Course record LEAD
LEAD 1000
Becoming a Leader
University of Colorado Boulder
2,238 grades33 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score69/100
Strong
Christina Marie Chambers 27 grades · 1 term 3.94GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chambers vs. the course average
A
+19.9
B
−11.8
C
−5.1
D
−1.4
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.22 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.20
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.90
Reflection4.20
Respect4.90
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Erin Roman Kurtz 47 grades · 1 term 3.81GPA
47 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kurtz vs. the course average
A
+10.8
B
−4.9
C
−5.1
D
−1.4
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 47 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration4.62
Connection4.85
Contribution4.82
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.38
Reflection4.52
Respect4.92
Creativity4.09
Feedback3.88
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.62
Questions4.12
Elaina Marie Verveer 126 grades · 1 term 3.73GPA
126 letter grades
Compare with the course
Verveer vs. the course average
A
+5.3
B
−6.0
C
+3.6
D
−1.4
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.8% withdrew · 1 of 127 enrolled.
Overall4.79 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.98
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.36
Connection4.98
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.95
Reflection4.98
Respect4.85
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.91
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.78
Questions4.98
Chelsea Lee Hackett 232 grades · 1 term 3.69GPA
232 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hackett vs. the course average
A
+3.3
B
+0.8
C
−2.5
D
−1.4
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
0.9% withdrew · 2 of 234 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
151 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.67
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.67
Contribution4.74
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.76
Reflection4.64
Respect4.85
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.66
Questions4.85
Cherell M Johnson 31 grades · 1 term 3.68GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Johnson vs. the course average
A
−2.2
B
+3.8
C
+1.4
D
−1.4
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
11.4% withdrew · 4 of 35 enrolled.
Overall4.77 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.85
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.80
Reflection4.70
Respect4.85
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.85
Walt S Morgan 289 grades · 1 term 3.66GPA
289 letter grades
Compare with the course
Morgan vs. the course average
A
+5.3
B
−4.1
C
−0.6
D
−0.7
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 7 of 296 enrolled.
Kira Leanne Pasquesi 385 grades · 1 term 3.65GPA
385 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pasquesi vs. the course average
A
same
B
+2.1
C
−1.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.3% withdrew · 9 of 394 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
163 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.97
Synthesis4.86
Collaboration4.31
Connection4.95
Contribution4.96
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.97
Reflection4.97
Respect4.96
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.96
Questions4.67
Christopher John Coker 32 grades · 1 term 3.64GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Coker vs. the course average
A
−1.4
B
+0.1
C
+4.3
D
−1.4
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 32 enrolled.
Jennifer Allison Korbelik 389 grades · 1 term 3.62GPA
389 letter grades
Compare with the course
Korbelik vs. the course average
A
+2.0
B
−3.0
C
+0.6
D
+0.7
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 10 of 399 enrolled.
Overall4.71 / 5
179 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.72
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.67
Connection4.82
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.61
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.58
Reflection4.80
Respect4.88
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.79
Questions4.75
Jessie Lee Kasynski 29 grades · 1 term 3.61GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kasynski vs. the course average
A
−0.5
B
+1.7
C
−5.1
D
+5.5
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.80
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.47
Reflection4.71
Respect4.58
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.72
Questions4.71
Emily Elizabeth-Allen Walsh 87 grades · 1 term 3.56GPA
87 letter grades
Compare with the course
Walsh vs. the course average
A
−5.1
B
+7.4
C
−0.5
D
−0.2
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.1% withdrew · 1 of 88 enrolled.
Anna Dora Deese 130 grades · 1 term 3.54GPA
130 letter grades
Compare with the course
Deese vs. the course average
A
+2.8
B
−4.8
C
−1.2
D
+2.5
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 130 enrolled.
Overall4.83 / 5
62 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.79
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.83
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.88
Grading4.83
Reflection4.85
Respect4.90
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.93
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.83
Questions4.91
Jaclyn Ann Abeloe 87 grades · 1 term 3.53GPA
87 letter grades
Compare with the course
Abeloe vs. the course average
A
−2.8
B
+4.0
C
−0.5
D
−1.4
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 87 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
57 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.84
Connection4.66
Contribution4.46
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.82
Grading4.66
Reflection4.54
Respect4.58
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.71
Questions4.79
Jessica Lynne Morris 118 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
118 letter grades
Compare with the course
Morris vs. the course average
A
−8.6
B
+7.3
C
+0.8
D
+0.3
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 3 of 121 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
65 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.37
Connection4.87
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.44
Reflection4.79
Respect4.77
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.36
Questions4.53
Allison N Van Buskirk 177 grades · 1 term 3.39GPA
177 letter grades
Compare with the course
Buskirk vs. the course average
A
−10.9
B
+3.1
C
+4.5
D
+1.4
F
+1.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 5 of 182 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
83 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology4.24
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.16
Connection4.74
Contribution4.42
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.65
Reflection4.62
Respect4.76
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.53
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.45
Questions4.61
Loren Intolubbe-Chmil 32 grades · 1 term 2.98GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Intolubbe-Chmil vs. the course average
A
−20.2
B
+3.2
C
+4.3
D
+1.7
F
+10.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 32 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration4.52
Connection4.77
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.61
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.57
Reflection4.74
Respect4.77
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.77
Questions4.77
Kareem Kalil 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.14GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
9.1% withdrew · 2 of 22 enrolled.
Overall4.74 / 5
56 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.66
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.93
Connection4.74
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.84
Grading4.75
Reflection4.84
Respect4.86
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.94
Challenge4.74
Questions4.86
Walter Shaw Morgan 78 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
78 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.86
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.74
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.85
Contribution4.89
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.50
Reflection4.88
Respect4.78
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.73
Questions4.74
Jessica Lynne Kurtzman 15 reported responses 4.93Eval / 5
Overall4.93 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.80
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.90
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Emily Allen 72 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
72 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.88
Contribution4.71
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.79
Reflection4.92
Respect4.85
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.95
Questions4.97
Adam J York 6 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.30
Connection4.30
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.50
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Johanna B Maes 31 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration3.92
Connection4.83
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.15
Reflection4.83
Respect4.83
Creativity4.53
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.60
Questions4.55
Soraya Latiff 6 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.21
Technology3.49
Synthesis3.49
Collaboration3.10
Connection3.13
Contribution4.21
Discussion4.21
Inclusivity4.57
Grading3.85
Reflection3.85
Respect4.57
Creativity3.49
Feedback3.85
Interaction4.57
Challenge3.49
Questions3.85
Benjamin R Kirshner 120 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
120 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.74
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.76
Contribution4.64
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.76
Grading4.46
Reflection4.80
Respect4.75
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.66
Questions4.71
Ana Contreras 43 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.90
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.82
Grading4.45
Reflection4.72
Respect4.82
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.72
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.65
Questions4.75
Blanca E Trejo 20 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.00
Reflection4.60
Respect4.40
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.20
Questions4.70
Emily Gleason 30 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Jesse Peter Van Horne 15 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.95
Contribution4.85
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.35
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.90
Questions4.95
David D Callan 5 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.40
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.20
Questions4.20
Jessica Flores 11 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.90
Reflection3.90
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Roudy William Hildreth 13 reported responses 4.77Eval / 5
Overall4.77 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect4.70
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Betsy Buechler Mcintosh 13 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.50
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Maria Vielma 13 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.90
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.