Course record ENGL
ENGL 2102
Literary Analysis
University of Colorado Boulder
601 grades34 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score47/100
Mixed record
Julius Edwin Rivers 37 grades · 1 term 3.78GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rivers vs. the course average
A
+20.1
B
−13.2
C
−3.1
D
+0.7
F
−4.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 38 enrolled.
Martin Bickman 63 grades · 1 term 3.70GPA
63 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bickman vs. the course average
A
+17.7
B
−10.2
C
−4.2
D
−2.0
F
−1.3
Difference in percentage points.
6.0% withdrew · 4 of 67 enrolled.
Overall4.08 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology3.04
Synthesis4.34
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.22
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.25
Grading2.93
Reflection4.32
Respect4.33
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.57
Interaction4.97
Challenge4.30
Questions4.56
Teresa L Nugent 55 grades · 1 term 3.65GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nugent vs. the course average
A
+19.1
B
−15.8
C
−2.2
D
+1.6
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.2% withdrew · 3 of 58 enrolled.
Overall4.75 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.76
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.37
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.62
Reflection4.87
Respect4.81
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.61
Questions4.87
John A Stevenson 48 grades · 1 term 3.54GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stevenson vs. the course average
A
+14.9
B
−8.8
C
−5.8
D
−2.0
F
+1.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 1 of 49 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.84
Technology3.51
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration3.58
Connection4.09
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.41
Grading4.33
Reflection4.40
Respect4.89
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.66
Questions4.79
Rachael Nicole Deagman 37 grades · 1 term 3.44GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Deagman vs. the course average
A
+1.2
B
+0.3
C
+2.3
D
+0.7
F
−4.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 37 enrolled.
Dianne Mitchell 37 grades · 1 term 3.41GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mitchell vs. the course average
A
−9.6
B
+13.8
C
−0.4
D
+0.7
F
−4.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 37 enrolled.
Overall4.75 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.51
Synthesis4.51
Collaboration4.70
Connection3.83
Contribution4.61
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.61
Reflection4.61
Respect4.90
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.22
Questions5.00
Emily Marie Harrington 38 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Harrington vs. the course average
A
−13.8
B
+7.6
C
+7.3
D
−2.0
F
+0.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 39 enrolled.
Overall4.80 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.40
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.55
Reflection4.75
Respect4.85
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Jason Daniel Gladstone 36 grades · 1 term 3.10GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gladstone vs. the course average
A
−24.7
B
+25.9
C
−3.0
D
−2.0
F
+3.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 1 of 37 enrolled.
Overall4.75 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.30
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.50
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.35
Grading4.35
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Marie Jaquelin Pelzer 38 grades · 1 term 3.03GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pelzer vs. the course average
A
−0.6
B
−8.1
C
−5.8
D
+0.6
F
+13.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 38 enrolled.
Sang Hee Lee 34 grades · 1 term 3.02GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A
−7.6
B
−6.6
C
+3.0
D
+3.9
F
+7.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 1 of 35 enrolled.
Overall4.34 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.75
Synthesis4.42
Collaboration3.61
Connection3.61
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity4.41
Grading4.29
Reflection4.25
Respect4.16
Creativity4.04
Feedback4.17
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.15
Questions4.07
Ramesh Kumar Mallipeddi 13 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.98GPA
13 letter grades · Limited sample
7.1% withdrew · 1 of 14 enrolled.
Overall4.67 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.90
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.90
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Julia Charles 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.69GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
6.3% withdrew · 1 of 16 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.60
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.60
Connection5.00
Contribution4.20
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.60
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions4.60
Pilar Munoz 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.57GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
6.7% withdrew · 1 of 15 enrolled.
Overall4.89 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Joan G Cooper 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.56GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.
Overall3.18 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.10
Technology2.00
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.40
Connection2.90
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.10
Grading2.80
Reflection3.10
Respect2.90
Creativity3.30
Feedback2.90
Interaction3.90
Challenge3.10
Questions3.30
Mairead Corrine Case 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.39GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.90
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading3.70
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.40
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.70
Denys Walter Vanrenen 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.22GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
10.5% withdrew · 2 of 19 enrolled.
Penelope M. Kelsey 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.18GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
16.7% withdrew · 3 of 18 enrolled.
Overall3.85 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.40
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.70
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.20
Grading3.20
Reflection4.00
Respect4.20
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.90
Questions4.30
Jillian Heydt-Stevenson 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.08GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
5.9% withdrew · 1 of 17 enrolled.
Jessica Lynn Lawson 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.07GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.54 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.60
Contribution4.40
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.20
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Thora Brylowe 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.01GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
5.9% withdrew · 1 of 17 enrolled.
Overall3.99 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.70
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.70
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.70
Reflection3.80
Respect3.90
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.10
Questions4.20
Elizabeth Anderman 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.00GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
10.5% withdrew · 2 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.48 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.30
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.80
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Jill Ann Heydt 6 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration3.80
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect4.70
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.80
Questions4.30
Rachael Deagman Simonetta 31 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.52
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.48
Grading4.75
Reflection4.75
Respect4.85
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.78
Questions4.83
Jaquelin Pelzer 10 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.88
Contribution4.72
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.38
Grading3.80
Reflection4.73
Respect4.88
Creativity4.20
Feedback2.82
Interaction4.73
Challenge3.95
Questions4.58
Raza Ali Hasan 23 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.19
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration3.01
Connection3.79
Contribution3.89
Discussion4.41
Inclusivity4.13
Grading4.15
Reflection3.76
Respect4.36
Creativity3.81
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.37
Challenge3.96
Questions4.45
Kelly Krumrie 4 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.00
Reflection4.80
Respect4.20
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Rachel Franklin Wood 3 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.50
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.70
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Cass Eddington 3 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.30
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Lilly Rothman 10 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.20
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.70
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Mary K Klages 9 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.20
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.60
Grading3.60
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.60
Cheryl A Higashida 7 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.60
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Lillian May Rothman 7 reported responses 3.97Eval / 5
Overall3.97 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.40
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.40
Grading3.90
Reflection4.00
Respect4.10
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.10
Questions4.30
Jeremy F Green 2 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Justin Michael Saxby 13 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology3.95
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.95
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.40
Reflection5.00
Respect4.95
Creativity4.60
Feedback3.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.65
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.