Course record LING
LING 1020
Languages of the World
University of Colorado Boulder
984 grades23 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score17/100
Needs work
Aous A Mansouri 411 grades · 1 term 3.10GPA
411 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mansouri vs. the course average
A
+10.1
B
−4.6
C
−2.8
D
−2.4
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
9.7% withdrew · 44 of 455 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
268 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.16
Collaboration3.63
Connection4.38
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.17
Inclusivity4.63
Grading3.94
Reflection4.33
Respect4.79
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.77
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.51
Questions4.87
Evan Hugh Coles-Harris 192 grades · 1 term 3.01GPA
192 letter grades
Compare with the course
Coles-Harris vs. the course average
A
+1.2
B
+2.8
C
−3.0
D
+0.3
F
−1.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 6 of 198 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
59 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.40
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.10
Reflection4.50
Respect4.70
Creativity4.40
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Ambrocio Gutierrez Lorenzo 58 grades · 1 term 2.98GPA
58 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lorenzo vs. the course average
A
−6.7
B
+12.4
C
−3.1
D
+1.1
F
−3.8
Difference in percentage points.
14.7% withdrew · 10 of 68 enrolled.
Overall3.60 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.20
Connection3.80
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.20
Grading3.20
Reflection3.70
Respect4.40
Creativity3.30
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.70
Questions4.00
James Andrew Cowell 237 grades · 1 term 2.83GPA
237 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cowell vs. the course average
A
−7.1
B
+5.8
C
+0.4
D
+1.8
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
9.2% withdrew · 24 of 261 enrolled.
Overall3.87 / 5
126 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology3.97
Synthesis4.18
Collaboration3.07
Connection4.56
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity4.86
Grading4.14
Reflection4.28
Respect4.76
Creativity3.97
Feedback3.73
Interaction4.46
Challenge4.46
Questions4.54
Hannah Haynie 86 grades · 1 term 2.04GPA
86 letter grades
Compare with the course
Haynie vs. the course average
A
−27.2
B
−8.7
C
+20.9
D
+5.3
F
+9.6
Difference in percentage points.
13.1% withdrew · 13 of 99 enrolled.
Overall2.93 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology3.40
Synthesis2.70
Collaboration2.00
Connection3.40
Contribution3.00
Discussion3.30
Inclusivity3.80
Grading2.70
Reflection3.00
Respect4.10
Creativity2.60
Feedback2.00
Interaction3.40
Challenge3.10
Questions3.20
Jared W. Desjardins 67 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
67 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.43
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.29
Connection3.80
Contribution3.62
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.18
Reflection3.62
Respect4.89
Creativity3.76
Feedback4.11
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.43
Questions4.70
Marielle Moraine Butters 19 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.51
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.13
Contribution4.06
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity4.59
Grading4.09
Reflection4.48
Respect4.98
Creativity4.12
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.07
Questions4.73
Aleksei Tsykarev 35 reported responses 3.59Eval / 5
Overall3.59 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.57
Technology3.92
Synthesis3.62
Collaboration3.35
Connection3.44
Contribution3.82
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.88
Grading3.30
Reflection3.53
Respect4.38
Creativity3.58
Feedback3.33
Interaction4.09
Challenge4.02
Questions3.80
Kathryn Summerville Conger 34 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.59
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.37
Connection4.54
Contribution4.42
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.64
Reflection4.46
Respect4.92
Creativity4.28
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.48
Questions4.80
Andrew Ting 32 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.75
Connection4.26
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.66
Grading4.55
Reflection4.38
Respect4.99
Creativity4.19
Feedback4.66
Interaction3.98
Challenge4.37
Questions4.77
Rebecca Wheeler 12 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.50
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
Justin Bai 52 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.30
Connection4.30
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.00
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.40
Questions4.20
Merlin Caitlin Ramsey 51 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.30
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.40
Reflection4.30
Respect4.50
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.30
Questions4.60
Rebekah Michelle Tozier 60 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.41
Collaboration4.02
Connection4.38
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.35
Grading4.32
Reflection4.53
Respect4.85
Creativity4.12
Feedback4.58
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.71
Questions4.65
Mae Zuo Wang Cosgrove 7 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.90
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity3.30
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.70
Challenge3.90
Questions4.90
Natalie Marie Grothues 19 reported responses 3.89Eval / 5
Overall3.89 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.79
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.78
Collaboration1.08
Connection3.57
Contribution3.71
Discussion2.83
Inclusivity3.50
Grading3.45
Reflection3.84
Respect3.70
Creativity3.95
Feedback3.15
Interaction3.22
Challenge3.62
Questions4.01
Patrick Das 75 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
75 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.16
Collaboration4.06
Connection4.37
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity4.66
Grading4.71
Reflection4.60
Respect4.75
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.69
Questions4.69
Shay Sullivan 11 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.05
Connection4.50
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.15
Reflection4.90
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.75
Questions4.65
Min-Chun Hsiao 40 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.56
Technology4.06
Synthesis4.02
Collaboration3.12
Connection4.01
Contribution4.04
Discussion4.06
Inclusivity4.03
Grading3.11
Reflection3.59
Respect4.98
Creativity3.55
Feedback3.12
Interaction4.07
Challenge3.59
Questions4.96
Benet Post 60 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.28
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration4.42
Connection4.22
Contribution4.44
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.59
Grading4.25
Reflection4.68
Respect4.67
Creativity4.45
Feedback3.96
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.54
Questions4.72
Taylor Cassiani 23 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.53
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.70
Reflection4.73
Respect4.87
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.77
Questions4.87
Gayatri Oke 8 reported responses 4.16Eval / 5
Overall4.16 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.00
Contribution4.95
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.00
Reflection4.80
Respect4.30
Creativity4.15
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.15
Challenge4.30
Questions4.30
Sofi Shimon Mackler 7 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.35
Technology4.75
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.15
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.65
Grading3.75
Reflection4.35
Respect4.85
Creativity3.15
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.10
Questions4.90
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.