the course
Zuchegno vs. the course average
A +34.6
B −10.2
C −12.5
D −7.4
F −4.5

Difference in percentage points.

0.9% withdrew · 1 of 115 enrolled.

Alec Truax 189 grades · 1 term 3.08GPA
38.6% A
37.0% B
18.0% C
5.3% D
1.1% F

189 letter grades

Compare with the course
Truax vs. the course average
A +13.6
B +0.5
C −7.7
D −3.0
F −3.5

Difference in percentage points.

1.6% withdrew · 3 of 192 enrolled.

Christian Payne Hennigan 136 grades · 1 term 2.95GPA
33.8% A
39.0% B
19.9% C
3.7% D
3.7% F

136 letter grades

Compare with the course
Hennigan vs. the course average
A +8.8
B +2.5
C −5.8
D −4.6
F −0.8

Difference in percentage points.

8.7% withdrew · 13 of 149 enrolled.

Daria Bottan 2,617 grades · 1 term 2.95GPA
40.4% A
30.5% B
18.0% C
7.5% D
3.6% F

2,617 letter grades

Compare with the course
Bottan vs. the course average
A +15.4
B −6.0
C −7.7
D −0.7
F −0.9

Difference in percentage points.

1.4% withdrew · 37 of 2,654 enrolled.

Rimjhim Saxena 191 grades · 1 term 2.89GPA
28.8% A
44.5% B
18.8% C
3.7% D
4.2% F

191 letter grades

Compare with the course
Saxena vs. the course average
A +3.8
B +8.0
C −6.8
D −4.6
F −0.3

Difference in percentage points.

1.0% withdrew · 2 of 193 enrolled.

Mark Valkovci 39 grades · 1 term 2.84GPA
38.5% A
28.2% B
17.9% C
7.7% D
7.7% F

39 letter grades

Compare with the course
Valkovci vs. the course average
A +13.4
B −8.3
C −7.7
D −0.6
F +3.2

Difference in percentage points.

2.5% withdrew · 1 of 40 enrolled.

Weizhao Sun 194 grades · 1 term 2.81GPA
35.1% A
33.5% B
18.0% C
7.7% D
5.7% F

194 letter grades

Compare with the course
Sun vs. the course average
A +10.0
B −3.0
C −7.6
D −0.5
F +1.2

Difference in percentage points.

3.0% withdrew · 6 of 200 enrolled.

Sean Holland Strunk 194 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
22.2% A
52.6% B
16.5% C
4.6% D
4.1% F

194 letter grades

Compare with the course
Strunk vs. the course average
A −2.9
B +16.1
C −9.2
D −3.6
F −0.4

Difference in percentage points.

2.0% withdrew · 4 of 198 enrolled.

Xiaomeng Zhao 84 grades · 1 term 2.73GPA
25.0% A
41.7% B
22.6% C
10.7% D
0.0% F

84 letter grades

Compare with the course
Zhao vs. the course average
A same
B +5.1
C −3.1
D +2.5
F −4.5

Difference in percentage points.

3.4% withdrew · 3 of 87 enrolled.

Mate Istvan Szurop 186 grades · 1 term 2.63GPA
22.6% A
43.0% B
19.9% C
5.4% D
9.1% F

186 letter grades

Compare with the course
Szurop vs. the course average
A −2.4
B +6.5
C −5.8
D −2.9
F +4.6

Difference in percentage points.

4.6% withdrew · 9 of 195 enrolled.

Chad Allan Brown 194 grades · 1 term 2.62GPA
33.0% A
24.7% B
24.7% C
9.3% D
8.2% F

194 letter grades

Compare with the course
Brown vs. the course average
A +8.0
B −11.8
C −0.9
D +1.0
F +3.7

Difference in percentage points.

4.0% withdrew · 8 of 202 enrolled.

Jennifer Lynn Klein 96 grades · 1 term 2.60GPA
20.8% A
34.4% B
34.4% C
6.3% D
4.2% F

96 letter grades

Compare with the course
Klein vs. the course average
A −4.2
B −2.1
C +8.7
D −2.0
F −0.4

Difference in percentage points.

2.0% withdrew · 2 of 98 enrolled.

Sergey K Nigai 1,733 grades · 1 term 2.60GPA
23.8% A
38.8% B
19.8% C
11.6% D
5.9% F

1,733 letter grades

Compare with the course
Nigai vs. the course average
A −1.2
B +2.3
C −5.8
D +3.3
F +1.4

Difference in percentage points.

4.0% withdrew · 73 of 1,806 enrolled.

Jeronimo Rafael Carballo 2,417 grades · 1 term 2.54GPA
17.1% A
40.1% B
28.1% C
9.4% D
5.3% F

2,417 letter grades

Compare with the course
Carballo vs. the course average
A −7.9
B +3.6
C +2.4
D +1.1
F +0.8

Difference in percentage points.

2.7% withdrew · 68 of 2,485 enrolled.

Anja Felicitas Gruber 587 grades · 1 term 2.54GPA
20.4% A
34.2% B
30.2% C
10.4% D
4.8% F

587 letter grades

Compare with the course
Gruber vs. the course average
A −4.6
B −2.3
C +4.5
D +2.1
F +0.3

Difference in percentage points.

1.5% withdrew · 9 of 596 enrolled.

Matthew M Van Wyhe 55 grades · 1 term 2.53GPA
21.8% A
36.4% B
23.6% C
9.1% D
9.1% F

55 letter grades

Compare with the course
Wyhe vs. the course average
A −3.2
B −0.2
C −2.0
D +0.8
F +4.6

Difference in percentage points.

6.8% withdrew · 4 of 59 enrolled.

Wolfgang Keller 2,632 grades · 1 term 2.51GPA
14.4% A
37.3% B
37.7% C
6.9% D
3.7% F

2,632 letter grades

Compare with the course
Keller vs. the course average
A −10.6
B +0.8
C +12.0
D −1.3
F −0.8

Difference in percentage points.

2.9% withdrew · 79 of 2,711 enrolled.

Pooja Kashyap 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.58GPA
64.3% A
35.7% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

14 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 14 enrolled.

Colin L Jareb 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.90GPA
31.3% A
37.5% B
25.0% C
6.3% D
0.0% F

16 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 16 enrolled.

Alpna Bhatia 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.68GPA
25.0% A
43.8% B
25.0% C
0.0% D
6.3% F

16 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 16 enrolled.

Daniel Joseph Zuchegno 64 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5

64 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.58
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.79
Connection4.78
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.75
Reflection4.51
Respect4.85
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.50
Questions4.94
Kevin Wayne Starnes 640 reported responses 3.62Eval / 5
Overall3.62 / 5

640 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology3.87
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.99
Connection3.87
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.46
Inclusivity3.53
Grading4.39
Reflection4.73
Respect4.30
Creativity4.26
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.53
Questions4.79
Wenbo Meng 68 reported responses 3.48Eval / 5
Overall3.48 / 5

68 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology3.65
Synthesis3.24
Collaboration3.43
Connection3.60
Contribution3.14
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity3.16
Grading3.52
Reflection3.68
Respect4.07
Creativity3.39
Feedback3.35
Interaction3.56
Challenge3.64
Questions4.02
Youngeun Choi 38 reported responses 3.62Eval / 5
Overall3.62 / 5

38 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.65
Technology3.96
Synthesis3.32
Collaboration3.16
Connection4.01
Contribution3.57
Discussion3.82
Inclusivity2.91
Grading3.45
Reflection3.79
Respect4.20
Creativity3.57
Feedback3.14
Interaction4.32
Challenge3.66
Questions3.91
Jordan Lenger 22 reported responses 3.75Eval / 5
Overall3.75 / 5

22 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.58
Technology3.88
Synthesis3.58
Collaboration3.15
Connection3.93
Contribution2.83
Discussion3.38
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.22
Reflection4.08
Respect4.10
Creativity3.33
Feedback3.37
Interaction3.88
Challenge3.97
Questions4.35
Andrew Randel Fink 51 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5

51 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.43
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.18
Reflection4.48
Respect4.70
Creativity3.95
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.48
Challenge4.45
Questions4.68
Joel Belsterling 39 reported responses 3.88Eval / 5
Overall3.88 / 5

39 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.63
Technology3.45
Synthesis2.96
Collaboration3.45
Connection3.72
Contribution3.91
Discussion3.86
Inclusivity3.51
Grading3.76
Reflection3.90
Respect3.98
Creativity3.09
Feedback3.44
Interaction3.79
Challenge3.78
Questions3.75
Brachel Robert Champion 49 reported responses 3.92Eval / 5
Overall3.92 / 5

49 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.53
Technology4.14
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.05
Connection3.81
Contribution3.32
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity3.44
Grading4.02
Reflection4.08
Respect4.41
Creativity3.48
Feedback3.57
Interaction4.08
Challenge3.86
Questions4.21
Austin Tyler Kennedy 105 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5

105 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration3.46
Connection4.32
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.62
Reflection4.71
Respect4.80
Creativity4.13
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.60
Questions4.90
Saigeetha Narasimhan 66 reported responses 3.66Eval / 5
Overall3.66 / 5

66 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.58
Technology4.16
Synthesis3.64
Collaboration3.58
Connection3.43
Contribution3.86
Discussion4.16
Inclusivity3.05
Grading4.16
Reflection3.72
Respect4.28
Creativity3.44
Feedback3.45
Interaction4.12
Challenge3.65
Questions4.26
Mengqi Zhang 68 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5

68 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.88
Technology4.21
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.03
Connection3.97
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.19
Inclusivity3.62
Grading3.91
Reflection4.07
Respect4.47
Creativity3.45
Feedback3.81
Interaction4.29
Challenge4.19
Questions4.41
Connor Weinstein 41 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5

41 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.43
Synthesis3.89
Collaboration3.42
Connection4.28
Contribution3.54
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity3.89
Grading4.60
Reflection4.16
Respect4.73
Creativity4.19
Feedback4.11
Interaction4.25
Challenge4.35
Questions4.84
Grant G Webster 94 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5

94 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.22
Synthesis4.18
Collaboration4.43
Connection4.34
Contribution4.31
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.49
Reflection4.59
Respect4.65
Creativity4.11
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.61
Questions4.79
Joongsan Hwang 64 reported responses 3.59Eval / 5
Overall3.59 / 5

64 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.03
Technology2.90
Synthesis2.96
Collaboration2.15
Connection3.15
Contribution3.39
Discussion3.44
Inclusivity2.89
Grading2.96
Reflection3.30
Respect3.94
Creativity3.18
Feedback2.60
Interaction3.24
Challenge3.20
Questions3.56
Paro Paul Suh 62 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5

62 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration3.55
Connection4.60
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.03
Grading4.06
Reflection4.53
Respect4.38
Creativity3.66
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.30
Questions4.63
Paige Elyse Schoonover 98 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5

98 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.99
Technology4.37
Synthesis3.89
Collaboration4.08
Connection4.02
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity3.65
Grading4.23
Reflection4.35
Respect4.59
Creativity3.85
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.23
Questions4.57
Chaz Michael Simmons 127 reported responses 4.16Eval / 5
Overall4.16 / 5

127 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.18
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration4.44
Connection4.44
Contribution4.01
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.36
Reflection4.36
Respect4.54
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.36
Questions4.66
Elizabeth Anne Sorensen Montoya 55 reported responses 4.21Eval / 5
Overall4.21 / 5

55 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology4.57
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration4.19
Connection4.26
Contribution4.16
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity3.83
Grading4.30
Reflection4.36
Respect4.57
Creativity3.97
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.40
Questions4.73
Samuel Joseph Johnson 19 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5

19 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.88
Connection4.70
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity4.38
Grading4.15
Reflection4.75
Respect4.60
Creativity3.75
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.45
Questions4.75
Sheng Qu 238 reported responses 4.06Eval / 5
Overall4.06 / 5

238 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.94
Technology4.18
Synthesis3.61
Collaboration3.77
Connection3.97
Contribution3.62
Discussion4.24
Inclusivity3.48
Grading4.12
Reflection4.17
Respect4.32
Creativity3.63
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.09
Challenge3.76
Questions4.41
Vijay Appasamy 78 reported responses 3.71Eval / 5
Overall3.71 / 5

78 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.33
Technology3.79
Synthesis3.35
Collaboration3.05
Connection3.52
Contribution3.06
Discussion3.99
Inclusivity3.15
Grading4.04
Reflection4.07
Respect4.53
Creativity3.02
Feedback3.24
Interaction4.15
Challenge3.23
Questions4.40
Jeong Won Ko 95 reported responses 3.85Eval / 5
Overall3.85 / 5

95 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.91
Synthesis3.59
Collaboration3.67
Connection3.89
Contribution3.81
Discussion4.08
Inclusivity3.54
Grading3.66
Reflection3.99
Respect4.37
Creativity3.35
Feedback3.24
Interaction4.14
Challenge3.72
Questions4.14
Lucas Michael Ladenburger 63 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5

63 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.01
Technology4.43
Synthesis3.96
Collaboration4.19
Connection4.25
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.59
Grading4.06
Reflection4.29
Respect4.69
Creativity3.97
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.29
Questions4.61
Dakota Langhals 54 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5

54 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.12
Technology4.62
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.22
Connection4.12
Contribution4.16
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity3.49
Grading4.45
Reflection4.38
Respect4.66
Creativity3.75
Feedback4.06
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.29
Questions4.70
William G Mertens 665 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5

665 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.32
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration3.69
Connection4.30
Contribution4.19
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.38
Reflection4.38
Respect4.41
Creativity4.09
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.37
Questions4.33
Vincent Mastantuno 31 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5

31 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.67
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.47
Connection4.30
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.87
Grading4.40
Reflection4.50
Respect4.77
Creativity3.43
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.20
Questions4.87
Xiang Chi 5 reported responses 4.04Eval / 5
Overall4.04 / 5

5 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity3.30
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.40
Questions4.40
Ryuta Akino 150 reported responses 3.98Eval / 5
Overall3.98 / 5

150 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.24
Synthesis3.99
Collaboration3.83
Connection4.17
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.34
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.33
Reflection4.28
Respect4.71
Creativity4.13
Feedback3.99
Interaction4.42
Challenge4.25
Questions4.58
Dongkyu Yang 52 reported responses 3.86Eval / 5
Overall3.86 / 5

52 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.03
Synthesis3.42
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.09
Contribution3.31
Discussion4.44
Inclusivity3.46
Grading4.14
Reflection3.69
Respect4.67
Creativity4.08
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.25
Questions4.72
Pan Chen 290 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5

290 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.28
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.36
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity4.07
Grading4.45
Reflection4.62
Respect4.75
Creativity4.13
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.48
Questions4.75
Michael Karas 119 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5

119 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.29
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.34
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.96
Grading4.43
Reflection4.53
Respect4.66
Creativity4.06
Feedback4.24
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.41
Questions4.64
Jiyun Kim 69 reported responses 3.73Eval / 5
Overall3.73 / 5

69 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.14
Technology3.78
Synthesis3.94
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.72
Contribution3.66
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity3.68
Grading3.75
Reflection4.09
Respect4.28
Creativity4.12
Feedback4.06
Interaction4.32
Challenge4.07
Questions4.44
Haeseong Park 82 reported responses 3.99Eval / 5
Overall3.99 / 5

82 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.01
Collaboration3.92
Connection4.10
Contribution3.72
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.21
Reflection4.39
Respect4.43
Creativity4.13
Feedback3.92
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.34
Questions4.55
Danielle Parks 41 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5

41 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.71
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.74
Grading4.96
Reflection4.79
Respect4.85
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.82
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.83
Questions4.94
Jisu Yu 127 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5

127 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.42
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration3.85
Connection4.35
Contribution3.89
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.04
Grading4.32
Reflection4.36
Respect4.70
Creativity4.07
Feedback3.94
Interaction4.46
Challenge4.43
Questions4.55
Brian Flaxman 56 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5

56 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.68
Technology2.70
Synthesis3.36
Collaboration2.97
Connection3.60
Contribution3.39
Discussion4.16
Inclusivity3.26
Grading3.24
Reflection4.00
Respect4.34
Creativity3.13
Feedback3.36
Interaction4.24
Challenge4.01
Questions4.40
Aditya Rachmanto 116 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5

116 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.18
Collaboration3.98
Connection4.55
Contribution4.04
Discussion4.44
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.33
Reflection4.53
Respect4.60
Creativity3.84
Feedback4.14
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.24
Questions4.65
Aolin Li 113 reported responses 3.81Eval / 5
Overall3.81 / 5

113 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.75
Technology3.92
Synthesis3.54
Collaboration4.44
Connection3.64
Contribution3.86
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity2.96
Grading3.66
Reflection4.17
Respect4.56
Creativity3.96
Feedback4.12
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.13
Questions4.65
Jaekyeong Shin 125 reported responses 4.07Eval / 5
Overall4.07 / 5

125 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.59
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.47
Contribution3.65
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity3.86
Grading4.14
Reflection4.31
Respect4.73
Creativity3.71
Feedback3.86
Interaction4.39
Challenge4.19
Questions4.60
Yan Zhan 40 reported responses 4.11Eval / 5
Overall4.11 / 5

40 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.43
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.00
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity3.57
Grading3.73
Reflection4.23
Respect4.70
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.63
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.10
Questions4.50
Yoontae Cho 161 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5

161 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.81
Technology4.35
Synthesis3.61
Collaboration2.92
Connection4.00
Contribution3.21
Discussion3.73
Inclusivity3.52
Grading4.37
Reflection4.00
Respect4.31
Creativity3.59
Feedback3.33
Interaction4.11
Challenge4.10
Questions4.49
Tyler Anderson 79 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5

79 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.18
Technology3.96
Synthesis3.88
Collaboration3.42
Connection4.49
Contribution3.54
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity3.58
Grading4.17
Reflection4.41
Respect4.41
Creativity3.65
Feedback3.69
Interaction4.03
Challenge4.03
Questions4.73
Arka Chakrabarti 119 reported responses 3.98Eval / 5
Overall3.98 / 5

119 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.04
Technology4.27
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration3.26
Connection4.18
Contribution3.92
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.97
Grading4.21
Reflection4.21
Respect4.60
Creativity3.65
Feedback3.72
Interaction3.96
Challenge4.04
Questions4.32
Jerald Katz 71 reported responses 3.97Eval / 5
Overall3.97 / 5

71 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.36
Technology3.54
Synthesis3.31
Collaboration2.61
Connection4.12
Contribution3.14
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.54
Grading3.99
Reflection4.05
Respect4.37
Creativity3.36
Feedback3.46
Interaction3.96
Challenge3.93
Questions4.26
Sara Truesdale 86 reported responses 3.99Eval / 5
Overall3.99 / 5

86 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.83
Technology4.26
Synthesis3.67
Collaboration3.49
Connection3.77
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity3.36
Grading4.29
Reflection4.30
Respect4.31
Creativity3.73
Feedback3.67
Interaction4.03
Challenge4.10
Questions4.60
Fengyu Zhang 178 reported responses 3.81Eval / 5
Overall3.81 / 5

178 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.68
Technology3.81
Synthesis3.58
Collaboration3.69
Connection3.83
Contribution3.00
Discussion4.16
Inclusivity3.56
Grading3.79
Reflection3.80
Respect4.28
Creativity3.31
Feedback2.87
Interaction4.18
Challenge3.61
Questions4.16
Peter Megenhardt 198 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5

198 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration4.06
Connection4.37
Contribution3.99
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity3.99
Grading4.33
Reflection4.48
Respect4.64
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.43
Questions4.71
Jack Novak 84 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5

84 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.59
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration3.55
Connection4.61
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.49
Inclusivity4.03
Grading4.79
Reflection4.69
Respect4.48
Creativity4.19
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.57
Questions4.84
Sungyoun Chung 64 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5

64 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.19
Technology4.27
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration3.58
Connection4.11
Contribution3.71
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity3.72
Grading4.39
Reflection4.41
Respect4.39
Creativity3.93
Feedback4.11
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.30
Questions4.59
Peiyuan Li 21 reported responses 4.21Eval / 5
Overall4.21 / 5

21 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.05
Technology4.15
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration3.85
Connection4.10
Contribution3.75
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.25
Reflection4.15
Respect4.80
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.20
Questions4.55
Alexander Hayes Bentz 26 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5

26 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.08
Technology4.45
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration3.53
Connection4.18
Contribution3.93
Discussion4.28
Inclusivity3.78
Grading4.05
Reflection4.00
Respect4.40
Creativity3.78
Feedback3.93
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.18
Questions4.58
Benjamin Wei Yao Zhang 13 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5

13 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.55
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.55
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.65
Reflection4.35
Respect4.60
Creativity4.05
Feedback3.35
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.45
Questions4.65
Anand Butler 39 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5

39 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.55
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.03
Grading4.38
Reflection4.50
Respect4.75
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.22
Interaction4.15
Challenge4.50
Questions4.80
Keanan Gleason 148 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5

148 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.44
Synthesis3.76
Collaboration4.23
Connection4.02
Contribution4.04
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.67
Grading4.29
Reflection4.22
Respect4.63
Creativity3.68
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.36
Challenge4.13
Questions4.62
Bikalpa Baniya 137 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5

137 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.41
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration4.31
Connection4.42
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.11
Grading4.31
Reflection4.60
Respect4.69
Creativity4.24
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.51
Questions4.81
Seungmin Baek 23 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5

23 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.23
Connection3.87
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.07
Inclusivity3.53
Grading4.00
Reflection4.53
Respect4.50
Creativity3.67
Feedback2.90
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.97
Questions4.57
Warren Hendricks 62 reported responses 3.87Eval / 5
Overall3.87 / 5

62 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.86
Technology3.65
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration3.46
Connection4.07
Contribution3.58
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity3.85
Grading3.99
Reflection4.41
Respect4.53
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.51
Interaction4.27
Challenge4.11
Questions4.34
Joey Kilpatrick 87 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5

87 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.39
Collaboration3.79
Connection4.56
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.08
Grading4.54
Reflection4.70
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.57
Questions4.82
Jack Krolak 58 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5

58 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.94
Connection4.61
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity4.18
Grading4.56
Reflection4.64
Respect4.73
Creativity4.17
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.40
Questions4.74
Bob Lin 47 reported responses 3.13Eval / 5
Overall3.13 / 5

47 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.24
Technology3.55
Synthesis3.22
Collaboration2.82
Connection3.26
Contribution2.67
Discussion3.61
Inclusivity2.84
Grading3.20
Reflection3.75
Respect3.95
Creativity3.13
Feedback2.81
Interaction3.54
Challenge3.32
Questions3.74
Yuanyuan Wang 139 reported responses 3.93Eval / 5
Overall3.93 / 5

139 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.63
Technology3.67
Synthesis3.15
Collaboration4.04
Connection3.51
Contribution3.59
Discussion3.76
Inclusivity3.62
Grading3.49
Reflection3.72
Respect4.28
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.10
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.71
Questions3.67
Chunyang Huang 109 reported responses 4.07Eval / 5
Overall4.07 / 5

109 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.07
Technology4.37
Synthesis3.74
Collaboration3.38
Connection3.95
Contribution3.41
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity3.62
Grading3.89
Reflection4.32
Respect4.43
Creativity3.89
Feedback3.64
Interaction3.97
Challenge4.20
Questions4.52
Leo Zhang 81 reported responses 3.65Eval / 5
Overall3.65 / 5

81 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.56
Technology3.66
Synthesis3.56
Collaboration4.05
Connection3.71
Contribution3.52
Discussion3.86
Inclusivity3.41
Grading3.66
Reflection3.98
Respect4.49
Creativity3.43
Feedback3.27
Interaction4.22
Challenge3.65
Questions4.14
Pooja Khosla 12 reported responses 3.51Eval / 5
Overall3.51 / 5

12 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.10
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.10
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.00
Reflection3.70
Respect3.70
Creativity3.20
Feedback2.80
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.50
Questions4.10
Nejat Yilmaz 80 reported responses 4.03Eval / 5
Overall4.03 / 5

80 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.82
Technology4.43
Synthesis3.87
Collaboration3.59
Connection4.12
Contribution3.57
Discussion4.36
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.25
Reflection4.24
Respect4.46
Creativity3.96
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.14
Challenge4.05
Questions4.43
Megan Rice 65 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5

65 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology3.89
Synthesis3.91
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.20
Contribution4.16
Discussion4.49
Inclusivity3.93
Grading4.01
Reflection4.34
Respect4.38
Creativity4.01
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.14
Questions4.44
John Gorman 90 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5

90 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration4.17
Connection4.21
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.07
Grading4.47
Reflection4.60
Respect4.41
Creativity4.31
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.26
Challenge4.53
Questions4.67
Eeli Jaakkola 85 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5

85 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.41
Synthesis3.96
Collaboration4.05
Connection4.39
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity3.73
Grading4.23
Reflection4.50
Respect4.49
Creativity4.26
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.39
Questions4.69
Wenxi Xu 147 reported responses 3.63Eval / 5
Overall3.63 / 5

147 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.99
Synthesis3.59
Collaboration3.50
Connection3.79
Contribution3.76
Discussion3.99
Inclusivity3.58
Grading3.96
Reflection4.11
Respect4.21
Creativity3.72
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.17
Challenge3.75
Questions4.10
Yeowoon Jeon 90 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5

90 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.04
Collaboration3.81
Connection4.18
Contribution3.79
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.38
Reflection4.39
Respect4.46
Creativity3.98
Feedback4.06
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.27
Questions4.55
Zehao Jing 97 reported responses 3.32Eval / 5
Overall3.32 / 5

97 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.28
Technology3.99
Synthesis3.14
Collaboration2.41
Connection3.99
Contribution2.20
Discussion2.98
Inclusivity2.70
Grading3.11
Reflection3.77
Respect4.23
Creativity2.49
Feedback2.26
Interaction2.90
Challenge3.05
Questions3.64
Qian Yong 29 reported responses 3.70Eval / 5
Overall3.70 / 5

29 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology2.97
Synthesis3.57
Collaboration3.77
Connection3.63
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.77
Reflection3.80
Respect3.93
Creativity3.33
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.03
Challenge3.50
Questions4.00
Alexander S Cauley 1,052 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5

1,052 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.70
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.18
Grading4.62
Reflection4.57
Respect4.69
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.46
Challenge4.60
Questions4.72
Pedro Levy Sayon 87 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5

87 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology3.96
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.36
Connection4.27
Contribution3.75
Discussion4.46
Inclusivity3.99
Grading4.46
Reflection4.53
Respect4.76
Creativity4.08
Feedback3.88
Interaction4.12
Challenge4.42
Questions4.71
Ernesto Rivera Mora 51 reported responses 3.79Eval / 5
Overall3.79 / 5

51 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration2.70
Connection4.30
Contribution3.20
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.30
Reflection4.00
Respect4.20
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.30
Interaction3.70
Challenge3.90
Questions4.30
Yunxiao Wang 40 reported responses 3.60Eval / 5
Overall3.60 / 5

40 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.55
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.35
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.85
Contribution3.25
Discussion3.75
Inclusivity3.20
Grading3.60
Reflection3.90
Respect4.10
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.15
Interaction3.95
Challenge3.45
Questions4.00
Haoze Li 11 reported responses 3.64Eval / 5
Overall3.64 / 5

11 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.15
Technology3.20
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration3.75
Connection3.70
Contribution2.90
Discussion3.65
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.45
Reflection3.80
Respect4.55
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.10
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.60
Questions3.45
Rohan Angadi 44 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5

44 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.65
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.70
Reflection4.75
Respect4.80
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.75
Daniel Fang 40 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5

40 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.30
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.45
Reflection4.35
Respect4.70
Creativity4.15
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Poorva Navalgundkar 31 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5

31 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.25
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.25
Reflection4.45
Respect4.65
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.20
Questions4.55
Andrew Garrett 62 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5

62 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration3.96
Connection4.55
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity4.39
Grading4.52
Reflection4.46
Respect4.62
Creativity3.94
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.43
Questions4.77
Daniela Monge 172 reported responses 3.53Eval / 5
Overall3.53 / 5

172 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.90
Contribution3.00
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity3.30
Grading3.80
Reflection3.80
Respect4.00
Creativity3.20
Feedback2.90
Interaction3.70
Challenge3.70
Questions3.90
Boyang Yu 55 reported responses 3.98Eval / 5
Overall3.98 / 5

55 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology4.41
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration3.55
Connection3.90
Contribution3.53
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity3.68
Grading4.39
Reflection4.24
Respect4.59
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.85
Interaction4.05
Challenge4.20
Questions4.64
Liam Murphy 16 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5

16 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration3.67
Connection4.40
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.33
Reflection4.53
Respect4.67
Creativity4.47
Feedback3.77
Interaction3.83
Challenge4.13
Questions4.73
Show fewer
Course documents

Syllabi 24

University library ↗

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

Fall 2026 · Section not specified

Dr. Sergey Nigai

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09

Fall 2026 · Section not specified

DR. KAREN GEBHARDT

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
21 more syllabi

Summer 2026 · Section not specified

Instructor not extracted

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09

Spring 2026 · Section not specified

Instructor not extracted

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09

Fall 2024 · Section not specified

Instructor not extracted

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09

Spring 2024 · Section not specified

Dr. Daria Bottan (O’Brien, I just go married and am in process of changing last name).

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09

Spring 2024 · Section not specified

Dr. Daria Bottan (O’Brien, I just go married and am in process of changing last name).

Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09

Spring 2024 · Section not specified

Instructor not extracted

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.