Course record ENVS
ENVS 1001
Introduction to Human Dimensions of Environmental Studies
University of Colorado Boulder
1,518 grades30 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score22/100
Below average
Eve-Lyn Hinckley 216 grades · 1 term 3.27GPA
216 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hinckley vs. the course average
A
+10.1
B
−4.3
C
−1.9
D
−1.8
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 7 of 223 enrolled.
Peter Newton 177 grades · 1 term 3.17GPA
177 letter grades
Compare with the course
Newton vs. the course average
A
+2.2
B
+4.3
C
−5.4
D
−1.9
F
+0.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 4 of 181 enrolled.
Overall3.82 / 5
85 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.40
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.40
Reflection3.90
Respect4.60
Creativity3.60
Feedback2.80
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.00
Questions4.00
Carrie Anne Vodehnal 173 grades · 1 term 3.06GPA
173 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vodehnal vs. the course average
A
−0.4
B
+3.7
C
−3.4
D
−0.2
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.3% withdrew · 4 of 177 enrolled.
Overall4.07 / 5
481 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.01
Synthesis3.96
Collaboration4.24
Connection4.54
Contribution3.76
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity4.43
Grading3.83
Reflection4.00
Respect4.45
Creativity4.01
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.35
Challenge3.86
Questions4.17
Steven Miller 764 grades · 1 term 2.98GPA
764 letter grades
Compare with the course
Miller vs. the course average
A
−1.9
B
+0.3
C
+0.5
D
+1.0
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 20 of 784 enrolled.
Overall4.34 / 5
500 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.58
Connection4.84
Contribution4.16
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.43
Reflection4.47
Respect4.69
Creativity4.44
Feedback3.69
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.32
Questions4.57
Matthew Gerald Burgess 177 grades · 1 term 2.84GPA
177 letter grades
Compare with the course
Burgess vs. the course average
A
−8.5
B
−2.5
C
+9.9
D
+0.3
F
+0.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 4 of 181 enrolled.
Overall3.69 / 5
73 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.30
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.70
Reflection3.80
Respect4.40
Creativity3.70
Feedback2.90
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.60
Questions3.80
Diana Dorman 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.76GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
8.3% withdrew · 1 of 12 enrolled.
Overall4.13 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.40
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.10
Reflection4.15
Respect4.30
Creativity3.65
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.10
Questions3.80
Margaret Leah Hegwood 36 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.73
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.43
Reflection4.55
Respect4.78
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.35
Questions4.78
Emily Beam 31 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.68
Connection4.65
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.35
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.18
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.30
Questions4.75
Molly Elizabeth Huber 18 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.45
Connection4.75
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.50
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.20
Questions4.70
Jeremiah David Osborne-Gowey 35 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.50
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.25
Reflection4.35
Respect4.70
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.40
Questions4.30
Jill S. Litt 73 reported responses 3.77Eval / 5
Overall3.77 / 5
73 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.30
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.70
Reflection3.80
Respect4.40
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.80
Questions3.80
Sebastian Duenas Ocampo 66 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.49
Collaboration4.61
Connection4.68
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity4.72
Grading4.58
Reflection4.62
Respect4.61
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.52
Questions4.64
Christopher James Dunn 22 reported responses 3.76Eval / 5
Overall3.76 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.05
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.30
Contribution3.55
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.05
Grading3.40
Reflection3.75
Respect4.30
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.25
Challenge3.35
Questions3.45
Lana K Garcia 66 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology3.79
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.11
Connection4.53
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.58
Reflection4.21
Respect4.29
Creativity4.36
Feedback4.41
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.00
Questions4.59
Maya Stephens 38 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.32
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.66
Connection4.38
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.34
Inclusivity4.56
Grading4.16
Reflection4.17
Respect4.79
Creativity4.32
Feedback3.92
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.12
Questions4.48
Liam Abram Jasperse-Sjolander 14 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.55
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.05
Inclusivity4.45
Grading3.90
Reflection3.85
Respect4.50
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge3.65
Questions4.40
Natalie Bennett 20 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.35
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.15
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.35
Questions4.70
Naya Oreilly 20 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.35
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.20
Reflection4.15
Respect4.60
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.35
Questions4.20
Devon Reynolds 27 reported responses 3.99Eval / 5
Overall3.99 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.05
Technology4.15
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.40
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.45
Grading3.70
Reflection4.00
Respect4.75
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.65
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.85
Questions4.30
Sarah Ann Coffin 37 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.75
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.85
Questions4.95
Christian Suarez 25 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.75
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.65
Reflection4.50
Respect4.85
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.65
Questions4.75
Sebastian Due<F1>As Ocampo 20 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.60
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.10
Reflection4.25
Respect4.65
Creativity4.25
Feedback3.95
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.35
Questions4.40
Rosie Sanchez 24 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.75
Reflection4.65
Respect4.75
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.65
Questions4.80
Blanca Hinojosa 21 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.85
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.35
Reflection4.70
Respect4.85
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions4.75
Christopher Quinn 31 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.70
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.65
Reflection4.50
Respect4.60
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.45
Questions4.75
Varnitha Kurli 18 reported responses 3.85Eval / 5
Overall3.85 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology3.60
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.40
Contribution3.65
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity4.65
Grading3.40
Reflection4.20
Respect3.95
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.45
Challenge3.65
Questions3.05
Anindita Hridita 46 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.59
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.53
Connection4.27
Contribution4.08
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.56
Reflection4.17
Respect4.53
Creativity4.46
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.08
Questions4.70
Isaiah Lyons-Galante 32 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.22
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration4.45
Connection4.61
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity4.19
Grading3.86
Reflection3.97
Respect4.75
Creativity4.18
Feedback3.76
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.12
Questions4.30
Nick Imo 17 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.35
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.50
Reflection3.85
Respect4.90
Creativity3.85
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.20
Questions4.75
Colin Curnow 17 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.50
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.15
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.25
Questions4.65
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.