Course record MATH
MATH 1112
Mathematical Analysis in Business
University of Colorado Boulder
8,040 grades38 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score19/100
Needs work
Camila D Friedman-Gerlicz 25 grades · 1 term 3.36GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Friedman-Gerlicz vs. the course average
A
+14.5
B
+0.4
C
−9.1
D
−4.7
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
7.4% withdrew · 2 of 27 enrolled.
Amna G Esayah 234 grades · 1 term 3.26GPA
234 letter grades
Compare with the course
Esayah vs. the course average
A
+10.6
B
−2.7
C
−3.3
D
−1.7
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 3 of 237 enrolled.
Overall4.41 / 5
286 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.04
Connection4.32
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.78
Grading4.60
Reflection4.36
Respect4.62
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.16
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.59
Questions4.72
Nicholas A Matteo 327 grades · 1 term 3.22GPA
327 letter grades
Compare with the course
Matteo vs. the course average
A
+9.6
B
−3.5
C
−3.0
D
−0.7
F
−2.3
Difference in percentage points.
4.1% withdrew · 14 of 341 enrolled.
Overall3.78 / 5
109 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.71
Technology4.51
Synthesis3.74
Collaboration4.12
Connection4.05
Contribution3.34
Discussion3.72
Inclusivity2.75
Grading4.21
Reflection3.78
Respect3.89
Creativity3.93
Feedback3.22
Interaction4.08
Challenge4.16
Questions4.03
Daniel Moritz 162 grades · 1 term 3.16GPA
162 letter grades
Compare with the course
Moritz vs. the course average
A
+1.7
B
+3.9
C
−0.8
D
−1.0
F
−3.8
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 9 of 171 enrolled.
Overall4.22 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration4.28
Connection4.12
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.38
Grading4.38
Reflection4.61
Respect4.50
Creativity4.09
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.48
Challenge4.71
Questions4.59
Michael B Noyes 622 grades · 1 term 3.16GPA
622 letter grades
Compare with the course
Noyes vs. the course average
A
+5.4
B
−0.9
C
−1.2
D
−1.6
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 16 of 638 enrolled.
Overall4.21 / 5
226 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.96
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.19
Reflection4.11
Respect4.09
Creativity4.77
Feedback3.87
Interaction4.68
Challenge4.78
Questions4.77
Jacob Tyler Harper 719 grades · 1 term 3.15GPA
719 letter grades
Compare with the course
Harper vs. the course average
A
+5.8
B
−1.8
C
−2.0
D
−1.2
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.2% withdrew · 24 of 743 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
378 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.28
Technology4.91
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.04
Connection4.22
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.75
Reflection4.56
Respect4.77
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.42
Challenge4.73
Questions4.95
Champ Davis 99 grades · 1 term 3.15GPA
99 letter grades
Compare with the course
Davis vs. the course average
A
+11.0
B
−8.3
C
−2.0
D
+0.4
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 5 of 104 enrolled.
Overall4.28 / 5
120 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.21
Connection4.33
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.49
Reflection4.35
Respect4.49
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.04
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.46
Questions4.46
Zachary Joseph Garvey 692 grades · 1 term 3.13GPA
692 letter grades
Compare with the course
Garvey vs. the course average
A
+3.4
B
+0.4
C
−1.3
D
−1.1
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.9% withdrew · 28 of 720 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
262 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.53
Contribution4.11
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.75
Grading4.62
Reflection4.51
Respect4.41
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.18
Interaction4.18
Challenge4.69
Questions4.75
Lucas Estevan Quintero Fanucchi 226 grades · 1 term 3.08GPA
226 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fanucchi vs. the course average
A
+5.4
B
−2.4
C
−2.5
D
−1.1
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 7 of 233 enrolled.
Overall3.48 / 5
92 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.18
Technology4.01
Synthesis3.37
Collaboration3.63
Connection3.67
Contribution2.89
Discussion3.72
Inclusivity2.60
Grading3.95
Reflection3.69
Respect4.05
Creativity3.54
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.02
Challenge3.63
Questions3.89
Bahareh Momken 838 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
838 letter grades
Compare with the course
Momken vs. the course average
A
+2.2
B
−0.4
C
−0.7
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 42 of 880 enrolled.
Overall4.06 / 5
355 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.48
Synthesis3.71
Collaboration2.83
Connection3.93
Contribution3.34
Discussion3.81
Inclusivity2.54
Grading4.07
Reflection3.83
Respect3.52
Creativity3.94
Feedback3.10
Interaction3.66
Challenge4.24
Questions4.02
Andrew M Stocker 233 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
233 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stocker vs. the course average
A
−1.2
B
+0.9
C
+3.2
D
+0.5
F
−3.4
Difference in percentage points.
0.4% withdrew · 1 of 234 enrolled.
Overall4.08 / 5
117 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.69
Synthesis3.96
Collaboration3.11
Connection4.34
Contribution3.68
Discussion4.19
Inclusivity3.37
Grading4.44
Reflection4.30
Respect4.15
Creativity4.48
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.05
Challenge4.43
Questions4.37
James W Ogaja 254 grades · 1 term 3.06GPA
254 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ogaja vs. the course average
A
−0.2
B
+0.6
C
+1.4
D
−0.7
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 4 of 258 enrolled.
Overall3.56 / 5
65 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.51
Technology3.91
Synthesis3.72
Collaboration3.28
Connection3.99
Contribution3.37
Discussion3.68
Inclusivity2.84
Grading3.74
Reflection3.52
Respect3.91
Creativity3.37
Feedback2.79
Interaction3.82
Challenge3.40
Questions3.84
Jaekang Lee 172 grades · 1 term 3.06GPA
172 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A
−5.5
B
+9.7
C
−1.5
D
−1.2
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
2.3% withdrew · 4 of 176 enrolled.
Overall3.57 / 5
69 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.57
Technology4.38
Synthesis3.86
Collaboration3.62
Connection3.82
Contribution3.20
Discussion3.73
Inclusivity3.51
Grading4.44
Reflection4.01
Respect4.11
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.12
Interaction4.15
Challenge4.10
Questions3.98
Sandra S Williams 102 grades · 1 term 3.03GPA
102 letter grades
Compare with the course
Williams vs. the course average
A
−10.1
B
+14.4
C
+0.6
D
−1.7
F
−3.1
Difference in percentage points.
7.3% withdrew · 8 of 110 enrolled.
Overall3.80 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.47
Technology3.81
Synthesis3.47
Collaboration3.11
Connection3.31
Contribution3.26
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.18
Grading3.84
Reflection3.79
Respect3.25
Creativity3.67
Feedback3.58
Interaction3.64
Challenge3.67
Questions3.70
Michael D Roy 864 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
864 letter grades
Compare with the course
Roy vs. the course average
A
−1.2
B
−0.2
C
+1.4
D
−0.4
F
+0.4
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 49 of 913 enrolled.
Overall4.10 / 5
440 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.62
Technology4.56
Synthesis3.74
Collaboration3.96
Connection4.17
Contribution3.46
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity3.09
Grading4.27
Reflection4.02
Respect4.22
Creativity4.01
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.36
Challenge4.12
Questions4.63
Anthony Gene Wilkie 284 grades · 1 term 2.95GPA
284 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wilkie vs. the course average
A
−4.2
B
same
C
+3.4
D
+3.1
F
−2.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 10 of 294 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
122 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.08
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration4.14
Connection4.16
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity3.58
Grading4.33
Reflection4.44
Respect4.57
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.59
Questions4.71
Mitsuru Wilson 26 grades · 1 term 2.93GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wilson vs. the course average
A
−10.7
B
+10.5
C
+2.3
D
−0.8
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.
Michelle Ann Randolph 385 grades · 1 term 2.90GPA
385 letter grades
Compare with the course
Randolph vs. the course average
A
+0.3
B
−4.4
C
+0.1
D
+1.0
F
+3.0
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 23 of 408 enrolled.
Overall3.57 / 5
110 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.97
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.22
Collaboration3.12
Connection3.60
Contribution3.05
Discussion3.83
Inclusivity2.55
Grading3.56
Reflection3.25
Respect3.89
Creativity3.59
Feedback3.15
Interaction3.38
Challenge3.65
Questions3.70
Joseph Benjamin Timmer 137 grades · 1 term 2.90GPA
137 letter grades
Compare with the course
Timmer vs. the course average
A
−1.4
B
−7.9
C
+8.8
D
+0.4
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
8.7% withdrew · 13 of 150 enrolled.
Overall3.54 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.57
Technology4.33
Synthesis3.77
Collaboration3.65
Connection4.07
Contribution3.46
Discussion4.11
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.42
Reflection3.27
Respect4.15
Creativity3.93
Feedback3.51
Interaction4.03
Challenge4.06
Questions4.44
Julia Victoria Truman 26 grades · 1 term 2.90GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Truman vs. the course average
A
−18.4
B
+22.1
C
−5.4
D
+3.0
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 26 enrolled.
Overall2.94 / 5
59 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.96
Technology3.54
Synthesis3.09
Collaboration3.78
Connection3.28
Contribution2.68
Discussion3.43
Inclusivity2.51
Grading3.23
Reflection3.21
Respect3.07
Creativity3.00
Feedback2.71
Interaction3.46
Challenge3.28
Questions3.44
Yamir Elena Carvajal-Bakke 417 grades · 1 term 2.86GPA
417 letter grades
Compare with the course
Carvajal-Bakke vs. the course average
A
−5.3
B
−0.4
C
+1.3
D
+1.8
F
+2.6
Difference in percentage points.
7.3% withdrew · 33 of 450 enrolled.
Overall3.75 / 5
195 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.61
Technology4.13
Synthesis3.74
Collaboration2.70
Connection3.83
Contribution3.24
Discussion3.91
Inclusivity2.97
Grading3.98
Reflection3.83
Respect4.10
Creativity3.85
Feedback3.19
Interaction3.61
Challenge4.08
Questions3.76
Patrick Thaxton Newberry 183 grades · 1 term 2.83GPA
183 letter grades
Compare with the course
Newberry vs. the course average
A
−6.5
B
−1.2
C
+3.3
D
+1.9
F
+2.6
Difference in percentage points.
5.7% withdrew · 11 of 194 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
119 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration4.17
Connection4.53
Contribution4.29
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity3.65
Grading4.63
Reflection4.59
Respect4.75
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.34
Challenge4.78
Questions4.82
Elizabeth L. Goggin 272 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
272 letter grades
Compare with the course
Goggin vs. the course average
A
−8.4
B
+4.1
C
−2.1
D
+1.6
F
+4.9
Difference in percentage points.
8.7% withdrew · 26 of 298 enrolled.
Alexandru Nita 168 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
168 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nita vs. the course average
A
−12.9
B
+7.8
C
−0.6
D
+2.5
F
+3.3
Difference in percentage points.
9.7% withdrew · 18 of 186 enrolled.
Euijin Hong 76 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
76 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hong vs. the course average
A
−15.2
B
+3.9
C
+7.9
D
+0.6
F
+2.8
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 1 of 77 enrolled.
Overall3.39 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.77
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.27
Collaboration2.87
Connection3.33
Contribution2.70
Discussion3.67
Inclusivity2.17
Grading3.87
Reflection3.33
Respect4.17
Creativity3.27
Feedback2.43
Interaction4.03
Challenge3.53
Questions3.80
Zahra Ibrahim Khalifa 113 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
113 letter grades
Compare with the course
Khalifa vs. the course average
A
−8.8
B
−1.1
C
+2.8
D
+3.3
F
+3.8
Difference in percentage points.
5.0% withdrew · 6 of 119 enrolled.
Overall4.17 / 5
359 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.68
Technology4.77
Synthesis3.85
Collaboration3.67
Connection4.15
Contribution3.57
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.72
Grading4.51
Reflection4.19
Respect4.48
Creativity4.13
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.29
Challenge4.43
Questions4.69
Derek J Eby 302 grades · 1 term 2.71GPA
302 letter grades
Compare with the course
Eby vs. the course average
A
−12.0
B
+3.1
C
+2.4
D
+3.3
F
+3.2
Difference in percentage points.
12.0% withdrew · 41 of 343 enrolled.
Overall3.72 / 5
87 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.04
Technology4.43
Synthesis3.57
Collaboration2.63
Connection4.14
Contribution3.35
Discussion4.19
Inclusivity2.61
Grading4.22
Reflection4.09
Respect4.04
Creativity3.85
Feedback3.40
Interaction3.79
Challenge4.24
Questions4.18
Zabedah Binti Saad M.S. 45 grades · 1 term 2.35GPA
45 letter grades
Compare with the course
M.S. vs. the course average
A
−23.7
B
+11.1
C
−6.5
D
+4.2
F
+14.9
Difference in percentage points.
10.0% withdrew · 5 of 50 enrolled.
Kevin W Manley 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.02GPA
23 letter grades · Limited sample
11.5% withdrew · 3 of 26 enrolled.
Christal Jane Aquinto 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 1.59GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
12.5% withdrew · 2 of 16 enrolled.
Overall3.83 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration2.00
Connection4.50
Contribution2.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity1.00
Grading4.00
Reflection3.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction2.00
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Elizabeth Lee Grulke 118 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5
118 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.59
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration3.48
Connection4.26
Contribution3.58
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity3.06
Grading4.47
Reflection3.85
Respect4.44
Creativity3.87
Feedback3.46
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.36
Questions4.42
Sarah Salmon 3 reported responses 3.27Eval / 5
Overall3.27 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.70
Technology3.30
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection2.30
Contribution3.70
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity1.00
Grading3.30
Reflection3.70
Respect3.70
Creativity3.00
Feedback2.70
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.00
Questions3.70
Alexander Nita 32 reported responses 3.56Eval / 5
Overall3.56 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.03
Technology3.73
Synthesis3.13
Collaboration2.79
Connection3.43
Contribution3.16
Discussion3.31
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.10
Reflection3.79
Respect4.08
Creativity4.09
Feedback3.11
Interaction3.89
Challenge4.48
Questions3.62
Zabedah Binti Saad 51 reported responses 3.64Eval / 5
Overall3.64 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.74
Technology3.64
Synthesis3.64
Collaboration2.53
Connection3.95
Contribution3.09
Discussion3.84
Inclusivity2.93
Grading3.89
Reflection3.98
Respect3.43
Creativity4.06
Feedback3.11
Interaction3.38
Challenge3.87
Questions3.65
Delphy Tsuyuko Shaulis 6 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.39
Synthesis3.65
Collaboration2.41
Connection3.80
Contribution3.71
Discussion3.94
Inclusivity3.09
Grading4.39
Reflection3.91
Respect3.46
Creativity4.39
Feedback3.64
Interaction3.20
Challenge4.09
Questions4.24
Erik Royd Feirin Knutsen 65 reported responses 3.66Eval / 5
Overall3.66 / 5
65 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.15
Technology4.06
Synthesis3.37
Collaboration3.35
Connection3.25
Contribution2.75
Discussion3.82
Inclusivity2.27
Grading3.80
Reflection3.25
Respect4.09
Creativity3.46
Feedback3.10
Interaction3.97
Challenge3.37
Questions4.10
Patrick Michael Wynne 54 reported responses 4.23Eval / 5
Overall4.23 / 5
54 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.32
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.58
Reflection4.22
Respect4.72
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.56
Questions4.67
Jonathan Adam Belcher 65 reported responses 4.06Eval / 5
Overall4.06 / 5
65 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.86
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration3.53
Connection4.34
Contribution3.29
Discussion4.41
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.36
Reflection4.03
Respect4.55
Creativity4.37
Feedback3.86
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.70
Questions4.43
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.