Fall 2026 · Section not specified
Dr. Sara Avila
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Course record ECON
ECON 3818
Introduction to Statistics with Computer Applications
University of Colorado Boulder
1,095 grades43 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score17/100
Needs work
Sutianjie Zhou 42 grades · 1 term 3.19GPA
42 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zhou vs. the course average
A
+23.6
B
−7.7
C
−14.3
D
−2.7
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
8.7% withdrew · 4 of 46 enrolled.
Overall3.93 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration2.80
Connection3.80
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.20
Reflection3.80
Respect4.70
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.40
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.10
Questions4.70
Shawn P Swanson 119 grades · 1 term 3.01GPA
119 letter grades
Compare with the course
Swanson vs. the course average
A
+12.4
B
−1.0
C
−11.9
D
+0.8
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 6 of 125 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
154 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.56
Synthesis3.96
Collaboration3.31
Connection4.14
Contribution3.96
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity3.42
Grading4.30
Reflection4.34
Respect4.42
Creativity3.93
Feedback3.53
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Joseph Patrick Fry 116 grades · 1 term 2.96GPA
116 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fry vs. the course average
A
+4.0
B
+9.4
C
−10.7
D
−4.3
F
+1.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 2 of 118 enrolled.
Overall4.17 / 5
71 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration3.65
Connection4.18
Contribution4.11
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity3.91
Grading4.68
Reflection4.46
Respect4.61
Creativity4.26
Feedback4.29
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.38
Questions4.78
Kyle F Butts 87 grades · 1 term 2.93GPA
87 letter grades
Compare with the course
Butts vs. the course average
A
−5.8
B
+16.6
C
−6.7
D
−2.8
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 2 of 89 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
54 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.08
Connection4.38
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.08
Grading4.63
Reflection4.38
Respect4.78
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.68
Questions4.65
Brian Christopher Marein 45 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
45 letter grades
Compare with the course
Marein vs. the course average
A
−11.0
B
+17.1
C
−6.2
D
+3.8
F
−3.7
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 2 of 47 enrolled.
Nicholas E Flores 209 grades · 1 term 2.75GPA
209 letter grades
Compare with the course
Flores vs. the course average
A
−3.4
B
−1.8
C
+7.3
D
−1.8
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.3% withdrew · 5 of 214 enrolled.
Overall4.01 / 5
115 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.26
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.56
Connection4.08
Contribution3.82
Discussion3.97
Inclusivity3.81
Grading4.05
Reflection3.93
Respect4.29
Creativity3.89
Feedback3.56
Interaction4.11
Challenge4.14
Questions4.41
Dongkyu Yang 28 grades · 1 term 2.75GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Yang vs. the course average
A
−0.2
B
−0.5
C
−1.2
D
−5.1
F
+7.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 1 of 29 enrolled.
Overall3.86 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.50
Connection3.90
Contribution3.30
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.40
Reflection3.90
Respect3.90
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.70
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.90
Questions4.30
Paro Paul Suh 38 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Suh vs. the course average
A
−5.1
B
−12.6
C
+23.8
D
−2.5
F
−3.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.0% withdrew · 2 of 40 enrolled.
Overall4.03 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration3.90
Connection2.80
Contribution2.80
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.69
Reflection3.69
Respect4.77
Creativity4.21
Feedback3.27
Interaction4.57
Challenge2.99
Questions3.38
Solveig Delabroye 44 grades · 1 term 2.71GPA
44 letter grades
Compare with the course
Delabroye vs. the course average
A
+12.1
B
−18.1
C
−3.5
D
+4.0
F
+5.4
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 1 of 45 enrolled.
Lilla Lukacs 76 grades · 1 term 2.63GPA
76 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lukacs vs. the course average
A
−5.1
B
+0.6
C
+0.1
D
+1.5
F
+2.9
Difference in percentage points.
5.0% withdrew · 4 of 80 enrolled.
Overall4.20 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.30
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.10
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.80
Questions4.50
Namsuk Choi 224 grades · 1 term 2.60GPA
224 letter grades
Compare with the course
Choi vs. the course average
A
−5.1
B
−2.8
C
+5.9
D
+2.9
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 5 of 229 enrolled.
Overall3.83 / 5
138 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.72
Technology4.23
Synthesis3.62
Collaboration2.84
Connection3.66
Contribution3.11
Discussion3.63
Inclusivity3.41
Grading4.04
Reflection3.89
Respect4.60
Creativity3.59
Feedback2.95
Interaction3.99
Challenge4.06
Questions4.26
Youngeun Choi 45 grades · 1 term 2.52GPA
45 letter grades
Compare with the course
Choi vs. the course average
A
−13.2
B
−2.9
C
+16.0
D
+3.8
F
−3.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 1 of 46 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.85
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.00
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.35
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.25
Challenge4.50
Questions4.15
Mahdieh Yazdani 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.02GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.
Overall4.14 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.10
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.70
Reflection4.40
Respect4.00
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.30
Questions4.10
Xiang Chi 32 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration4.21
Connection3.99
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.19
Inclusivity4.64
Grading4.71
Reflection4.20
Respect4.88
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.50
Questions4.81
Nicole Justine Mundt 9 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.27
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.00
Reflection4.20
Respect4.77
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.17
Questions4.50
Kevin Wayne Starnes 9 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.60
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.00
Reflection4.30
Respect5.00
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.40
Questions4.80
Sara Avila Forcada 320 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
320 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration4.16
Connection4.42
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.71
Reflection4.54
Respect4.71
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.64
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.56
Questions4.70
Yuwei Jia 16 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.10
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.55
Reflection4.55
Respect4.65
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.55
Questions4.40
Mark Valkovci 14 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.55
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.65
Reflection4.55
Respect4.70
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.55
Questions4.70
Jaekyeong Shin 6 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.40
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.75
Reflection4.75
Respect4.75
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Benjamin Wei Yao Zhang 11 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.55
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.80
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.90
Questions4.65
Ge Song 23 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.18
Technology4.23
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration4.03
Connection3.85
Contribution4.08
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity3.98
Grading4.67
Reflection4.38
Respect4.43
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.10
Questions4.32
Joongsan Hwang 76 reported responses 3.58Eval / 5
Overall3.58 / 5
76 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.81
Technology4.27
Synthesis3.84
Collaboration3.34
Connection3.54
Contribution3.84
Discussion4.49
Inclusivity3.49
Grading3.48
Reflection3.96
Respect4.39
Creativity3.64
Feedback3.88
Interaction4.07
Challenge3.97
Questions4.37
Chaz Michael Simmons 14 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.87
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration3.13
Connection4.67
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.23
Grading4.63
Reflection4.97
Respect4.90
Creativity4.73
Feedback3.50
Interaction3.37
Challenge4.83
Questions4.93
Anand Butler 18 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.53
Connection4.68
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.70
Reflection4.75
Respect4.85
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.72
Questions4.90
Saigeetha Narasimhan 37 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.07
Technology4.16
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.77
Connection4.05
Contribution4.21
Discussion3.89
Inclusivity3.91
Grading3.96
Reflection4.42
Respect4.60
Creativity3.65
Feedback3.75
Interaction4.19
Challenge4.07
Questions4.22
Wenbo Meng 13 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.75
Technology4.15
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration3.25
Connection3.80
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.10
Reflection4.15
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.10
Interaction3.95
Challenge4.25
Questions4.60
Mengqi Zhang 17 reported responses 3.75Eval / 5
Overall3.75 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration3.37
Connection3.07
Contribution3.37
Discussion3.77
Inclusivity3.37
Grading3.60
Reflection4.10
Respect4.53
Creativity3.63
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.13
Challenge3.93
Questions4.33
Jerald Katz 14 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.47
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.07
Connection3.90
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity3.83
Grading4.33
Reflection4.67
Respect4.87
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.27
Challenge4.50
Questions4.67
Jisu Yu 8 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.75
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.40
Grading5.00
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Arka Chakrabarti 10 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration2.55
Connection3.75
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect4.30
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.50
Interaction3.70
Challenge4.25
Questions4.55
Warren Hendricks 14 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.44
Collaboration3.25
Connection3.96
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.46
Reflection4.31
Respect4.61
Creativity4.19
Feedback4.04
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.19
Questions4.47
Bob Lin 12 reported responses 2.74Eval / 5
Overall2.74 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.50
Technology3.65
Synthesis2.40
Collaboration3.20
Connection2.65
Contribution2.05
Discussion3.15
Inclusivity2.75
Grading2.50
Reflection3.00
Respect3.60
Creativity2.65
Feedback1.85
Interaction3.70
Challenge2.65
Questions3.25
Rimjhim Saxena 30 reported responses 3.81Eval / 5
Overall3.81 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.65
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.60
Grading3.55
Reflection4.20
Respect4.45
Creativity3.55
Feedback3.15
Interaction4.05
Challenge3.95
Questions4.20
Vincent Mastantuno 9 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.25
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.55
Respect4.75
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.50
Questions4.75
Kremena Stoeva Platikanova-Gross 6 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.30
Respect4.30
Creativity3.50
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Zehao Jing 9 reported responses 2.81Eval / 5
Overall2.81 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.73
Technology3.27
Synthesis2.17
Collaboration2.17
Connection2.50
Contribution2.50
Discussion2.97
Inclusivity2.73
Grading2.70
Reflection2.83
Respect3.40
Creativity2.60
Feedback2.37
Interaction3.90
Challenge2.73
Questions3.73
Jack Novak 10 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration2.80
Connection3.70
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.60
Reflection3.50
Respect4.80
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.90
Questions4.50
Michael Karas 4 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.35
Technology4.85
Synthesis3.65
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.85
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.35
Grading4.65
Reflection4.50
Respect4.15
Creativity3.25
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.65
Questions4.85
Jack Krolak 14 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration3.95
Connection4.45
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.55
Reflection4.50
Respect4.85
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.85
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.75
Questions4.75
Sungyoun Chung 26 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.35
Connection4.45
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.85
Reflection4.70
Respect4.60
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.75
Questions4.85
Jeong Won Ko 31 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.25
Connection4.05
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.15
Reflection4.35
Respect4.65
Creativity3.95
Feedback3.65
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.20
Questions4.35
Tyler Anderson 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
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Course documents
Syllabi 18
University-published syllabi. Dates apply to these documents, independently of the grade data range.
Fall 2026 · Section 010
Instructor not extracted
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Fall 2026 · Section 020
Instructor not extracted
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
15 more syllabi
Fall 2026 · Section 030
Instructor not extracted
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Summer 2026 · Section not specified
Dr. Sara Avila
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Summer 2026 · Section 200
Instructor not extracted
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Spring 2026 · Section not specified
Dr. Sara Avila
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Spring 2026 · Section 020
Instructor not extracted
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Spring 2026 · Section 030
Dr. Shawn Swanson
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Spring 2026 · Section 040
Instructor not extracted
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Fall 2024 · Section not specified
Dr. Sara Avila
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Fall 2024 · Section 010
Instructor not extracted
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Fall 2024 · Section 020
Instructor not extracted
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Fall 2024 · Section 030
Instructor not extracted
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Spring 2024 · Section not specified
Dr. Sara Avila
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Spring 2024 · Section 020
Dr. Namsuk Choi · Instructor record
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Spring 2024 · Section 030
Dr. Namsuk Choi · Instructor record
Read syllabus Checked 2026-09-09
Spring 2024 · Section 040
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.