Course record MATH
MATH 1212
Data and Models
University of Colorado Boulder
2,700 grades37 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score6/100
Needs work
Mitsuru Wilson 100 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
100 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wilson vs. the course average
A
+15.7
B
−3.5
C
−2.5
D
−7.2
F
−2.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 5 of 105 enrolled.
Bernard Gillett 67 grades · 1 term 3.02GPA
67 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gillett vs. the course average
A
+18.5
B
−8.1
C
−5.6
D
−3.2
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 4 of 71 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.23
Connection4.82
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity3.85
Grading4.57
Reflection4.84
Respect4.86
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.82
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.84
Questions4.93
Isabelle Kraus 31 grades · 1 term 2.92GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kraus vs. the course average
A
+12.4
B
−4.4
C
−7.1
D
+3.7
F
−4.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 1 of 32 enrolled.
Overall3.13 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.60
Technology3.70
Synthesis2.40
Collaboration4.10
Connection2.00
Contribution3.20
Discussion3.20
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.10
Reflection2.60
Respect3.90
Creativity2.90
Feedback2.70
Interaction4.20
Challenge2.80
Questions3.40
Andrew M Stocker 296 grades · 1 term 2.87GPA
296 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stocker vs. the course average
A
+10.2
B
−1.4
C
−2.8
D
−4.5
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 6 of 302 enrolled.
Overall4.16 / 5
167 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.89
Technology4.55
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.47
Connection3.40
Contribution4.08
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity3.49
Grading4.50
Reflection4.06
Respect4.70
Creativity4.09
Feedback3.81
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.26
Questions4.68
Jonathan Adam Belcher 106 grades · 1 term 2.86GPA
106 letter grades
Compare with the course
Belcher vs. the course average
A
+4.8
B
+0.5
C
−1.0
D
−0.7
F
−3.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 2 of 108 enrolled.
Zhanerke Temirgaliyeva 236 grades · 1 term 2.82GPA
236 letter grades
Compare with the course
Temirgaliyeva vs. the course average
A
+1.2
B
+6.3
C
−2.8
D
−3.3
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.1% withdrew · 10 of 246 enrolled.
Overall3.17 / 5
107 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.87
Technology3.35
Synthesis2.66
Collaboration3.88
Connection2.44
Contribution3.22
Discussion3.17
Inclusivity2.32
Grading3.09
Reflection3.24
Respect3.36
Creativity2.87
Feedback2.32
Interaction3.74
Challenge2.91
Questions3.13
Euijin Hong 950 grades · 1 term 2.69GPA
950 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hong vs. the course average
A
−0.3
B
+2.5
C
−0.5
D
−0.9
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 23 of 973 enrolled.
Overall3.70 / 5
517 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.27
Technology4.28
Synthesis3.17
Collaboration3.53
Connection2.77
Contribution3.06
Discussion3.87
Inclusivity2.81
Grading3.93
Reflection3.62
Respect4.46
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.40
Interaction3.77
Challenge3.77
Questions4.37
Chamila Ranaweera 25 grades · 1 term 2.68GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ranaweera vs. the course average
A
−14.3
B
+10.5
C
+17.5
D
−9.2
F
−4.6
Difference in percentage points.
13.8% withdrew · 4 of 29 enrolled.
Albert Bronstein 163 grades · 1 term 2.63GPA
163 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bronstein vs. the course average
A
+0.7
B
−1.0
C
−0.7
D
−1.8
F
+2.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 5 of 168 enrolled.
Overall3.00 / 5
74 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.34
Technology4.11
Synthesis3.58
Collaboration3.27
Connection2.66
Contribution2.99
Discussion3.42
Inclusivity2.52
Grading4.20
Reflection4.00
Respect4.29
Creativity3.56
Feedback2.84
Interaction4.15
Challenge3.62
Questions3.69
Taylor Joseph Klotz 33 grades · 1 term 2.60GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Klotz vs. the course average
A
−5.1
B
+2.9
C
+0.8
D
−3.1
F
+4.5
Difference in percentage points.
5.7% withdrew · 2 of 35 enrolled.
Overall3.28 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.60
Technology3.30
Synthesis2.80
Collaboration3.90
Connection2.40
Contribution3.10
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.00
Reflection3.30
Respect4.10
Creativity2.90
Feedback2.70
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.30
Questions3.70
Sandra S Williams 30 grades · 1 term 2.59GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Williams vs. the course average
A
+0.4
B
−0.1
C
−3.1
D
+0.8
F
+2.1
Difference in percentage points.
6.3% withdrew · 2 of 32 enrolled.
Overall3.52 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.30
Technology4.60
Synthesis2.50
Collaboration4.30
Connection2.50
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity1.90
Grading3.10
Reflection3.90
Respect4.00
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.10
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.60
Questions3.90
Adrian Edward Neff 32 grades · 1 term 2.59GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Neff vs. the course average
A
−4.4
B
−2.2
C
+7.9
D
+3.3
F
−4.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 1 of 33 enrolled.
Overall3.51 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.30
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.00
Contribution3.20
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.60
Reflection3.50
Respect4.20
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.10
Questions3.60
Divya E. Vernerey 60 grades · 1 term 2.57GPA
60 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vernerey vs. the course average
A
−1.3
B
+4.9
C
−9.8
D
+0.8
F
+5.4
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 3 of 63 enrolled.
Overall3.91 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.37
Technology3.92
Synthesis3.32
Collaboration4.34
Connection3.25
Contribution3.58
Discussion4.34
Inclusivity2.68
Grading3.92
Reflection4.03
Respect4.26
Creativity3.65
Feedback3.25
Interaction4.37
Challenge3.88
Questions3.51
Daniel Omar Vargas-Rosario 181 grades · 1 term 2.35GPA
181 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vargas-Rosario vs. the course average
A
−9.2
B
−3.6
C
+8.3
D
+3.5
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
5.2% withdrew · 10 of 191 enrolled.
Overall3.22 / 5
193 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.12
Technology3.85
Synthesis2.97
Collaboration3.60
Connection2.67
Contribution3.13
Discussion3.62
Inclusivity2.43
Grading3.61
Reflection3.57
Respect4.15
Creativity3.52
Feedback3.07
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.59
Questions3.99
Lifeng Han 84 grades · 1 term 2.30GPA
84 letter grades
Compare with the course
Han vs. the course average
A
−8.4
B
−4.9
C
+3.3
D
+5.1
F
+5.0
Difference in percentage points.
7.7% withdrew · 7 of 91 enrolled.
Overall3.30 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.93
Technology3.70
Synthesis2.80
Collaboration3.40
Connection2.63
Contribution3.33
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity2.57
Grading3.30
Reflection2.77
Respect4.17
Creativity3.30
Feedback2.77
Interaction3.90
Challenge3.20
Questions3.60
Del K Ebadi 61 grades · 1 term 2.28GPA
61 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ebadi vs. the course average
A
−6.6
B
−7.3
C
−1.9
D
+10.5
F
+5.3
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 3 of 64 enrolled.
Overall3.52 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.30
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.05
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.20
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.65
Inclusivity3.45
Grading3.25
Reflection3.30
Respect4.25
Creativity3.40
Feedback2.90
Interaction4.05
Challenge3.75
Questions3.55
Elizabeth Scott-Janda 157 grades · 1 term 2.22GPA
157 letter grades
Compare with the course
Scott-Janda vs. the course average
A
−12.3
B
−6.1
C
+5.4
D
+9.3
F
+3.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 5 of 162 enrolled.
Overall3.08 / 5
68 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.86
Technology2.78
Synthesis2.62
Collaboration4.26
Connection2.42
Contribution3.04
Discussion3.10
Inclusivity2.28
Grading2.80
Reflection3.16
Respect3.24
Creativity3.12
Feedback2.90
Interaction3.72
Challenge2.90
Questions2.84
William Eli Orvis 32 grades · 1 term 1.95GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Orvis vs. the course average
A
−16.9
B
−2.2
C
−1.5
D
+15.8
F
+4.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 1 of 33 enrolled.
Jun S Hong 32 grades · 1 term 1.93GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hong vs. the course average
A
−16.9
B
−11.6
C
+4.8
D
+18.9
F
+4.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 1 of 33 enrolled.
Overall3.31 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.10
Collaboration3.60
Connection3.10
Contribution3.20
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity3.20
Grading3.50
Reflection3.30
Respect4.10
Creativity3.50
Feedback2.70
Interaction3.40
Challenge3.10
Questions3.20
Xingzhou Yang 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.49GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
11.1% withdrew · 3 of 27 enrolled.
Overall3.33 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.80
Technology4.10
Synthesis1.80
Collaboration3.80
Connection2.30
Contribution3.30
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity1.80
Grading2.90
Reflection3.60
Respect4.30
Creativity3.40
Feedback2.50
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.50
Questions3.90
Bronstein Albert 24 reported responses 3.18Eval / 5
Overall3.18 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.45
Technology2.94
Synthesis2.62
Collaboration3.05
Connection2.72
Contribution1.92
Discussion2.78
Inclusivity2.61
Grading3.16
Reflection3.06
Respect4.08
Creativity3.02
Feedback2.59
Interaction3.64
Challenge3.24
Questions3.28
Diana L Maggiore 3 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 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
Catherine Pfeiffer Moody 18 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.09
Technology4.78
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration4.65
Connection3.80
Contribution3.96
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.66
Reflection4.10
Respect4.72
Creativity3.89
Feedback3.46
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.41
Questions4.77
Christal Jane Aquinto 3 reported responses 3.41Eval / 5
Overall3.41 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.00
Contribution3.00
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity2.70
Grading3.00
Reflection3.30
Respect4.30
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.30
Interaction3.30
Challenge3.70
Questions3.30
Mengxiao Sun 10 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.29
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.34
Collaboration3.92
Connection3.88
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity4.16
Grading4.38
Reflection4.54
Respect4.85
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.18
Challenge4.69
Questions4.69
Catherine Pfeiffer Whitehead 117 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5
117 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.99
Technology4.82
Synthesis3.91
Collaboration3.14
Connection4.04
Contribution3.62
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity3.66
Grading4.72
Reflection4.33
Respect4.42
Creativity4.13
Feedback3.60
Interaction3.99
Challenge4.39
Questions4.75
Eli Orvis 14 reported responses 3.75Eval / 5
Overall3.75 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration4.40
Connection2.80
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.30
Reflection3.60
Respect4.70
Creativity3.30
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.70
Questions3.70
Rachel Marie Chaiser 4 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.80
Contribution4.20
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.80
Reflection4.20
Respect5.00
Creativity3.20
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.50
Wafa Yacoub 3 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis2.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection2.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity2.00
Grading4.70
Reflection3.70
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.30
Questions5.00
Michael B Noyes 32 reported responses 4.00Eval / 5
Overall4.00 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.55
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration4.15
Connection3.23
Contribution3.32
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity3.07
Grading4.50
Reflection3.98
Respect4.75
Creativity4.07
Feedback3.85
Interaction4.42
Challenge3.89
Questions4.59
Erik Royd Feirin Knutsen 37 reported responses 3.34Eval / 5
Overall3.34 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.64
Technology3.55
Synthesis2.72
Collaboration3.61
Connection3.03
Contribution2.75
Discussion3.54
Inclusivity2.27
Grading3.01
Reflection3.16
Respect3.63
Creativity2.92
Feedback2.83
Interaction3.78
Challenge3.02
Questions3.71
Isis Aymara Gallardo 19 reported responses 2.55Eval / 5
Overall2.55 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.10
Technology2.80
Synthesis1.90
Collaboration3.40
Connection2.00
Contribution2.35
Discussion2.35
Inclusivity1.40
Grading2.20
Reflection2.65
Respect3.10
Creativity2.35
Feedback2.05
Interaction3.60
Challenge2.55
Questions2.60
Samik Dasgupta 25 reported responses 3.38Eval / 5
Overall3.38 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.25
Technology3.20
Synthesis2.85
Collaboration3.55
Connection2.40
Contribution3.55
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity1.95
Grading3.45
Reflection3.60
Respect4.05
Creativity3.25
Feedback2.70
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.05
Questions3.80
Zabedah Binti Saad 8 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.20
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.80
Reflection4.10
Respect4.90
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Howy Jordan 52 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.34
Technology4.23
Synthesis3.29
Collaboration3.75
Connection3.25
Contribution3.43
Discussion3.95
Inclusivity3.03
Grading3.90
Reflection3.74
Respect4.29
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.16
Interaction4.13
Challenge3.70
Questions4.22
Tim J Schumacher 6 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.20
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.20
Reflection3.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Amna G Esayah 1 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Technology5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection3.00
Discussion5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection3.00
Respect5.00
Creativity3.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.