Course record ENGL
ENGL 3000
Shakespeare for Nonmajors
University of Colorado Boulder
684 grades23 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2024
Flunk Score46/100
Mixed record
Alaina L Bupp 26 grades · 1 term 3.88GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bupp vs. the course average
A
+34.5
B
−20.7
C
−7.0
D
−2.5
F
−4.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 26 enrolled.
Hannah C Blanning 26 grades · 1 term 3.65GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Blanning vs. the course average
A
+15.2
B
−5.3
C
−3.2
D
−2.5
F
−4.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 26 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.30
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.40
James Roland Carson 48 grades · 1 term 3.64GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Carson vs. the course average
A
+23.7
B
−16.2
C
−7.0
D
−2.5
F
+2.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 2 of 50 enrolled.
Overall4.22 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.25
Connection3.65
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.05
Grading3.55
Reflection4.30
Respect4.75
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.30
Questions4.45
Shannon L Rathod 48 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rathod vs. the course average
A
+9.1
B
−1.6
C
−4.9
D
−2.5
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 1 of 49 enrolled.
John A Stevenson 31 grades · 1 term 3.48GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stevenson vs. the course average
A
+2.8
B
+4.5
C
−0.6
D
−2.5
F
−4.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 31 enrolled.
Overall4.80 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.87
Technology3.83
Synthesis4.87
Collaboration4.57
Connection4.13
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity3.83
Grading4.26
Reflection4.91
Respect4.70
Creativity4.91
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.70
Challenge5.00
Questions4.70
Teresa L Nugent 110 grades · 1 term 3.35GPA
110 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nugent vs. the course average
A
+3.8
B
−4.6
C
−0.7
D
+0.2
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 3 of 113 enrolled.
Overall4.81 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.31
Connection4.47
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.92
Reflection4.85
Respect4.93
Creativity4.85
Feedback4.78
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.92
Questions4.85
Alyssa Renee Miller 84 grades · 1 term 3.21GPA
84 letter grades
Compare with the course
Miller vs. the course average
A
−10.5
B
+7.6
C
+1.3
D
+3.5
F
−1.9
Difference in percentage points.
10.6% withdrew · 10 of 94 enrolled.
Overall4.54 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.65
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.35
Grading4.45
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Shawn Thomas Collins 119 grades · 1 term 3.21GPA
119 letter grades
Compare with the course
Collins vs. the course average
A
−10.4
B
+8.2
C
+1.4
D
+0.9
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 7 of 126 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.40
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.50
Rachael Nicole Deagman 34 grades · 1 term 3.15GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Deagman vs. the course average
A
−2.9
B
−6.9
C
+7.7
D
+0.5
F
+1.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 34 enrolled.
Sang Hee Lee 43 grades · 1 term 3.10GPA
43 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A
−12.9
B
+8.0
C
+2.3
D
−0.2
F
+2.7
Difference in percentage points.
8.5% withdrew · 4 of 47 enrolled.
Overall4.08 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.22
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration2.58
Connection3.46
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.23
Grading4.35
Reflection4.11
Respect4.26
Creativity4.03
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.23
Questions4.63
Stacey Leigh Malik 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.69GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.
Melanie Catherine Lo 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.54GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
5.6% withdrew · 1 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.40
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.00
Questions5.00
Lori Lucas Schuyler 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.34GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
4.8% withdrew · 1 of 21 enrolled.
Leah M White 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.30GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
9.1% withdrew · 2 of 22 enrolled.
Overall3.04 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology2.40
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration2.60
Connection2.20
Contribution3.60
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity3.40
Grading2.80
Reflection3.40
Respect3.60
Creativity3.20
Feedback2.40
Interaction3.40
Challenge3.00
Questions2.60
Jeffrey N Cox 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.95GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.80 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Garrett Tallman Biggs 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.67GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
9.1% withdrew · 2 of 22 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.60
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.50
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Lori Lucas 14 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.30
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.10
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect4.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.60
Questions4.50
Shannon Rachel Leone 16 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.29
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration4.16
Connection4.09
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.52
Inclusivity4.54
Grading4.32
Reflection4.52
Respect5.00
Creativity4.51
Feedback4.09
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.63
Questions3.57
Teresa Ann Lanpher 26 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.81
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.81
Collaboration4.12
Connection4.59
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.92
Reflection4.85
Respect4.92
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.58
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.78
Questions4.63
Rachael Deagman Simonetta 6 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.20
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.80
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.80
Laurel Samuelson 18 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.55
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.75
Reflection4.85
Respect4.85
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.90
Questions4.85
Kaela Walker 7 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.70
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading5.00
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.40
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Stacey Leigh Milliken 8 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.90
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.