Course record MATH
MATH 2001
Introduction to Discrete Mathematics
University of Colorado Boulder
1,071 grades34 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score22/100
Below average
Eric Stade 31 grades · 1 term 3.69GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stade vs. the course average
A
+47.6
B
−29.7
C
−7.4
D
−4.5
F
−6.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 1 of 32 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.41
Synthesis4.44
Collaboration4.64
Connection4.43
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity4.13
Grading4.72
Reflection4.62
Respect4.74
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.76
Questions4.92
Florencia Orosz 28 grades · 1 term 3.47GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Orosz vs. the course average
A
+24.5
B
−0.8
C
−16.7
D
−0.9
F
−6.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology3.64
Synthesis3.86
Collaboration4.78
Connection3.53
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity3.76
Grading3.91
Reflection3.94
Respect4.70
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.22
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.42
Questions4.69
Kyle Luh 28 grades · 1 term 3.38GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Luh vs. the course average
A
+13.8
B
+6.3
C
−9.5
D
−4.5
F
−6.1
Difference in percentage points.
9.7% withdrew · 3 of 31 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.20
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.80
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Sebastian Ben Casalaina-Martin 39 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Casalaina-Martin vs. the course average
A
−2.9
B
+10.6
C
−2.3
D
−4.5
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
9.3% withdrew · 4 of 43 enrolled.
Overall4.67 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.76
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.76
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.12
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity3.78
Grading4.65
Reflection4.84
Respect4.85
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.90
Questions4.85
James Anton Rickards 82 grades · 1 term 2.96GPA
82 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rickards vs. the course average
A
+1.6
B
+2.4
C
−2.0
D
+0.4
F
−2.4
Difference in percentage points.
5.7% withdrew · 5 of 87 enrolled.
Overall4.17 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.14
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration3.91
Connection3.92
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.61
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.33
Reflection4.10
Respect4.67
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.01
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.20
Questions4.65
Katherine E Stange 81 grades · 1 term 2.94GPA
81 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stange vs. the course average
A
+9.5
B
−9.5
C
+0.7
D
−0.8
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
8.0% withdrew · 7 of 88 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.38
Connection3.80
Contribution4.31
Discussion4.61
Inclusivity3.52
Grading4.70
Reflection4.51
Respect4.80
Creativity4.51
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Keith Kearnes 74 grades · 1 term 2.94GPA
74 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kearnes vs. the course average
A
+16.5
B
−11.3
C
−9.5
D
−1.8
F
+6.1
Difference in percentage points.
8.6% withdrew · 7 of 81 enrolled.
Overall4.01 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.56
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration2.96
Connection3.70
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.49
Reflection4.58
Respect4.88
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.19
Challenge4.85
Questions4.89
Franz Nathaniel Thiem 78 grades · 1 term 2.83GPA
78 letter grades
Compare with the course
Thiem vs. the course average
A
−8.0
B
+5.5
C
+6.7
D
−3.2
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.9% withdrew · 4 of 82 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
64 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.28
Synthesis4.42
Collaboration4.65
Connection3.79
Contribution4.38
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity3.74
Grading4.28
Reflection4.38
Respect4.79
Creativity4.69
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.61
Questions4.78
Andrew Meier 28 grades · 1 term 2.82GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Meier vs. the course average
A
+3.1
B
−0.8
C
−6.0
D
+2.7
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.82
Collaboration3.95
Connection4.47
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.36
Grading4.77
Reflection4.82
Respect4.90
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.76
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.85
Questions4.64
Harrison Edward Stalvey 148 grades · 1 term 2.81GPA
148 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stalvey vs. the course average
A
−0.4
B
−3.2
C
+1.4
D
+2.3
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
3.9% withdrew · 6 of 154 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
134 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration3.72
Connection3.71
Contribution4.28
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity3.29
Grading4.44
Reflection4.45
Respect4.74
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.29
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.74
Questions4.55
Peter Mayr 51 grades · 1 term 2.79GPA
51 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mayr vs. the course average
A
−4.9
B
−5.5
C
+15.0
D
−4.5
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
8.9% withdrew · 5 of 56 enrolled.
Overall4.15 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration3.79
Connection4.30
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.49
Grading4.20
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Alexandru Nita 25 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nita vs. the course average
A
−4.2
B
+3.0
C
−4.3
D
+7.5
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
7.4% withdrew · 2 of 27 enrolled.
Kevin W Manley 55 grades · 1 term 2.71GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Manley vs. the course average
A
−3.5
B
−3.9
C
+8.8
D
−2.7
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
5.2% withdrew · 3 of 58 enrolled.
Overall4.38 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology3.85
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.58
Contribution4.14
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity3.53
Grading4.17
Reflection4.55
Respect4.55
Creativity4.39
Feedback4.29
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.58
Questions4.52
David R Grant 44 grades · 1 term 2.69GPA
44 letter grades
Compare with the course
Grant vs. the course average
A
−15.8
B
+10.2
C
+4.7
D
+4.6
F
−3.8
Difference in percentage points.
15.4% withdrew · 8 of 52 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.26
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.07
Collaboration4.26
Connection4.06
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity3.17
Grading4.33
Reflection4.35
Respect4.27
Creativity4.08
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.53
Questions4.53
Su-Ion Ih 100 grades · 1 term 2.66GPA
100 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ih vs. the course average
A
−16.2
B
+12.0
C
+2.7
D
+0.5
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
11.5% withdrew · 13 of 113 enrolled.
Overall3.95 / 5
93 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology1.98
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration2.82
Connection3.33
Contribution4.04
Discussion4.22
Inclusivity3.07
Grading3.67
Reflection4.29
Respect4.64
Creativity4.33
Feedback3.35
Interaction4.28
Challenge4.88
Questions4.53
Joseph Benjamin Timmer 51 grades · 1 term 2.61GPA
51 letter grades
Compare with the course
Timmer vs. the course average
A
−16.6
B
+12.1
C
+3.3
D
−0.6
F
+1.8
Difference in percentage points.
10.5% withdrew · 6 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.55
Connection3.65
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.25
Grading4.55
Reflection4.60
Respect4.55
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.85
Questions4.70
Tianyuan Xu 25 grades · 1 term 2.56GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Xu vs. the course average
A
−12.2
B
+11.0
C
−8.3
D
+7.5
F
+1.9
Difference in percentage points.
7.4% withdrew · 2 of 27 enrolled.
Overall4.02 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration2.60
Connection3.15
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.75
Reflection3.95
Respect4.55
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.35
Interaction3.75
Challenge4.40
Questions4.45
Robert Tubbs 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.22GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
13.6% withdrew · 3 of 22 enrolled.
Overall3.08 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology2.60
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.30
Connection1.80
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity1.00
Grading2.40
Reflection3.30
Respect3.20
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.20
Interaction3.30
Challenge3.40
Questions3.00
Judith Packer Jesudason 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.00GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
7.7% withdrew · 2 of 26 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.00
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.60
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.40
Questions4.80
Rodrigo Ribeiro 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.67GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
4.8% withdrew · 1 of 21 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.20
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.80
Reflection4.20
Respect5.00
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Jonathan S Wise 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.54GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
14.3% withdrew · 3 of 21 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.80
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Richard Mutegeki Green 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.42GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
15.4% withdrew · 4 of 26 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect4.50
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Andrew M Stocker 3 reported responses 4.92Eval / 5
Overall4.92 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.70
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Albert Bronstein 12 reported responses 3.55Eval / 5
Overall3.55 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.06
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.49
Contribution4.31
Discussion4.11
Inclusivity4.07
Grading4.05
Reflection4.54
Respect4.15
Creativity4.22
Feedback3.53
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.13
Questions4.56
Carla Farsi 13 reported responses 3.52Eval / 5
Overall3.52 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology3.44
Synthesis3.39
Collaboration3.03
Connection2.78
Contribution3.69
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity4.78
Grading2.85
Reflection3.47
Respect4.22
Creativity3.58
Feedback3.60
Interaction3.60
Challenge3.90
Questions3.92
Juan Montoya 10 reported responses 4.11Eval / 5
Overall4.11 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.30
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.60
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.20
Questions4.00
Spencer Daugherty 28 reported responses 4.00Eval / 5
Overall4.00 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.82
Technology3.82
Synthesis3.78
Collaboration3.43
Connection3.57
Contribution3.36
Discussion4.22
Inclusivity3.48
Grading3.91
Reflection3.98
Respect4.67
Creativity4.12
Feedback4.18
Interaction4.11
Challenge4.13
Questions4.47
Jack Dalton 18 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.40
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.40
Grading3.80
Reflection4.20
Respect4.20
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.30
Questions4.20
Alexander Gorokhovsky 6 reported responses 2.36Eval / 5
Overall2.36 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.80
Technology2.20
Synthesis2.40
Collaboration1.70
Connection2.20
Contribution2.80
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity2.20
Grading1.80
Reflection2.20
Respect2.60
Creativity2.80
Feedback2.30
Interaction2.00
Challenge2.50
Questions3.50
Charlotte Aten 4 reported responses 3.76Eval / 5
Overall3.76 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration2.80
Connection3.20
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.00
Reflection4.20
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.20
Robin John Deeley 11 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.50
Connection3.50
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.30
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Justin Barhite 6 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.40
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.00
Grading3.50
Reflection4.00
Respect4.60
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.20
Questions4.20
Frederic Latremoliere 6 reported responses 3.49Eval / 5
Overall3.49 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.30
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration2.50
Connection3.80
Contribution3.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.30
Reflection3.80
Respect3.50
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.30
Challenge4.00
Questions4.00
Daniel Omar Vargas-Rosario 4 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.50
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.20
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.