Course record MATH

MATH 2300

Calculus 2

University of Colorado Boulder

4,976 grades126 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score16/100
Needs work

Professors 126 of 126

Nicholas Jeffrey Christoffersen 58 grades · 1 term 3.01GPA
44.8% A
32.8% B
10.3% C
6.9% D
5.2% F

58 letter grades

Compare with the course
Christoffersen vs. the course average
A +26.1
B +3.6
C −18.2
D −5.5
F −5.9

Difference in percentage points.

1.7% withdrew · 1 of 59 enrolled.

Joo Young Kim 32 grades · 1 term 2.89GPA
37.5% A
21.9% B
34.4% C
6.3% D
0.0% F

32 letter grades

Compare with the course
Kim vs. the course average
A +18.8
B −7.3
C +5.9
D −6.2
F −11.1

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 32 enrolled.

Michael B Noyes 29 grades · 1 term 2.84GPA
44.8% A
17.2% B
24.1% C
6.9% D
6.9% F

29 letter grades

Compare with the course
Noyes vs. the course average
A +26.1
B −12.0
C −4.4
D −5.5
F −4.2

Difference in percentage points.

3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.

Peter R Rock 25 grades · 1 term 2.78GPA
32.0% A
32.0% B
28.0% C
4.0% D
4.0% F

25 letter grades

Compare with the course
Rock vs. the course average
A +13.3
B +2.8
C −0.5
D −8.4
F −7.1

Difference in percentage points.

10.7% withdrew · 3 of 28 enrolled.

Mengxiao Sun 89 grades · 1 term 2.77GPA
27.0% A
44.9% B
18.0% C
4.5% D
5.6% F

89 letter grades

Compare with the course
Sun vs. the course average
A +8.2
B +15.7
C −10.5
D −7.9
F −5.5

Difference in percentage points.

9.2% withdrew · 9 of 98 enrolled.

Cinea N Jenkins 31 grades · 1 term 2.75GPA
29.0% A
22.6% B
41.9% C
6.5% D
0.0% F

31 letter grades

Compare with the course
Jenkins vs. the course average
A +10.3
B −6.6
C +13.4
D −6.0
F −11.1

Difference in percentage points.

6.1% withdrew · 2 of 33 enrolled.

Taylor Joseph Klotz 30 grades · 1 term 2.74GPA
20.0% A
40.0% B
40.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

30 letter grades

Compare with the course
Klotz vs. the course average
A +1.3
B +10.8
C +11.5
D −12.4
F −11.1

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 30 enrolled.

Jue Xiong 56 grades · 1 term 2.73GPA
21.4% A
39.3% B
30.4% C
7.1% D
1.8% F

56 letter grades

Compare with the course
Xiong vs. the course average
A +2.7
B +10.1
C +1.8
D −5.3
F −9.3

Difference in percentage points.

1.8% withdrew · 1 of 57 enrolled.

Aidan Powers 28 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
39.3% A
14.3% B
32.1% C
10.7% D
3.6% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Powers vs. the course average
A +20.5
B −14.9
C +3.6
D −1.7
F −7.5

Difference in percentage points.

3.4% withdrew · 1 of 29 enrolled.

Patrick Thaxton Newberry 74 grades · 1 term 2.68GPA
18.9% A
37.8% B
35.1% C
4.1% D
4.1% F

74 letter grades

Compare with the course
Newberry vs. the course average
A +0.2
B +8.6
C +6.6
D −8.4
F −7.0

Difference in percentage points.

3.9% withdrew · 3 of 77 enrolled.

Ilia Dimitrov Mishev 57 grades · 1 term 2.61GPA
22.8% A
38.6% B
24.6% C
5.3% D
8.8% F

57 letter grades

Compare with the course
Mishev vs. the course average
A +4.1
B +9.4
C −4.0
D −7.2
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

5.0% withdrew · 3 of 60 enrolled.

Juan Carlos Moreno 30 grades · 1 term 2.58GPA
33.3% A
23.3% B
26.7% C
3.3% D
13.3% F

30 letter grades

Compare with the course
Moreno vs. the course average
A +14.6
B −5.9
C −1.9
D −9.1
F +2.2

Difference in percentage points.

6.3% withdrew · 2 of 32 enrolled.

Caroline Liggett Matson 28 grades · 1 term 2.57GPA
21.4% A
32.1% B
35.7% C
3.6% D
7.1% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Matson vs. the course average
A +2.7
B +2.9
C +7.2
D −8.9
F −4.0

Difference in percentage points.

3.4% withdrew · 1 of 29 enrolled.

Trubee Hodgman Davison 26 grades · 1 term 2.53GPA
11.5% A
38.5% B
38.5% C
7.7% D
3.8% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Davison vs. the course average
A −7.2
B +9.3
C +9.9
D −4.7
F −7.2

Difference in percentage points.

7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.

Ian D Miller 64 grades · 1 term 2.53GPA
23.4% A
37.5% B
21.9% C
6.3% D
10.9% F

64 letter grades

Compare with the course
Miller vs. the course average
A +4.7
B +8.3
C −6.6
D −6.2
F −0.2

Difference in percentage points.

5.9% withdrew · 4 of 68 enrolled.

Jonathan Randall Quartin 79 grades · 1 term 2.52GPA
21.5% A
36.7% B
26.6% C
7.6% D
7.6% F

79 letter grades

Compare with the course
Quartin vs. the course average
A +2.8
B +7.5
C −1.9
D −4.8
F −3.5

Difference in percentage points.

4.8% withdrew · 4 of 83 enrolled.

Barbara Monika Klos 30 grades · 1 term 2.52GPA
26.7% A
26.7% B
33.3% C
3.3% D
10.0% F

30 letter grades

Compare with the course
Klos vs. the course average
A +7.9
B −2.5
C +4.8
D −9.1
F −1.1

Difference in percentage points.

6.3% withdrew · 2 of 32 enrolled.

Charlotte M Crotwell 26 grades · 1 term 2.51GPA
11.5% A
46.2% B
26.9% C
11.5% D
3.8% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Crotwell vs. the course average
A −7.2
B +17.0
C −1.6
D −0.9
F −7.2

Difference in percentage points.

7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.

Corey Francis Lyons 238 grades · 1 term 2.50GPA
22.3% A
29.8% B
31.5% C
10.1% D
6.3% F

238 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lyons vs. the course average
A +3.5
B +0.6
C +3.0
D −2.4
F −4.8

Difference in percentage points.

5.2% withdrew · 13 of 251 enrolled.

Benjamin Nicholas Kitchen 27 grades · 1 term 2.50GPA
22.2% A
29.6% B
29.6% C
14.8% D
3.7% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Kitchen vs. the course average
A +3.5
B +0.4
C +1.1
D +2.4
F −7.4

Difference in percentage points.

10.0% withdrew · 3 of 30 enrolled.

Jun S Hong 110 grades · 1 term 2.49GPA
18.2% A
40.0% B
26.4% C
7.3% D
8.2% F

110 letter grades

Compare with the course
Hong vs. the course average
A −0.6
B +10.8
C −2.2
D −5.2
F −2.9

Difference in percentage points.

4.3% withdrew · 5 of 115 enrolled.

Matthew Paul Watson 30 grades · 1 term 2.48GPA
13.3% A
36.7% B
36.7% C
13.3% D
0.0% F

30 letter grades

Compare with the course
Watson vs. the course average
A −5.4
B +7.5
C +8.1
D +0.9
F −11.1

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 30 enrolled.

Samuel Thomas Reeder 29 grades · 1 term 2.48GPA
20.7% A
37.9% B
24.1% C
3.4% D
13.8% F

29 letter grades

Compare with the course
Reeder vs. the course average
A +1.9
B +8.7
C −4.4
D −9.0
F +2.7

Difference in percentage points.

3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.

Christopher James Keala Eblen 52 grades · 1 term 2.46GPA
23.1% A
26.9% B
36.5% C
3.8% D
9.6% F

52 letter grades

Compare with the course
Eblen vs. the course average
A +4.3
B −2.3
C +8.0
D −8.6
F −1.5

Difference in percentage points.

8.8% withdrew · 5 of 57 enrolled.

Lee Forrest Roberson 123 grades · 1 term 2.46GPA
27.6% A
26.0% B
22.0% C
16.3% D
8.1% F

123 letter grades

Compare with the course
Roberson vs. the course average
A +8.9
B −3.2
C −6.6
D +3.8
F −3.0

Difference in percentage points.

10.9% withdrew · 15 of 138 enrolled.

Jennifer Michelle Gensler 31 grades · 1 term 2.46GPA
29.0% A
22.6% B
22.6% C
19.4% D
6.5% F

31 letter grades

Compare with the course
Gensler vs. the course average
A +10.3
B −6.6
C −5.9
D +6.9
F −4.6

Difference in percentage points.

3.1% withdrew · 1 of 32 enrolled.

Patrick Michael Wynne 97 grades · 1 term 2.45GPA
20.6% A
35.1% B
25.8% C
10.3% D
8.2% F

97 letter grades

Compare with the course
Wynne vs. the course average
A +1.9
B +5.9
C −2.7
D −2.1
F −2.8

Difference in percentage points.

9.3% withdrew · 10 of 107 enrolled.

Erik Royd Feirin Knutsen 27 grades · 1 term 2.45GPA
22.2% A
33.3% B
25.9% C
7.4% D
11.1% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Knutsen vs. the course average
A +3.5
B +4.1
C −2.6
D −5.0
F same

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.

Levi Samuel Lorenzo 27 grades · 1 term 2.45GPA
22.2% A
40.7% B
14.8% C
11.1% D
11.1% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lorenzo vs. the course average
A +3.5
B +11.5
C −13.7
D −1.3
F same

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.

Connor Michael Meredith 51 grades · 1 term 2.42GPA
23.5% A
31.4% B
25.5% C
7.8% D
11.8% F

51 letter grades

Compare with the course
Meredith vs. the course average
A +4.8
B +2.2
C −3.0
D −4.6
F +0.7

Difference in percentage points.

7.3% withdrew · 4 of 55 enrolled.

Ezzeddine El Sai 29 grades · 1 term 2.40GPA
20.7% A
27.6% B
34.5% C
10.3% D
6.9% F

29 letter grades

Compare with the course
Sai vs. the course average
A +1.9
B −1.6
C +6.0
D −2.1
F −4.2

Difference in percentage points.

9.4% withdrew · 3 of 32 enrolled.

Jasmin Millan Rodriguez 28 grades · 1 term 2.40GPA
17.9% A
35.7% B
21.4% C
17.9% D
7.1% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Rodriguez vs. the course average
A −0.9
B +6.5
C −7.1
D +5.4
F −4.0

Difference in percentage points.

9.7% withdrew · 3 of 31 enrolled.

Jordan Daniel Dubeau 57 grades · 1 term 2.38GPA
19.3% A
28.1% B
33.3% C
12.3% D
7.0% F

57 letter grades

Compare with the course
Dubeau vs. the course average
A +0.5
B −1.1
C +4.8
D −0.2
F −4.1

Difference in percentage points.

5.0% withdrew · 3 of 60 enrolled.

Pedro Jose Berrizbeitia 57 grades · 1 term 2.34GPA
22.8% A
28.1% B
26.3% C
8.8% D
14.0% F

57 letter grades

Compare with the course
Berrizbeitia vs. the course average
A +4.1
B −1.1
C −2.2
D −3.7
F +2.9

Difference in percentage points.

10.9% withdrew · 7 of 64 enrolled.

Braden Loil Balentine 27 grades · 1 term 2.34GPA
18.5% A
29.6% B
33.3% C
7.4% D
11.1% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Balentine vs. the course average
A −0.2
B +0.4
C +4.8
D −5.0
F same

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 27 enrolled.

Elizabeth Scott-Janda 302 grades · 1 term 2.33GPA
15.6% A
29.8% B
32.8% C
14.6% D
7.3% F

302 letter grades

Compare with the course
Scott-Janda vs. the course average
A −3.2
B +0.6
C +4.3
D +2.1
F −3.8

Difference in percentage points.

5.3% withdrew · 17 of 319 enrolled.

Sangman Lee 56 grades · 1 term 2.33GPA
10.7% A
35.7% B
33.9% C
16.1% D
3.6% F

56 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A −8.0
B +6.5
C +5.4
D +3.6
F −7.5

Difference in percentage points.

1.8% withdrew · 1 of 57 enrolled.

Rebecca Anne Deland 26 grades · 1 term 2.32GPA
15.4% A
30.8% B
30.8% C
19.2% D
3.8% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Deland vs. the course average
A −3.4
B +1.6
C +2.3
D +6.8
F −7.2

Difference in percentage points.

10.3% withdrew · 3 of 29 enrolled.

Mateo P Muro 29 grades · 1 term 2.30GPA
10.3% A
41.4% B
27.6% C
10.3% D
10.3% F

29 letter grades

Compare with the course
Muro vs. the course average
A −8.4
B +12.2
C −0.9
D −2.1
F −0.7

Difference in percentage points.

3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.

Nicholas Church Jamesson 88 grades · 1 term 2.29GPA
17.0% A
30.7% B
29.5% C
12.5% D
10.2% F

88 letter grades

Compare with the course
Jamesson vs. the course average
A −1.7
B +1.5
C +1.0
D +0.1
F −0.9

Difference in percentage points.

6.4% withdrew · 6 of 94 enrolled.

Jackson Robinett Carpenter 29 grades · 1 term 2.29GPA
20.7% A
27.6% B
34.5% C
0.0% D
17.2% F

29 letter grades

Compare with the course
Carpenter vs. the course average
A +1.9
B −1.6
C +6.0
D −12.4
F +6.1

Difference in percentage points.

6.5% withdrew · 2 of 31 enrolled.

Andrew J Campbell 51 grades · 1 term 2.28GPA
21.6% A
21.6% B
37.3% C
3.9% D
15.7% F

51 letter grades

Compare with the course
Campbell vs. the course average
A +2.8
B −7.6
C +8.7
D −8.5
F +4.6

Difference in percentage points.

7.3% withdrew · 4 of 55 enrolled.

Adrian Edward Neff 25 grades · 1 term 2.28GPA
20.0% A
28.0% B
32.0% C
4.0% D
16.0% F

25 letter grades

Compare with the course
Neff vs. the course average
A +1.3
B −1.2
C +3.5
D −8.4
F +4.9

Difference in percentage points.

10.7% withdrew · 3 of 28 enrolled.

Maggie Kay Reardon 43 grades · 1 term 2.27GPA
14.0% A
30.2% B
32.6% C
14.0% D
9.3% F

43 letter grades

Compare with the course
Reardon vs. the course average
A −4.8
B +1.0
C +4.0
D +1.5
F −1.8

Difference in percentage points.

6.5% withdrew · 3 of 46 enrolled.

Kevin W Manley 89 grades · 1 term 2.26GPA
20.2% A
27.0% B
27.0% C
12.4% D
13.5% F

89 letter grades

Compare with the course
Manley vs. the course average
A +1.5
B −2.2
C −1.6
D −0.1
F +2.4

Difference in percentage points.

5.3% withdrew · 5 of 94 enrolled.

Del K Ebadi 234 grades · 1 term 2.26GPA
19.7% A
27.8% B
26.5% C
13.2% D
12.8% F

234 letter grades

Compare with the course
Ebadi vs. the course average
A +0.9
B −1.4
C −2.0
D +0.8
F +1.7

Difference in percentage points.

7.9% withdrew · 20 of 254 enrolled.

William Eli Orvis 54 grades · 1 term 2.26GPA
22.2% A
24.1% B
22.2% C
20.4% D
11.1% F

54 letter grades

Compare with the course
Orvis vs. the course average
A +3.5
B −5.1
C −6.3
D +7.9
F same

Difference in percentage points.

8.5% withdrew · 5 of 59 enrolled.

Joseph Hennessey Macula 57 grades · 1 term 2.26GPA
8.8% A
38.6% B
26.3% C
19.3% D
7.0% F

57 letter grades

Compare with the course
Macula vs. the course average
A −10.0
B +9.4
C −2.2
D +6.9
F −4.1

Difference in percentage points.

1.7% withdrew · 1 of 58 enrolled.

Stephanie Youngmi Oh 29 grades · 1 term 2.26GPA
20.7% A
24.1% B
31.0% C
10.3% D
13.8% F

29 letter grades

Compare with the course
Oh vs. the course average
A +1.9
B −5.1
C +2.5
D −2.1
F +2.7

Difference in percentage points.

9.4% withdrew · 3 of 32 enrolled.

Albert Bronstein 232 grades · 1 term 2.24GPA
22.0% A
25.0% B
25.9% C
11.6% D
15.5% F

232 letter grades

Compare with the course
Bronstein vs. the course average
A +3.2
B −4.2
C −2.7
D −0.8
F +4.4

Difference in percentage points.

4.1% withdrew · 10 of 242 enrolled.

Alessandra Kimberley Graf 414 grades · 1 term 2.22GPA
17.1% A
26.8% B
30.0% C
15.0% D
11.1% F

414 letter grades

Compare with the course
Graf vs. the course average
A −1.6
B −2.4
C +1.4
D +2.5
F same

Difference in percentage points.

5.7% withdrew · 25 of 439 enrolled.

Tuscany Vennard Que Mccann 60 grades · 1 term 2.21GPA
16.7% A
26.7% B
30.0% C
13.3% D
13.3% F

60 letter grades

Compare with the course
Mccann vs. the course average
A −2.1
B −2.5
C +1.5
D +0.9
F +2.2

Difference in percentage points.

4.8% withdrew · 3 of 63 enrolled.

Julia Victoria Truman 74 grades · 1 term 2.13GPA
12.2% A
28.4% B
31.1% C
14.9% D
13.5% F

74 letter grades

Compare with the course
Truman vs. the course average
A −6.6
B −0.8
C +2.6
D +2.4
F +2.4

Difference in percentage points.

6.3% withdrew · 5 of 79 enrolled.

Euijin Hong 54 grades · 1 term 2.12GPA
16.7% A
22.2% B
27.8% C
24.1% D
9.3% F

54 letter grades

Compare with the course
Hong vs. the course average
A −2.1
B −7.0
C −0.7
D +11.6
F −1.8

Difference in percentage points.

6.9% withdrew · 4 of 58 enrolled.

Colin Montgomery Jackson 85 grades · 1 term 2.12GPA
8.2% A
34.1% B
28.2% C
17.6% D
11.8% F

85 letter grades

Compare with the course
Jackson vs. the course average
A −10.5
B +4.9
C −0.3
D +5.2
F +0.7

Difference in percentage points.

4.5% withdrew · 4 of 89 enrolled.

Rachel Marie Chaiser 27 grades · 1 term 2.11GPA
11.1% A
22.2% B
44.4% C
18.5% D
3.7% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Chaiser vs. the course average
A −7.6
B −7.0
C +15.9
D +6.1
F −7.4

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.

Emily Ann Montelius 80 grades · 1 term 2.11GPA
12.5% A
30.0% B
28.7% C
16.3% D
12.5% F

80 letter grades

Compare with the course
Montelius vs. the course average
A −6.3
B +0.8
C +0.2
D +3.8
F +1.4

Difference in percentage points.

8.0% withdrew · 7 of 87 enrolled.

Alexander Ney Lajeunesse 27 grades · 1 term 2.07GPA
3.7% A
40.7% B
33.3% C
7.4% D
14.8% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lajeunesse vs. the course average
A −15.0
B +11.5
C +4.8
D −5.0
F +3.7

Difference in percentage points.

10.0% withdrew · 3 of 30 enrolled.

James Wilson Woodcock 56 grades · 1 term 2.06GPA
10.7% A
33.9% B
28.6% C
7.1% D
19.6% F

56 letter grades

Compare with the course
Woodcock vs. the course average
A −8.0
B +4.7
C +0.1
D −5.3
F +8.5

Difference in percentage points.

5.1% withdrew · 3 of 59 enrolled.

Hunter Mcclain Davenport 27 grades · 1 term 2.05GPA
22.2% A
22.2% B
18.5% C
14.8% D
22.2% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Davenport vs. the course average
A +3.5
B −7.0
C −10.0
D +2.4
F +11.1

Difference in percentage points.

10.0% withdrew · 3 of 30 enrolled.

Justin Todd Willson 188 grades · 1 term 2.05GPA
16.0% A
25.0% B
26.1% C
16.5% D
16.5% F

188 letter grades

Compare with the course
Willson vs. the course average
A −2.8
B −4.2
C −2.5
D +4.0
F +5.4

Difference in percentage points.

6.9% withdrew · 14 of 202 enrolled.

Xingzhou Yang 212 grades · 1 term 2.04GPA
15.1% A
25.9% B
26.4% C
13.7% D
18.9% F

212 letter grades

Compare with the course
Yang vs. the course average
A −3.7
B −3.3
C −2.1
D +1.2
F +7.8

Difference in percentage points.

9.8% withdrew · 23 of 235 enrolled.

Camilo Mesa 49 grades · 1 term 2.03GPA
12.2% A
28.6% B
28.6% C
16.3% D
14.3% F

49 letter grades

Compare with the course
Mesa vs. the course average
A −6.5
B −0.6
C +0.1
D +3.9
F +3.2

Difference in percentage points.

9.3% withdrew · 5 of 54 enrolled.

Sarah Arpin 26 grades · 1 term 1.88GPA
7.7% A
26.9% B
26.9% C
23.1% D
15.4% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Arpin vs. the course average
A −11.1
B −2.3
C −1.6
D +10.6
F +4.3

Difference in percentage points.

10.3% withdrew · 3 of 29 enrolled.

Andrew Ward Doumont 116 grades · 1 term 1.86GPA
12.1% A
20.7% B
29.3% C
18.1% D
19.8% F

116 letter grades

Compare with the course
Doumont vs. the course average
A −6.7
B −8.5
C +0.8
D +5.7
F +8.7

Difference in percentage points.

4.9% withdrew · 6 of 122 enrolled.

Michael James Wheeler 63 grades · 1 term 1.81GPA
9.5% A
23.8% B
25.4% C
23.8% D
17.5% F

63 letter grades

Compare with the course
Wheeler vs. the course average
A −9.2
B −5.4
C −3.1
D +11.4
F +6.4

Difference in percentage points.

3.1% withdrew · 2 of 65 enrolled.

Spencer T Shortt 70 grades · 1 term 1.72GPA
8.6% A
20.0% B
27.1% C
15.7% D
28.6% F

70 letter grades

Compare with the course
Shortt vs. the course average
A −10.2
B −9.2
C −1.4
D +3.3
F +17.5

Difference in percentage points.

14.6% withdrew · 12 of 82 enrolled.

Derek J Eby 26 grades · 1 term 1.68GPA
3.8% A
30.8% B
23.1% C
23.1% D
19.2% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Eby vs. the course average
A −14.9
B +1.6
C −5.4
D +10.6
F +8.1

Difference in percentage points.

7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.

Isabelle Kraus 30 grades · 1 term 1.54GPA
10.0% A
0.0% B
43.3% C
33.3% D
13.3% F

30 letter grades

Compare with the course
Kraus vs. the course average
A −8.8
B −29.2
C +14.8
D +20.9
F +2.2

Difference in percentage points.

3.2% withdrew · 1 of 31 enrolled.

Anne Shor 48 grades · 1 term 1.49GPA
2.1% A
14.6% B
41.7% C
16.7% D
25.0% F

48 letter grades

Compare with the course
Shor vs. the course average
A −16.7
B −14.6
C +13.1
D +4.2
F +13.9

Difference in percentage points.

11.1% withdrew · 6 of 54 enrolled.

Bob Kuo 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.88GPA
43.5% A
30.4% B
13.0% C
8.7% D
4.3% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

4.2% withdrew · 1 of 24 enrolled.

Breeann Meralou Wilson 21 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.67GPA
23.8% A
47.6% B
19.0% C
4.8% D
4.8% F

21 letter grades · Limited sample

12.5% withdrew · 3 of 24 enrolled.

Wei Jit Wu Lu 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.45GPA
25.0% A
25.0% B
29.2% C
12.5% D
8.3% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.

Maeve Myfanwy Helen Coates Welsh 36 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5

36 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.27
Technology4.13
Synthesis3.03
Collaboration3.63
Connection2.67
Contribution3.37
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity2.73
Grading4.07
Reflection3.60
Respect4.57
Creativity3.93
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.13
Challenge4.20
Questions4.37
Trevor Manders 18 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5

18 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.40
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.40
Reflection4.00
Respect4.90
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.70
Questions4.50
Andrew M Stocker 4 reported responses 3.60Eval / 5
Overall3.60 / 5

4 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.80
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.30
Connection2.50
Contribution2.80
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.80
Reflection3.00
Respect4.00
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.50
Questions4.00
Peter Robert Rock Ii 27 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5

27 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.25
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity2.90
Grading4.65
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.75
Questions4.75
Rebecah Helen Storms 44 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5

44 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.76
Synthesis3.91
Collaboration3.96
Connection3.21
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity3.61
Grading4.41
Reflection4.18
Respect4.77
Creativity4.14
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.44
Questions4.69
Bronstein Albert 7 reported responses 3.46Eval / 5
Overall3.46 / 5

7 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology2.90
Synthesis2.70
Collaboration2.00
Connection2.30
Contribution2.40
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.60
Reflection3.60
Respect4.10
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.00
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.10
Questions3.70
Daniel Lyness 68 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5

68 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.26
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.59
Connection3.49
Contribution4.31
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity3.22
Grading4.36
Reflection4.45
Respect4.84
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.62
Questions4.73
Yamir Elena Carvajal-Bakke 6 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5

6 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.71
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.71
Connection3.01
Contribution4.31
Discussion4.31
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.02
Reflection3.71
Respect4.70
Creativity3.02
Feedback2.72
Interaction3.31
Challenge3.02
Questions3.71
Paige Robertson 94 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5

94 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration4.32
Connection3.46
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity3.49
Grading4.34
Reflection4.47
Respect4.77
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.74
Questions4.64
Eli Orvis 35 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5

35 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.88
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.78
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity3.68
Grading4.39
Reflection4.32
Respect4.72
Creativity4.32
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.62
Questions4.80
Darwin Tallana 134 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5

134 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology3.99
Synthesis3.87
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.17
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.31
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.03
Reflection4.08
Respect4.51
Creativity4.18
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.28
Challenge4.28
Questions4.42
Joseph Benjamin Timmer 2 reported responses 4.00Eval / 5
Overall4.00 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.00
Contribution3.00
Inclusivity2.00
Reflection4.00
Interaction5.00
Alex Lajeunesse 149 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5

149 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.18
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration4.28
Connection3.58
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity3.33
Grading4.49
Reflection4.37
Respect4.75
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.53
Questions4.54
Andrew Meier 135 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5

135 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.42
Connection3.78
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.61
Grading4.51
Reflection4.53
Respect4.83
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.66
Questions4.71
Rebekah Yuki Jones 328 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5

328 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology4.41
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.44
Connection3.58
Contribution4.28
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.63
Grading4.55
Reflection4.35
Respect4.79
Creativity4.56
Feedback4.44
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.61
Questions4.76
Jon Kim 99 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5

99 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology4.54
Synthesis4.41
Collaboration4.53
Connection3.88
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.75
Grading4.64
Reflection4.57
Respect4.90
Creativity4.51
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.82
Questions4.77
Summer Haag 126 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5

126 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.32
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.48
Grading4.52
Reflection4.53
Respect4.89
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.68
Challenge4.61
Questions4.83
Nick Jamesson 101 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5

101 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.81
Technology3.99
Synthesis3.54
Collaboration4.21
Connection2.92
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity2.83
Grading4.37
Reflection4.29
Respect4.59
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.48
Challenge4.22
Questions4.50
Connor Alexander Mccranie 95 reported responses 3.93Eval / 5
Overall3.93 / 5

95 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.55
Technology3.72
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.44
Connection2.93
Contribution3.68
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity3.01
Grading3.74
Reflection3.46
Respect4.25
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.86
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.06
Questions4.15
Ben Kitchen 52 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5

52 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.04
Technology3.27
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.06
Connection3.08
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity3.24
Grading4.21
Reflection4.14
Respect4.82
Creativity4.24
Feedback3.84
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.41
Questions4.53
Michael D Roy 8 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5

8 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.50
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration2.90
Connection3.30
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity2.30
Grading4.20
Reflection4.80
Respect4.30
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
Edouard Pierre Heitzmann 83 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5

83 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.02
Technology3.65
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.22
Connection3.97
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity3.22
Grading4.29
Reflection4.49
Respect4.61
Creativity4.21
Feedback4.39
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.41
Questions4.60
Basia Klos 107 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5

107 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration4.54
Connection3.24
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity3.05
Grading4.60
Reflection4.49
Respect4.83
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.66
Questions4.85
Henry Maher 29 reported responses 3.18Eval / 5
Overall3.18 / 5

29 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.10
Technology2.80
Synthesis2.90
Collaboration3.40
Connection2.40
Contribution3.10
Discussion2.90
Inclusivity2.70
Grading3.00
Reflection3.30
Respect3.60
Creativity3.30
Feedback2.90
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.20
Questions3.20
Jack Dalton 242 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5

242 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.29
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.28
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.49
Inclusivity3.01
Grading4.26
Reflection4.24
Respect4.45
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.22
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.39
Questions4.49
Chris Eblen 49 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5

49 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.45
Connection3.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.55
Reflection4.50
Respect4.85
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.85
Questions4.90
Anoushka Nerella Kameswari Umamaheshwar 62 reported responses 4.23Eval / 5
Overall4.23 / 5

62 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.83
Synthesis4.07
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.10
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.33
Grading4.13
Reflection4.17
Respect4.63
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.27
Questions4.63
Sam Reeder 65 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5

65 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.60
Connection3.60
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.53
Grading4.40
Reflection4.47
Respect4.67
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.57
Questions4.77
Justin Barhite 50 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5

50 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.70
Connection3.80
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.35
Grading4.15
Reflection4.50
Respect4.60
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Taylor Rogers 91 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5

91 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology3.92
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration4.65
Connection3.71
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.59
Grading4.48
Reflection4.53
Respect4.64
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.61
Questions4.62
Calum Ieuan Shearer 80 reported responses 4.06Eval / 5
Overall4.06 / 5

80 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.58
Technology3.74
Synthesis3.45
Collaboration4.27
Connection2.94
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.34
Inclusivity2.77
Grading3.78
Reflection3.74
Respect4.34
Creativity4.24
Feedback4.04
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.24
Questions4.31
Sylvia Maher 3 reported responses 3.69Eval / 5
Overall3.69 / 5

3 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.70
Connection2.70
Contribution2.70
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.00
Reflection4.00
Respect4.70
Creativity3.50
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.70
Questions3.70
Xintan Xia 181 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5

181 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.88
Technology4.05
Synthesis3.92
Collaboration4.45
Connection3.32
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.26
Grading4.25
Reflection4.32
Respect4.75
Creativity4.05
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.64
Challenge4.43
Questions4.56
Nate Ward-Chene 154 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5

154 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.05
Technology4.09
Synthesis3.94
Collaboration4.31
Connection3.19
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.18
Grading4.28
Reflection4.13
Respect4.74
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.65
Questions4.76
Helena Davenport 25 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5

25 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.70
Contribution4.60
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Alexander Zhu 124 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5

124 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.07
Technology3.59
Synthesis3.99
Collaboration4.23
Connection3.62
Contribution4.31
Discussion3.89
Inclusivity3.20
Grading3.71
Reflection4.36
Respect4.05
Creativity3.86
Feedback3.59
Interaction4.44
Challenge3.82
Questions4.05
Storey Peacock 57 reported responses 3.94Eval / 5
Overall3.94 / 5

57 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.63
Synthesis3.63
Collaboration3.67
Connection2.90
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.90
Reflection3.90
Respect4.17
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.17
Questions4.30
Ari Atkins 74 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5

74 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.03
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.37
Connection3.73
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.37
Reflection4.33
Respect4.60
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.47
Questions4.63
Champ Davis 172 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5

172 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.85
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.01
Grading4.82
Reflection4.65
Respect4.77
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.76
Questions4.88
Daniel Omar Vargas-Rosario 24 reported responses 3.76Eval / 5
Overall3.76 / 5

24 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration4.20
Connection2.90
Contribution3.30
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity2.60
Grading3.50
Reflection3.70
Respect4.40
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.80
Questions4.00
Orlando Reyes 69 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5

69 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.09
Synthesis4.34
Collaboration4.73
Connection3.30
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity2.97
Grading4.22
Reflection4.76
Respect4.27
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.19
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.27
Questions4.33
Igor E Rumanov 30 reported responses 2.66Eval / 5
Overall2.66 / 5

30 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.80
Technology2.10
Synthesis2.70
Collaboration2.70
Connection2.05
Contribution2.90
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity2.05
Grading2.35
Reflection2.70
Respect2.95
Creativity2.85
Feedback2.25
Interaction3.25
Challenge2.65
Questions2.90
Yanxin Li 130 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5

130 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.91
Technology4.07
Synthesis4.01
Collaboration4.03
Connection3.18
Contribution3.87
Discussion4.19
Inclusivity2.96
Grading4.14
Reflection4.38
Respect4.19
Creativity4.04
Feedback4.01
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.22
Questions4.45
Samik Dasgupta 30 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5

30 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.76
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.66
Contribution4.61
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.32
Grading4.83
Reflection4.45
Respect4.91
Creativity4.92
Feedback4.64
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.88
Questions4.98
Isis Aymara Gallardo 50 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5

50 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.28
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.88
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.78
Grading4.20
Reflection4.60
Respect4.68
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.28
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.47
Questions4.68
Chase Edward Meadors 2 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration2.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Jonathan Adam Belcher 3 reported responses 2.63Eval / 5
Overall2.63 / 5

3 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.70
Technology3.00
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration1.30
Connection3.00
Contribution2.00
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity1.50
Grading2.30
Reflection3.30
Respect3.70
Creativity2.70
Feedback2.00
Interaction3.70
Challenge2.30
Questions3.70
Hongkai Zhu 106 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5

106 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.21
Technology3.85
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration4.01
Connection3.49
Contribution4.14
Discussion4.24
Inclusivity3.40
Grading3.99
Reflection4.44
Respect4.38
Creativity4.15
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.36
Challenge4.18
Questions4.33
Yanxiang Wang 58 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5

58 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.53
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.43
Reflection4.47
Respect4.67
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.47
Questions4.70
Luciana Scuderi 69 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5

69 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.77
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.77
Grading4.47
Reflection4.47
Respect4.93
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.70
Questions4.73
Sandro Orjuela 57 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5

57 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.03
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.57
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity3.57
Grading4.27
Reflection4.30
Respect4.47
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.43
Questions4.57
Immie Cresswell 38 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5

38 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.95
Connection3.35
Contribution3.75
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.45
Reflection4.35
Respect4.70
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.50
Questions4.45
Howy Jordan 3 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5

3 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.50
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Show fewer
Find a course or professor

Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.