Course record ENVS
ENVS 1000
Introduction to Environmental Studies
University of Colorado Boulder
2,544 grades37 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score25/100
Below average
Karen Bailey 1,046 grades · 1 term 3.03GPA
1,046 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bailey vs. the course average
A
+3.2
B
−1.3
C
−0.8
D
−1.3
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 36 of 1,082 enrolled.
Overall4.27 / 5
506 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration3.76
Connection4.84
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.35
Grading4.43
Reflection4.60
Respect4.63
Creativity4.16
Feedback3.95
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.55
Questions4.71
Sharon Kay Collinge 594 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
594 letter grades
Compare with the course
Collinge vs. the course average
A
−0.9
B
+1.6
C
+0.7
D
−0.9
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.9% withdrew · 24 of 618 enrolled.
Overall4.04 / 5
111 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.70
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.40
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.20
Questions4.50
Zia Mehrabi 674 grades · 1 term 2.90GPA
674 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mehrabi vs. the course average
A
−2.2
B
+0.8
C
−0.3
D
+1.3
F
+0.4
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 17 of 691 enrolled.
Overall4.22 / 5
349 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.44
Technology4.41
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration4.04
Connection4.70
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.08
Reflection4.36
Respect4.61
Creativity4.17
Feedback3.54
Interaction4.41
Challenge4.46
Questions4.36
Jason C Neff 196 grades · 1 term 2.70GPA
196 letter grades
Compare with the course
Neff vs. the course average
A
−11.9
B
+2.0
C
+5.6
D
+4.1
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 5 of 201 enrolled.
Overall4.21 / 5
316 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration3.81
Connection4.74
Contribution3.92
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.09
Reflection4.34
Respect4.66
Creativity4.09
Feedback3.47
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.34
Questions4.20
Jeremiah David Osborne-Gowey 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.31GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
86 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.83
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.14
Connection4.35
Contribution3.66
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity3.98
Grading4.60
Reflection3.90
Respect4.05
Creativity3.85
Feedback4.39
Interaction3.55
Challenge4.16
Questions4.05
Diana Dorman 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.23GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 15 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.85
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.40
Reflection4.25
Respect4.50
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.15
Questions4.80
Helen Levieux Wilson 58 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
58 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration3.92
Connection4.88
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.44
Grading4.56
Reflection4.75
Respect4.84
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.64
Challenge4.70
Questions4.75
Casey White 67 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
67 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.39
Collaboration3.94
Connection4.74
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.61
Reflection4.55
Respect4.76
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.43
Questions4.72
Stefania Mitova 31 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration4.02
Connection4.88
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.22
Grading4.88
Reflection4.68
Respect4.83
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.68
Challenge4.58
Questions4.93
Ricardo Simmonds 56 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
56 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.74
Collaboration4.59
Connection4.89
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity4.76
Grading4.49
Reflection4.71
Respect4.84
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.71
Questions4.47
Patrick Chandler 31 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.22
Connection4.73
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.93
Reflection4.55
Respect4.95
Creativity4.73
Feedback4.53
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.65
Questions4.88
Timothy Ian Molnar 26 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.11
Connection4.70
Contribution4.41
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.51
Grading4.50
Reflection4.56
Respect4.45
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.09
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.59
Questions4.69
Alexander Todd Halverson 19 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.93
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.87
Reflection4.63
Respect4.93
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.43
Questions4.93
Christopher James Dunn 26 reported responses 3.84Eval / 5
Overall3.84 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology3.83
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.13
Connection4.40
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.17
Inclusivity3.77
Grading3.83
Reflection4.13
Respect4.20
Creativity3.83
Feedback3.40
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.87
Questions3.93
Diane Portillo 33 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology4.42
Synthesis4.02
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.62
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.41
Inclusivity4.61
Grading4.08
Reflection4.13
Respect4.86
Creativity4.05
Feedback3.16
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.41
Questions3.68
Hilary Dana Brumberg 25 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.47
Connection4.73
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.47
Grading4.43
Reflection4.57
Respect4.80
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.47
Questions4.47
Tyler A Nuckols 91 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
91 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration4.33
Connection4.94
Contribution4.66
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.84
Grading4.67
Reflection4.80
Respect4.97
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.54
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.76
Questions4.81
Benjamin Stasny 24 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.57
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.20
Reflection4.43
Respect4.63
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
Daniel Forest Doak 240 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
240 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.88
Connection4.70
Contribution3.92
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.37
Grading3.90
Reflection4.25
Respect4.60
Creativity3.92
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.42
Challenge4.12
Questions4.20
Cailyn Sales 25 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.53
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.87
Grading4.30
Reflection4.03
Respect4.50
Creativity4.03
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.00
Questions4.40
Kathryn Sullivan 53 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
53 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.31
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.67
Contribution4.16
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity4.47
Grading4.23
Reflection4.40
Respect4.73
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.28
Questions4.08
Chevez Smith 70 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
70 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.44
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.44
Connection4.67
Contribution4.48
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.39
Reflection4.59
Respect4.73
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.12
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.46
Questions4.54
Maya Stephens 27 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration3.67
Connection4.00
Contribution3.73
Discussion3.97
Inclusivity4.17
Grading3.53
Reflection3.57
Respect4.53
Creativity3.87
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.33
Challenge3.67
Questions3.83
Naya Oreilly 48 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.65
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.18
Reflection4.30
Respect4.67
Creativity4.18
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.33
Questions4.37
Amir Dehbi 17 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.90
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.35
Reflection4.85
Respect4.80
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.85
Questions4.60
Samantha Tindall 40 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.87
Connection4.83
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.43
Reflection4.63
Respect4.80
Creativity4.73
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.60
Questions4.77
Abby Gordon 61 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.67
Collaboration4.66
Connection4.91
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.74
Reflection4.70
Respect4.93
Creativity4.73
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.63
Questions4.84
Samina Islam 58 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
58 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.55
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.39
Grading4.18
Reflection4.26
Respect4.74
Creativity4.28
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.34
Questions4.44
Nirav Patel 461 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
461 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.76
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.79
Reflection4.41
Respect4.89
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.84
Questions4.88
Adam Odorisio 28 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.37
Connection4.93
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.77
Reflection4.80
Respect4.93
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Colin Curnow 90 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
90 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.28
Connection4.78
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity4.71
Grading4.71
Reflection4.68
Respect4.83
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.55
Questions4.78
Arup Paul 45 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology4.54
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.84
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.49
Reflection4.49
Respect4.68
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.46
Questions4.54
Analiese Terrell 25 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.87
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.23
Grading4.33
Reflection4.23
Respect4.77
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.40
Questions4.87
Zhen Li 49 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
49 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.49
Synthesis4.41
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.59
Contribution4.64
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.32
Grading4.49
Reflection4.27
Respect4.65
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.47
Questions4.61
Jasmine Coomber 28 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.50
Reflection4.33
Respect4.60
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.47
Questions4.43
Nova Robbins-Waldstein 47 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.57
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.37
Reflection4.30
Respect4.63
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.43
Questions4.60
Liz Corrado 13 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.33
Connection4.10
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.23
Grading4.37
Reflection4.13
Respect4.80
Creativity3.97
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.27
Questions4.77
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.