Course record IPHY
IPHY 3280
Intro to Data Science and Biostatistics
University of Colorado Boulder
1,267 grades18 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score20/100
Below average
John R Harsh 84 grades · 1 term 2.83GPA
84 letter grades
Compare with the course
Harsh vs. the course average
A
−2.4
B
+10.7
C
−1.3
D
−5.6
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
6.7% withdrew · 6 of 90 enrolled.
Overall3.93 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.25
Synthesis3.94
Collaboration3.83
Connection4.32
Contribution4.12
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity3.18
Grading3.77
Reflection4.29
Respect4.63
Creativity3.97
Feedback3.81
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.31
Questions4.72
Tanya Lynn Alderete 252 grades · 1 term 2.80GPA
252 letter grades
Compare with the course
Alderete vs. the course average
A
+9.1
B
−5.2
C
−3.3
D
+1.6
F
−2.2
Difference in percentage points.
8.7% withdrew · 24 of 276 enrolled.
Overall4.27 / 5
154 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.29
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration4.01
Connection4.48
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity3.97
Grading4.32
Reflection4.29
Respect4.78
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.63
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.58
Questions4.42
Marissa A Ehringer 203 grades · 1 term 2.77GPA
203 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ehringer vs. the course average
A
same
B
+3.3
C
same
D
+0.9
F
−4.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.9% withdrew · 15 of 218 enrolled.
Overall3.67 / 5
123 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.92
Technology4.22
Synthesis3.68
Collaboration3.52
Connection3.96
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.06
Inclusivity3.15
Grading4.09
Reflection3.97
Respect4.46
Creativity3.76
Feedback3.25
Interaction4.22
Challenge4.04
Questions4.39
Steven L Hobbs 260 grades · 1 term 2.69GPA
260 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hobbs vs. the course average
A
−0.9
B
+0.9
C
−0.1
D
+1.6
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
5.1% withdrew · 14 of 274 enrolled.
Overall4.09 / 5
142 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.96
Synthesis4.04
Collaboration3.09
Connection4.02
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity3.19
Grading4.22
Reflection3.93
Respect4.96
Creativity4.21
Feedback4.89
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.95
Questions4.22
Sewan Kim 468 grades · 1 term 2.49GPA
468 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kim vs. the course average
A
−4.0
B
−1.0
C
+2.0
D
−1.1
F
+4.1
Difference in percentage points.
5.1% withdrew · 25 of 493 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
352 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.19
Connection4.37
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.07
Grading4.48
Reflection4.41
Respect4.62
Creativity4.36
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.76
Questions4.75
Nathan Anderson 92 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
92 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.39
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.41
Contribution4.18
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.44
Reflection4.48
Respect4.65
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.42
Challenge4.58
Questions4.83
Max Bailey 27 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology4.22
Synthesis3.88
Collaboration4.07
Connection3.75
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.10
Reflection4.13
Respect4.65
Creativity3.73
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.35
Questions4.45
Erika April Mehrhoff 72 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
72 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration4.46
Connection4.44
Contribution4.02
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.24
Grading4.26
Reflection4.54
Respect4.76
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Maximilion Jon Bailey 20 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.05
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.20
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.35
Grading4.30
Reflection4.55
Respect4.95
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.65
Questions4.50
William Patterson 14 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.90
Synthesis3.53
Collaboration3.27
Connection4.37
Contribution3.53
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity2.83
Grading3.77
Reflection4.20
Respect4.20
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.20
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.53
Questions4.77
Lyanna Ruth Kessler 66 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.26
Connection4.19
Contribution4.12
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity4.26
Grading4.33
Reflection4.32
Respect4.38
Creativity4.32
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.28
Questions4.52
Kevin Clark 18 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.53
Connection4.47
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.03
Grading4.53
Reflection4.40
Respect4.63
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.27
Questions4.67
Teresa E. Foley 2 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.50
Contribution3.50
Inclusivity4.50
Reflection4.50
Interaction5.00
Bradley Needles 14 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.03
Connection3.97
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.03
Grading4.83
Reflection4.43
Respect4.87
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.47
Questions5.00
Thomas Hembree 12 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.07
Collaboration3.98
Connection4.09
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity3.89
Grading4.39
Reflection4.22
Respect4.89
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.89
Challenge4.13
Questions4.76
Nora Want 19 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.05
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect4.95
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.85
Questions4.85
Andrew Harding 68 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
68 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.48
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.55
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.71
Inclusivity3.61
Grading4.54
Reflection4.69
Respect4.82
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.76
Questions4.89
Luke Hendricks 13 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.97
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity4.00
Grading3.73
Reflection4.33
Respect4.63
Creativity4.13
Feedback4.58
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.72
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.