Course record MATH
MATH 1012
Quantitative Reasoning and Mathematical Skills
University of Colorado Boulder
3,607 grades24 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score28/100
Below average
Matthew H Pass 858 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
858 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pass vs. the course average
A
+16.0
B
−3.5
C
−7.5
D
−2.4
F
−2.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.2% withdrew · 10 of 868 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
451 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.48
Technology4.74
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.22
Connection4.76
Contribution4.38
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.72
Reflection4.48
Respect4.74
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.54
Questions4.90
Michelle Ann Randolph 65 grades · 1 term 3.48GPA
65 letter grades
Compare with the course
Randolph vs. the course average
A
+14.1
B
−0.2
C
−12.2
D
−1.6
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 65 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.65
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.45
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.65
Grading4.70
Reflection4.25
Respect4.75
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.35
Questions4.85
Anthony Gene Wilkie 141 grades · 1 term 3.40GPA
141 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wilkie vs. the course average
A
+17.1
B
−9.1
C
−8.0
D
−0.3
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 5 of 146 enrolled.
Overall4.23 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.19
Technology4.62
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.27
Contribution3.89
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity3.74
Grading4.29
Reflection4.38
Respect4.65
Creativity4.01
Feedback3.99
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.35
Questions4.66
Martha Marie Rooney 591 grades · 1 term 3.33GPA
591 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rooney vs. the course average
A
+11.1
B
−8.2
C
−1.0
D
−1.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 21 of 612 enrolled.
Overall4.01 / 5
215 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.43
Technology4.11
Synthesis3.16
Collaboration3.03
Connection3.44
Contribution3.33
Discussion3.88
Inclusivity2.98
Grading4.37
Reflection3.91
Respect3.77
Creativity3.40
Feedback4.34
Interaction3.76
Challenge3.93
Questions4.40
Mengxiao Sun 336 grades · 1 term 3.30GPA
336 letter grades
Compare with the course
Sun vs. the course average
A
+6.5
B
+0.5
C
−5.4
D
−1.9
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 14 of 350 enrolled.
Overall4.16 / 5
69 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.62
Collaboration2.60
Connection3.93
Contribution3.25
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity2.93
Grading4.39
Reflection4.07
Respect4.56
Creativity3.91
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.01
Challenge3.99
Questions4.51
Catherine Pfeiffer Moody 66 grades · 1 term 3.26GPA
66 letter grades
Compare with the course
Moody vs. the course average
A
−2.0
B
+8.4
C
−1.6
D
−1.6
F
−3.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 66 enrolled.
Overall4.11 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.69
Synthesis3.92
Collaboration3.34
Connection4.61
Contribution3.51
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity3.44
Grading4.36
Reflection4.27
Respect4.44
Creativity4.26
Feedback4.01
Interaction3.51
Challenge4.60
Questions4.86
Michael J Daniel 93 grades · 1 term 3.22GPA
93 letter grades
Compare with the course
Daniel vs. the course average
A
−1.2
B
+0.8
C
+4.6
D
−1.0
F
−3.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.1% withdrew · 2 of 95 enrolled.
Daniel Moritz 59 grades · 1 term 3.10GPA
59 letter grades
Compare with the course
Moritz vs. the course average
A
−10.1
B
+11.5
C
+1.5
D
+0.3
F
−3.2
Difference in percentage points.
9.2% withdrew · 6 of 65 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
49 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology3.97
Synthesis2.81
Collaboration3.62
Connection3.53
Contribution3.18
Discussion3.93
Inclusivity3.87
Grading3.96
Reflection3.63
Respect3.43
Creativity4.45
Feedback3.75
Interaction3.91
Challenge4.49
Questions3.59
Michael B Noyes 69 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
69 letter grades
Compare with the course
Noyes vs. the course average
A
−11.2
B
+12.4
C
−2.1
D
−0.2
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 69 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.60
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.65
Reflection4.65
Respect4.80
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Joel Ron Ornstein 30 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ornstein vs. the course average
A
−4.1
B
+0.8
C
+2.9
D
+0.2
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
6.3% withdrew · 2 of 32 enrolled.
Nicholas A Matteo 179 grades · 1 term 2.94GPA
179 letter grades
Compare with the course
Matteo vs. the course average
A
−13.3
B
+7.1
C
+5.3
D
+0.8
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 10 of 189 enrolled.
Overall4.37 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.14
Collaboration4.42
Connection4.38
Contribution4.46
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity3.88
Grading4.44
Reflection4.44
Respect4.75
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.38
Questions4.49
Anne Shor 123 grades · 1 term 2.94GPA
123 letter grades
Compare with the course
Shor vs. the course average
A
−15.7
B
+13.0
C
+0.9
D
−0.7
F
+2.4
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 3 of 126 enrolled.
Overall3.96 / 5
77 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.58
Synthesis4.39
Collaboration3.52
Connection4.73
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.03
Reflection4.32
Respect4.70
Creativity4.32
Feedback3.88
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.47
Questions4.67
Diana L Maggiore 805 grades · 1 term 2.81GPA
805 letter grades
Compare with the course
Maggiore vs. the course average
A
−16.4
B
+4.3
C
+7.3
D
+2.2
F
+2.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 40 of 845 enrolled.
Overall4.14 / 5
617 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.58
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration4.34
Connection4.58
Contribution4.02
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.23
Grading4.24
Reflection4.12
Respect4.57
Creativity4.17
Feedback4.16
Interaction4.46
Challenge4.26
Questions4.52
Taylor Joseph Klotz 28 grades · 1 term 2.63GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Klotz vs. the course average
A
−18.8
B
−3.9
C
+18.4
D
+0.5
F
+3.9
Difference in percentage points.
9.7% withdrew · 3 of 31 enrolled.
Overall3.64 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.40
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.60
Grading3.10
Reflection3.60
Respect4.80
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.10
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.70
Questions4.20
Daniel Omar Vargas-Rosario 61 grades · 1 term 2.40GPA
61 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vargas-Rosario vs. the course average
A
−31.0
B
+1.9
C
+14.1
D
+11.6
F
+3.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.2% withdrew · 2 of 63 enrolled.
Overall3.67 / 5
63 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.58
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.53
Collaboration3.75
Connection3.69
Contribution3.32
Discussion4.12
Inclusivity3.54
Grading3.95
Reflection3.57
Respect4.27
Creativity3.96
Feedback3.51
Interaction4.31
Challenge3.96
Questions4.14
Elizabeth Scott-Janda 76 grades · 1 term 2.32GPA
76 letter grades
Compare with the course
Scott-Janda vs. the course average
A
−40.8
B
+8.3
C
+21.8
D
+8.7
F
+2.0
Difference in percentage points.
6.2% withdrew · 5 of 81 enrolled.
Overall2.70 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.66
Technology2.07
Synthesis2.23
Collaboration3.57
Connection3.17
Contribution2.38
Discussion2.84
Inclusivity2.57
Grading2.21
Reflection2.74
Respect2.83
Creativity2.63
Feedback2.53
Interaction3.38
Challenge2.41
Questions2.54
Corey Francis Lyons 27 grades · 1 term 1.87GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lyons vs. the course average
A
−40.0
B
−6.6
C
+19.6
D
+15.4
F
+11.6
Difference in percentage points.
6.9% withdrew · 2 of 29 enrolled.
Overall3.87 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration3.50
Connection3.20
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.30
Reflection3.50
Respect4.80
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.70
Questions4.30
Mathew H Pass 98 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
98 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.68
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.59
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect4.75
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.64
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.91
Catherine Pfeiffer Whitehead 88 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5
88 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.88
Synthesis3.89
Collaboration2.19
Connection4.71
Contribution3.28
Discussion3.86
Inclusivity3.59
Grading4.73
Reflection4.19
Respect4.71
Creativity4.31
Feedback4.11
Interaction3.69
Challenge4.56
Questions4.56
Maya Ornstein 10 reported responses 3.36Eval / 5
Overall3.36 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration3.10
Connection3.80
Contribution2.70
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.40
Reflection3.00
Respect4.50
Creativity3.60
Feedback2.60
Interaction3.90
Challenge2.90
Questions3.90
Derek J Eby 15 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.25
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.05
Grading4.05
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.30
Questions4.60
Tatsuya Akiba 13 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.60
Reflection4.50
Respect4.55
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Sam Reeder 4 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.50
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.20
Reflection3.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Yamir Elena Carvajal-Bakke 11 reported responses 4.03Eval / 5
Overall4.03 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.50
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.20
Reflection3.80
Respect4.50
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.30
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.