Fall 2026 · Section not specified
Steve Miller |
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Course record ECON
ECON 3535
Natural Resource Economics
University of Colorado Boulder
619 grades18 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score17/100
Needs work
Matthew Gerald Burgess 321 grades · 1 term 3.04GPA
321 letter grades
Compare with the course
Burgess vs. the course average
A
+6.1
B
−0.1
C
−4.5
D
−1.7
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 9 of 330 enrolled.
Overall4.09 / 5
142 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.49
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration3.54
Connection4.79
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.36
Grading4.41
Reflection4.39
Respect4.83
Creativity4.17
Feedback3.79
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.47
Questions4.66
Kyle F Butts 175 grades · 1 term 2.84GPA
175 letter grades
Compare with the course
Butts vs. the course average
A
−2.9
B
+0.3
C
+1.0
D
+1.8
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.9% withdrew · 9 of 184 enrolled.
Overall4.24 / 5
98 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration3.65
Connection4.80
Contribution4.28
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.35
Reflection4.33
Respect4.75
Creativity4.46
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.59
Questions4.66
Sean Holland Strunk 55 grades · 1 term 2.65GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Strunk vs. the course average
A
−8.6
B
−6.3
C
+13.2
D
+4.6
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
3.5% withdrew · 2 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.06 / 5
62 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.92
Technology4.13
Synthesis3.69
Collaboration3.62
Connection4.69
Contribution3.60
Discussion3.93
Inclusivity3.98
Grading4.48
Reflection3.99
Respect4.33
Creativity3.98
Feedback3.52
Interaction4.08
Challenge4.13
Questions4.33
Kevin Wayne Starnes 68 grades · 1 term 2.62GPA
68 letter grades
Compare with the course
Starnes vs. the course average
A
−14.2
B
+4.7
C
+8.1
D
−0.1
F
+1.5
Difference in percentage points.
12.8% withdrew · 10 of 78 enrolled.
Diana Dorman 41 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration2.60
Connection4.20
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.20
Reflection3.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.00
Questions4.50
Brian Christopher Marein 26 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.50
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.20
Reflection3.80
Respect4.10
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.30
Interaction3.80
Challenge4.20
Questions4.00
Ashley Dancer 29 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration2.60
Connection4.40
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.30
Reflection3.90
Respect4.60
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.90
Questions4.60
Xiaomeng Zhao 34 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.90
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.90
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.30
Questions4.10
Chad Allan Brown 39 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.20
Reflection4.30
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Joseph Patrick Fry 35 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.90
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.90
Dongkyu Yang 26 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.70
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.30
Reflection4.00
Respect4.50
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Rimjhim Saxena 37 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.80
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.60
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Alec Truax 27 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.60
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.40
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Mengqi Zhang 27 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.60
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.00
Reflection4.50
Respect4.40
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Pan Chen 41 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.70
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.50
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.10
Questions4.50
Haeseong Park 41 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.70
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.50
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.20
Questions4.70
Seungmin Baek 32 reported responses 3.45Eval / 5
Overall3.45 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.80
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.80
Contribution2.80
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.40
Grading3.60
Reflection3.50
Respect3.90
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.10
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.30
Questions3.70
Fengyu Zhang 32 reported responses 3.49Eval / 5
Overall3.49 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.80
Contribution2.80
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.40
Grading3.70
Reflection3.50
Respect4.00
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.20
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.30
Questions3.60
Course documents
Syllabi 3
University-published syllabi. Dates apply to these documents, independently of the grade data range.
Fall 2024 · Section not specified
Rimjhim Saxena · Instructor record
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Spring 2024 · Section not specified
Sean Strunk
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.