Course record IAFS
IAFS 1000
Global Issues and International Affairs
University of Colorado Boulder
1,860 grades41 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score21/100
Below average
Yaffa Elane Truelove 131 grades · 1 term 3.02GPA
131 letter grades
Compare with the course
Truelove vs. the course average
A
+17.0
B
−8.3
C
−8.8
D
−1.5
F
+1.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 4 of 135 enrolled.
Overall4.08 / 5
105 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.09
Technology3.92
Synthesis3.87
Collaboration3.62
Connection4.45
Contribution3.75
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity4.55
Grading3.89
Reflection3.97
Respect4.58
Creativity3.84
Feedback3.42
Interaction4.25
Challenge4.07
Questions4.09
Michael David Kanner 25 grades · 1 term 2.97GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kanner vs. the course average
A
−6.1
B
+4.9
C
+15.5
D
−6.1
F
−8.2
Difference in percentage points.
7.4% withdrew · 2 of 27 enrolled.
Overall4.91 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.60
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Douglas J Snyder 264 grades · 1 term 2.90GPA
264 letter grades
Compare with the course
Snyder vs. the course average
A
−5.7
B
+10.8
C
+2.1
D
−2.7
F
−4.4
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 12 of 276 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
135 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.24
Connection4.98
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.41
Reflection4.72
Respect4.83
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.40
Questions4.64
David H. Bearce 503 grades · 1 term 2.87GPA
503 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bearce vs. the course average
A
+5.0
B
−1.7
C
−3.1
D
−0.2
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 25 of 528 enrolled.
Overall4.13 / 5
163 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.41
Collaboration3.18
Connection4.68
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.22
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.23
Reflection4.38
Respect4.65
Creativity4.31
Feedback3.63
Interaction4.05
Challenge4.55
Questions4.53
Thomas W Zeiler 694 grades · 1 term 2.69GPA
694 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zeiler vs. the course average
A
−1.1
B
−1.8
C
+1.0
D
+1.7
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
5.1% withdrew · 37 of 731 enrolled.
Overall4.15 / 5
451 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.14
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration3.45
Connection4.78
Contribution3.79
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.62
Grading4.16
Reflection4.25
Respect4.53
Creativity4.13
Feedback3.46
Interaction4.14
Challenge4.36
Questions4.23
Gregory D Young 135 grades · 1 term 2.60GPA
135 letter grades
Compare with the course
Young vs. the course average
A
−11.9
B
+4.9
C
+8.7
D
−3.9
F
+2.1
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 8 of 143 enrolled.
Lucy P Chester 108 grades · 1 term 2.40GPA
108 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chester vs. the course average
A
−6.4
B
−4.5
C
−0.7
D
+5.0
F
+6.6
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 6 of 114 enrolled.
Overall4.02 / 5
59 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.30
Connection4.30
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.90
Reflection4.20
Respect4.50
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.20
Questions4.20
Megan Lynn Tocci 21 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.74
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.84
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.46
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.62
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.87
Questions4.39
Max Chernoff 8 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.90
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.80
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.75
Questions4.65
Pavel Bacovsky 52 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.72
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.21
Reflection4.80
Respect4.62
Creativity3.98
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.43
Questions4.62
David Warshay 9 reported responses 3.70Eval / 5
Overall3.70 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology3.40
Synthesis2.70
Collaboration2.05
Connection4.10
Contribution3.55
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.15
Reflection3.80
Respect4.40
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.75
Interaction3.45
Challenge3.25
Questions4.40
Steven Van De Laarschot 57 reported responses 3.81Eval / 5
Overall3.81 / 5
57 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.65
Technology3.47
Synthesis3.14
Collaboration3.59
Connection3.82
Contribution3.55
Discussion3.77
Inclusivity3.69
Grading3.57
Reflection3.49
Respect4.22
Creativity3.20
Feedback2.99
Interaction3.78
Challenge3.00
Questions3.67
Samantha Louise Moya 24 reported responses 4.16Eval / 5
Overall4.16 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.25
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.35
Creativity3.85
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.05
Questions4.20
Brendan James Connell 26 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.75
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.50
Reflection4.65
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.65
Michael Clifton Bunch 20 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology3.95
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.50
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.45
Reflection4.70
Respect4.65
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.55
Questions4.55
Kevin Ray Winterhalt 118 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
118 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.66
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration4.51
Connection4.78
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.47
Reflection4.62
Respect4.83
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.31
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.65
Questions4.64
Christopher Wayne Jackson 19 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.80
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect4.85
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.85
Questions4.80
Ken Stallman 49 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
49 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.60
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity4.42
Grading4.10
Reflection4.35
Respect4.78
Creativity3.83
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.35
Questions4.68
James Andrew Willetts 19 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.40
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Greg Ledonne 23 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.65
Reflection4.75
Respect4.90
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Andrew Mcleer 41 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology3.61
Synthesis4.08
Collaboration3.75
Connection4.51
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.71
Inclusivity4.49
Grading4.23
Reflection4.38
Respect4.54
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.82
Interaction4.34
Challenge4.08
Questions4.37
Vi Burlew 17 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.95
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.35
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.40
Questions4.35
Emily Swertfeger 71 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
71 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.45
Connection4.67
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity4.62
Grading4.46
Reflection4.46
Respect4.72
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.50
Questions4.58
Will Holsclaw 69 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
69 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration3.58
Connection4.84
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.52
Inclusivity4.66
Grading4.65
Reflection4.38
Respect4.80
Creativity4.09
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.37
Questions4.75
Chris Jackson 23 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.90
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.25
Respect4.70
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Mateusz Michal Leszczynski 52 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.64
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.14
Connection4.82
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.75
Reflection4.64
Respect4.84
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.68
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.73
Questions4.77
Ben Clingman 8 reported responses 3.97Eval / 5
Overall3.97 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.20
Grading3.60
Reflection4.10
Respect4.10
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.80
Questions3.80
Kai Peterson 40 reported responses 4.77Eval / 5
Overall4.77 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.67
Collaboration4.43
Connection4.77
Contribution4.56
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.77
Reflection4.68
Respect4.83
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.72
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.72
Questions4.71
Steven Matthew Beard 2 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.00
Reflection4.50
Respect4.50
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Sierra Autumn Standish 45 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.34
Collaboration4.76
Connection4.58
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.46
Reflection4.69
Respect4.78
Creativity4.14
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.51
Questions4.72
Kimberly Jackson 50 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.50
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.30
Reflection4.35
Respect4.75
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.45
Questions4.55
Zoe Dekruif 21 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.85
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.60
Reflection4.70
Respect4.85
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.55
Questions4.75
Alberto Miguel Burgos-Rivera 68 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
68 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.45
Connection4.68
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.38
Reflection4.60
Respect4.57
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.39
Interaction4.48
Challenge4.40
Questions4.72
Molly Todd 65 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
65 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.08
Connection4.85
Contribution4.29
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.72
Grading4.38
Reflection4.55
Respect4.80
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.48
Questions4.60
Paige Massey 33 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.70
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect4.65
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.60
Questions4.50
Edward Hayward 32 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.80
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.75
Reflection4.65
Respect4.80
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.80
Questions4.75
Lars Schwaebe 34 reported responses 4.77Eval / 5
Overall4.77 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.84
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration4.92
Connection4.94
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.44
Reflection4.79
Respect4.77
Creativity4.62
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.79
Questions4.82
Grace Donahue 43 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.72
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.94
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.59
Grading4.74
Reflection4.82
Respect4.92
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.83
Questions4.84
Holland Eddy 73 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
73 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.85
Contribution4.64
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.69
Reflection4.76
Respect4.95
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.68
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.77
Questions4.84
Stephania Zneimer 6 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.80
Grading3.80
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.50
Jeffrey Scott Nonnemacher 26 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration3.25
Connection4.80
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.65
Reflection4.75
Respect4.95
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.80
Questions4.75
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.