Course record LAWS
LAWS 6708
LAWS
University of Colorado Boulder
106 grades25 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score60/100
Strong
Peter Anderson 31 grades · 1 term 3.50GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Anderson vs. the course average
A
+5.8
B
−4.8
C
−0.9
D
same
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 31 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration3.95
Connection4.91
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity3.71
Grading4.48
Reflection4.55
Respect4.91
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.86
Questions4.98
Steven Charles Silverman 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.59GPA
12 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 12 enrolled.
Overall4.88 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.98
Technology4.98
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.97
Connection4.99
Contribution4.99
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.98
Reflection4.98
Respect4.94
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.98
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.99
Questions4.99
Heidi K Ruckriegle 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.51GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 11 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.50
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.50
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.30
Andrea Christine Maciejewski 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.51GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 11 enrolled.
Overall4.66 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.48
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration4.06
Connection5.00
Contribution4.82
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.48
Reflection4.80
Respect4.82
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.98
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.81
Questions4.94
Nadav Orian Peer 21 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.49GPA
21 letter grades · Limited sample
4.5% withdrew · 1 of 22 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.51
Connection4.27
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity3.33
Grading3.28
Reflection4.17
Respect4.81
Creativity4.14
Feedback3.82
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.26
Questions4.62
Roberto Ramirez 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.45GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.
Overall3.59 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.50
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.30
Grading2.70
Reflection3.60
Respect4.30
Creativity4.00
Feedback2.60
Interaction4.60
Challenge3.40
Questions4.10
Tiffany A. Todd 2 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Stephen James Anaya 3 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Kelly Twigger 5 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.70
Grading2.60
Reflection4.00
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback1.80
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions3.80
Daria Roithmayr 24 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.96
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.91
Connection4.84
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.91
Grading4.21
Reflection4.94
Respect4.55
Creativity4.63
Feedback3.81
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.81
Questions4.54
Margot E Kaminski 20 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.60
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge5.00
Questions4.20
Vanessa Racehorse 8 reported responses 4.84Eval / 5
Overall4.84 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.90
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.80
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Jonathon Booth 10 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.90
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.90
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.90
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Douglas Spencer 8 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.91
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.91
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.86
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.95
Feedback4.68
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.95
Questions5.00
Leigh Le Augustine-Schlossinger 20 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration4.49
Connection4.93
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.48
Grading4.55
Reflection4.47
Respect4.69
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.57
Questions4.92
Gabrielle Marks Stafford 39 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.86
Connection4.82
Contribution4.89
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.24
Reflection4.89
Respect4.85
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.79
Questions4.71
Michael Whitlow 15 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.51
Collaboration4.68
Connection4.81
Contribution4.83
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.10
Reflection4.74
Respect4.91
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.74
Questions4.88
Shannon Elizabeth Foley 6 reported responses 4.93Eval / 5
Overall4.93 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
William Scott Johns 6 reported responses 4.93Eval / 5
Overall4.93 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Paul F Campos 9 reported responses 4.98Eval / 5
Overall4.98 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.90
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.90
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Adam Sopko 14 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.90
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.20
Reflection4.90
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Andrew Shoemaker 5 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.20
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Jennifer L Sullivan 5 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.50
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.20
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Mason S Liddell 2 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Todd Stafford 3 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.30
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.70
Reflection4.30
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback3.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.30
Questions4.70
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.