Course record MATH

MATH 2400

Calculus 3

University of Colorado Boulder

3,236 grades96 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score18/100
Needs work

Professors 96 of 96

Matthew Paul Watson 27 grades · 1 term 3.27GPA
51.9% A
33.3% B
7.4% C
0.0% D
7.4% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Watson vs. the course average
A +26.8
B +2.1
C −17.3
D −9.9
F −1.7

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.

Mengxiao Sun 27 grades · 1 term 3.12GPA
59.3% A
18.5% B
7.4% C
3.7% D
11.1% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Sun vs. the course average
A +34.2
B −12.8
C −17.3
D −6.2
F +2.0

Difference in percentage points.

6.9% withdrew · 2 of 29 enrolled.

Jordan Daniel Dubeau 27 grades · 1 term 2.94GPA
37.0% A
37.0% B
14.8% C
7.4% D
3.7% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Dubeau vs. the course average
A +12.0
B +5.8
C −9.9
D −2.5
F −5.4

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.

Andrew M Stocker 51 grades · 1 term 2.93GPA
37.3% A
35.3% B
21.6% C
0.0% D
5.9% F

51 letter grades

Compare with the course
Stocker vs. the course average
A +12.2
B +4.0
C −3.1
D −9.9
F −3.2

Difference in percentage points.

7.3% withdrew · 4 of 55 enrolled.

Derek J Eby 26 grades · 1 term 2.87GPA
34.6% A
34.6% B
23.1% C
0.0% D
7.7% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Eby vs. the course average
A +9.6
B +3.3
C −1.6
D −9.9
F −1.4

Difference in percentage points.

3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.

Jennifer Michelle Gensler 26 grades · 1 term 2.82GPA
30.8% A
38.5% B
19.2% C
3.8% D
7.7% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Gensler vs. the course average
A +5.7
B +7.2
C −5.5
D −6.1
F −1.4

Difference in percentage points.

7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.

James W Ogaja 54 grades · 1 term 2.80GPA
29.6% A
33.3% B
27.8% C
5.6% D
3.7% F

54 letter grades

Compare with the course
Ogaja vs. the course average
A +4.6
B +2.1
C +3.1
D −4.4
F −5.4

Difference in percentage points.

6.9% withdrew · 4 of 58 enrolled.

Lucas R Gagnon 50 grades · 1 term 2.77GPA
20.0% A
50.0% B
20.0% C
4.0% D
6.0% F

50 letter grades

Compare with the course
Gagnon vs. the course average
A −5.0
B +18.7
C −4.7
D −5.9
F −3.1

Difference in percentage points.

3.8% withdrew · 2 of 52 enrolled.

Jackson Robinett Carpenter 28 grades · 1 term 2.77GPA
32.1% A
35.7% B
17.9% C
7.1% D
7.1% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Carpenter vs. the course average
A +7.1
B +4.4
C −6.8
D −2.8
F −1.9

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.

Harrison Edward Stalvey 234 grades · 1 term 2.73GPA
32.9% A
29.9% B
21.8% C
10.3% D
5.1% F

234 letter grades

Compare with the course
Stalvey vs. the course average
A +7.9
B −1.4
C −2.9
D +0.3
F −4.0

Difference in percentage points.

4.5% withdrew · 11 of 245 enrolled.

Albert Bronstein 113 grades · 1 term 2.70GPA
25.7% A
39.8% B
21.2% C
6.2% D
7.1% F

113 letter grades

Compare with the course
Bronstein vs. the course average
A +0.6
B +8.5
C −3.5
D −3.7
F −2.0

Difference in percentage points.

5.8% withdrew · 7 of 120 enrolled.

Andre Charles Davis 74 grades · 1 term 2.69GPA
35.1% A
29.7% B
17.6% C
9.5% D
8.1% F

74 letter grades

Compare with the course
Davis vs. the course average
A +10.1
B −1.5
C −7.1
D −0.5
F −1.0

Difference in percentage points.

7.5% withdrew · 6 of 80 enrolled.

Peter R Rock 118 grades · 1 term 2.68GPA
28.0% A
37.3% B
21.2% C
5.9% D
7.6% F

118 letter grades

Compare with the course
Rock vs. the course average
A +2.9
B +6.0
C −3.5
D −4.0
F −1.5

Difference in percentage points.

0.8% withdrew · 1 of 119 enrolled.

Joel Ron Ornstein 39 grades · 1 term 2.67GPA
23.1% A
35.9% B
30.8% C
5.1% D
5.1% F

39 letter grades

Compare with the course
Ornstein vs. the course average
A −2.0
B +4.6
C +6.1
D −4.8
F −4.0

Difference in percentage points.

11.4% withdrew · 5 of 44 enrolled.

Joseph Benjamin Timmer 39 grades · 1 term 2.66GPA
23.1% A
35.9% B
28.2% C
7.7% D
5.1% F

39 letter grades

Compare with the course
Timmer vs. the course average
A −2.0
B +4.6
C +3.5
D −2.2
F −4.0

Difference in percentage points.

2.5% withdrew · 1 of 40 enrolled.

Athena Crystine Sparks 25 grades · 1 term 2.66GPA
20.0% A
36.0% B
36.0% C
8.0% D
0.0% F

25 letter grades

Compare with the course
Sparks vs. the course average
A −5.0
B +4.7
C +11.3
D −1.9
F −9.1

Difference in percentage points.

3.8% withdrew · 1 of 26 enrolled.

Andrew J Campbell 135 grades · 1 term 2.65GPA
31.1% A
31.9% B
20.0% C
8.1% D
8.9% F

135 letter grades

Compare with the course
Campbell vs. the course average
A +6.1
B +0.6
C −4.7
D −1.8
F −0.2

Difference in percentage points.

4.9% withdrew · 7 of 142 enrolled.

Kevin W Manley 56 grades · 1 term 2.61GPA
23.2% A
35.7% B
21.4% C
14.3% D
5.4% F

56 letter grades

Compare with the course
Manley vs. the course average
A −1.8
B +4.4
C −3.3
D +4.4
F −3.7

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 4 of 60 enrolled.

Juan Carlos Moreno 36 grades · 1 term 2.60GPA
25.0% A
30.6% B
33.3% C
8.3% D
2.8% F

36 letter grades

Compare with the course
Moreno vs. the course average
A same
B −0.7
C +8.6
D −1.6
F −6.3

Difference in percentage points.

2.7% withdrew · 1 of 37 enrolled.

Alexandru Nita 46 grades · 1 term 2.59GPA
28.3% A
39.1% B
15.2% C
4.3% D
13.0% F

46 letter grades

Compare with the course
Nita vs. the course average
A +3.2
B +7.9
C −9.5
D −5.6
F +4.0

Difference in percentage points.

2.1% withdrew · 1 of 47 enrolled.

Nicholas Jeffrey Christoffersen 26 grades · 1 term 2.57GPA
38.5% A
19.2% B
19.2% C
7.7% D
15.4% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Christoffersen vs. the course average
A +13.4
B −12.0
C −5.5
D −2.2
F +6.3

Difference in percentage points.

3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.

Lee Forrest Roberson 57 grades · 1 term 2.56GPA
29.8% A
35.1% B
15.8% C
3.5% D
15.8% F

57 letter grades

Compare with the course
Roberson vs. the course average
A +4.8
B +3.8
C −8.9
D −6.4
F +6.7

Difference in percentage points.

6.6% withdrew · 4 of 61 enrolled.

Mark Andrew Pullins 25 grades · 1 term 2.55GPA
20.0% A
40.0% B
28.0% C
4.0% D
8.0% F

25 letter grades

Compare with the course
Pullins vs. the course average
A −5.0
B +8.7
C +3.3
D −5.9
F −1.1

Difference in percentage points.

3.8% withdrew · 1 of 26 enrolled.

Corey Francis Lyons 182 grades · 1 term 2.53GPA
20.3% A
37.9% B
26.4% C
7.1% D
8.2% F

182 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lyons vs. the course average
A −4.7
B +6.6
C +1.7
D −2.8
F −0.8

Difference in percentage points.

2.2% withdrew · 4 of 186 enrolled.

Braden Loil Balentine 111 grades · 1 term 2.51GPA
28.8% A
25.2% B
25.2% C
14.4% D
6.3% F

111 letter grades

Compare with the course
Balentine vs. the course average
A +3.8
B −6.0
C +0.5
D +4.5
F −2.8

Difference in percentage points.

4.3% withdrew · 5 of 116 enrolled.

Chase Edward Meadors 134 grades · 1 term 2.51GPA
24.6% A
28.4% B
29.9% C
9.7% D
7.5% F

134 letter grades

Compare with the course
Meadors vs. the course average
A −0.4
B −2.9
C +5.2
D −0.2
F −1.6

Difference in percentage points.

5.6% withdrew · 8 of 142 enrolled.

Hanson William Smith 26 grades · 1 term 2.50GPA
23.1% A
26.9% B
23.1% C
23.1% D
3.8% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Smith vs. the course average
A −2.0
B −4.4
C −1.6
D +13.2
F −5.2

Difference in percentage points.

3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.

Nicholas Church Jamesson 28 grades · 1 term 2.47GPA
25.0% A
42.9% B
7.1% C
17.9% D
7.1% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Jamesson vs. the course average
A same
B +11.6
C −17.5
D +7.9
F −1.9

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 2 of 30 enrolled.

Alessandra Kimberley Graf 205 grades · 1 term 2.44GPA
20.5% A
35.6% B
25.4% C
7.8% D
10.7% F

205 letter grades

Compare with the course
Graf vs. the course average
A −4.5
B +4.3
C +0.7
D −2.1
F +1.6

Difference in percentage points.

4.7% withdrew · 10 of 215 enrolled.

Erik Royd Feirin Knutsen 28 grades · 1 term 2.42GPA
21.4% A
35.7% B
21.4% C
7.1% D
14.3% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Knutsen vs. the course average
A −3.6
B +4.4
C −3.3
D −2.8
F +5.2

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 2 of 30 enrolled.

Joseph Hennessey Macula 54 grades · 1 term 2.38GPA
27.8% A
20.4% B
29.6% C
9.3% D
13.0% F

54 letter grades

Compare with the course
Macula vs. the course average
A +2.7
B −10.9
C +4.9
D −0.7
F +3.9

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 2 of 56 enrolled.

Elizabeth Scott-Janda 111 grades · 1 term 2.36GPA
19.8% A
26.1% B
35.1% C
9.9% D
9.0% F

111 letter grades

Compare with the course
Scott-Janda vs. the course average
A −5.2
B −5.1
C +10.4
D same
F −0.1

Difference in percentage points.

5.1% withdrew · 6 of 117 enrolled.

Champ Davis 58 grades · 1 term 2.34GPA
20.7% A
32.8% B
22.4% C
15.5% D
8.6% F

58 letter grades

Compare with the course
Davis vs. the course average
A −4.3
B +1.5
C −2.3
D +5.6
F −0.5

Difference in percentage points.

3.3% withdrew · 2 of 60 enrolled.

Sean Daniel O'Rourke 51 grades · 1 term 2.33GPA
9.8% A
43.1% B
29.4% C
5.9% D
11.8% F

51 letter grades

Compare with the course
O'Rourke vs. the course average
A −15.2
B +11.9
C +4.7
D −4.0
F +2.7

Difference in percentage points.

3.8% withdrew · 2 of 53 enrolled.

Rebecah Helen Storms 61 grades · 1 term 2.31GPA
21.3% A
27.9% B
21.3% C
19.7% D
9.8% F

61 letter grades

Compare with the course
Storms vs. the course average
A −3.7
B −3.4
C −3.4
D +9.8
F +0.8

Difference in percentage points.

1.6% withdrew · 1 of 62 enrolled.

Xingzhou Yang 364 grades · 1 term 2.30GPA
21.2% A
27.2% B
25.8% C
13.7% D
12.1% F

364 letter grades

Compare with the course
Yang vs. the course average
A −3.9
B −4.1
C +1.1
D +3.8
F +3.0

Difference in percentage points.

3.7% withdrew · 14 of 378 enrolled.

Bob Kuo 72 grades · 1 term 2.29GPA
19.4% A
27.8% B
27.8% C
11.1% D
13.9% F

72 letter grades

Compare with the course
Kuo vs. the course average
A −5.6
B −3.5
C +3.1
D +1.2
F +4.8

Difference in percentage points.

6.5% withdrew · 5 of 77 enrolled.

Aidan Powers 27 grades · 1 term 2.27GPA
25.9% A
18.5% B
25.9% C
14.8% D
14.8% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Powers vs. the course average
A +0.9
B −12.8
C +1.2
D +4.9
F +5.7

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.

Rachel Marie Chaiser 50 grades · 1 term 2.23GPA
20.0% A
20.0% B
36.0% C
10.0% D
14.0% F

50 letter grades

Compare with the course
Chaiser vs. the course average
A −5.0
B −11.3
C +11.3
D +0.1
F +4.9

Difference in percentage points.

3.8% withdrew · 2 of 52 enrolled.

Michael James Wheeler 109 grades · 1 term 2.18GPA
21.1% A
21.1% B
29.4% C
14.7% D
13.8% F

109 letter grades

Compare with the course
Wheeler vs. the course average
A −3.9
B −10.2
C +4.7
D +4.8
F +4.7

Difference in percentage points.

2.7% withdrew · 3 of 112 enrolled.

Camilo Mesa 49 grades · 1 term 2.11GPA
18.4% A
14.3% B
38.8% C
16.3% D
12.2% F

49 letter grades

Compare with the course
Mesa vs. the course average
A −6.7
B −17.0
C +14.1
D +6.4
F +3.2

Difference in percentage points.

3.9% withdrew · 2 of 51 enrolled.

Mateo P Muro 43 grades · 1 term 2.05GPA
9.3% A
23.3% B
34.9% C
23.3% D
9.3% F

43 letter grades

Compare with the course
Muro vs. the course average
A −15.7
B −8.0
C +10.2
D +13.3
F +0.2

Difference in percentage points.

6.5% withdrew · 3 of 46 enrolled.

Connor Alexander Mccranie 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.73GPA
39.1% A
34.8% B
4.3% C
8.7% D
13.0% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

8.0% withdrew · 2 of 25 enrolled.

Cherry Ng 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.49GPA
29.2% A
25.0% B
29.2% C
4.2% D
12.5% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

7.7% withdrew · 2 of 26 enrolled.

Harold L Jordan 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.49GPA
17.4% A
43.5% B
21.7% C
17.4% D
0.0% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

4.2% withdrew · 1 of 24 enrolled.

Sebastian James Bozlee 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.41GPA
5.0% A
45.0% B
30.0% C
20.0% D
0.0% F

20 letter grades · Limited sample

13.0% withdrew · 3 of 23 enrolled.

Trevor E Jack 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.18GPA
4.3% A
30.4% B
43.5% C
17.4% D
4.3% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

11.5% withdrew · 3 of 26 enrolled.

Shen Lu 21 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.05GPA
28.6% A
19.0% B
14.3% C
9.5% D
28.6% F

21 letter grades · Limited sample

16.0% withdrew · 4 of 25 enrolled.

Trevor Manders 27 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5

27 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.20
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.10
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.30
Questions4.60
Carlos Enrique Pinilla Suarez 72 reported responses 3.69Eval / 5
Overall3.69 / 5

72 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.63
Collaboration3.73
Connection2.90
Contribution3.73
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity2.40
Grading3.40
Reflection3.93
Respect4.47
Creativity3.57
Feedback3.27
Interaction4.33
Challenge3.60
Questions3.87
Christopher James Keala Eblen 69 reported responses 3.97Eval / 5
Overall3.97 / 5

69 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.33
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.27
Collaboration3.13
Connection2.60
Contribution3.03
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity2.43
Grading4.00
Reflection3.63
Respect4.80
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.37
Questions4.53
Alexander Nita 37 reported responses 3.57Eval / 5
Overall3.57 / 5

37 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.45
Technology3.55
Synthesis3.15
Collaboration3.25
Connection2.80
Contribution3.65
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity2.40
Grading3.45
Reflection3.75
Respect4.60
Creativity3.05
Feedback2.95
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.55
Questions3.90
Bronstein Albert 76 reported responses 3.36Eval / 5
Overall3.36 / 5

76 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.97
Technology3.22
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration3.02
Connection2.66
Contribution2.71
Discussion2.68
Inclusivity2.45
Grading3.21
Reflection3.64
Respect4.01
Creativity3.22
Feedback2.40
Interaction3.79
Challenge3.54
Questions3.22
Adrian Edward Neff 112 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5

112 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.38
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration4.11
Connection3.58
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity3.16
Grading4.63
Reflection4.52
Respect4.83
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.58
Interaction4.64
Challenge4.73
Questions4.81
Albany Rose Thompson 26 reported responses 4.21Eval / 5
Overall4.21 / 5

26 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.55
Synthesis3.55
Collaboration3.65
Connection2.40
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity2.60
Grading4.55
Reflection3.60
Respect4.85
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Isabelle Kraus 61 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5

61 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.13
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.63
Connection2.90
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity2.77
Grading4.27
Reflection3.90
Respect4.53
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.33
Questions4.47
Rebecca Anne Deland 171 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5

171 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration4.45
Connection3.93
Contribution4.14
Discussion4.52
Inclusivity3.79
Grading4.28
Reflection4.57
Respect4.81
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.63
Questions4.59
Peter Robert Rock Ii 49 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5

49 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.26
Connection3.88
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity2.93
Grading4.70
Reflection4.62
Respect4.82
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.68
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.70
Questions4.88
Levi Samuel Lorenzo 32 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5

32 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.15
Synthesis3.85
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.70
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.75
Grading4.15
Reflection4.40
Respect4.60
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.65
Questions4.55
Michael D Roy 6 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5

6 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.97
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.42
Connection3.73
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.97
Reflection4.98
Respect4.99
Creativity4.96
Feedback4.97
Interaction4.31
Challenge4.97
Questions4.99
Jonathan Randall Quartin 9 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5

9 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.95
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.40
Reflection4.10
Respect4.40
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.60
Questions4.40
Emily Ann Montelius 73 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5

73 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.46
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.31
Connection3.94
Contribution4.04
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity3.84
Grading4.56
Reflection4.57
Respect4.76
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.58
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.54
Questions4.64
Rebecah Deans 142 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5

142 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.21
Technology4.51
Synthesis4.34
Collaboration4.23
Connection3.81
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity3.63
Grading4.36
Reflection4.54
Respect4.58
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.42
Questions4.60
Matt Watson 76 reported responses 4.23Eval / 5
Overall4.23 / 5

76 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology4.04
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration4.02
Connection3.60
Contribution3.81
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity3.09
Grading4.45
Reflection4.32
Respect4.65
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.34
Challenge4.56
Questions4.79
Jon Kim 72 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5

72 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.46
Technology4.39
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration4.37
Connection3.74
Contribution4.11
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity3.44
Grading4.64
Reflection4.42
Respect4.90
Creativity4.24
Feedback4.16
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.65
Questions4.84
Daniel Lyness 113 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5

113 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration4.38
Connection3.94
Contribution4.19
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity3.01
Grading4.63
Reflection4.47
Respect4.51
Creativity4.24
Feedback4.31
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.38
Questions4.88
Calum Ieuan Shearer 123 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5

123 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.18
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.79
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity3.52
Grading4.63
Reflection4.49
Respect4.66
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.64
Questions4.75
Colin Montgomery Jackson 164 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5

164 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.18
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.58
Contribution4.21
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity3.16
Grading4.63
Reflection4.28
Respect4.81
Creativity4.31
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.55
Questions4.83
Sylvia Maher 91 reported responses 3.90Eval / 5
Overall3.90 / 5

91 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.97
Technology3.23
Synthesis3.84
Collaboration3.96
Connection3.32
Contribution3.76
Discussion3.82
Inclusivity3.13
Grading3.77
Reflection4.07
Respect4.23
Creativity3.66
Feedback3.41
Interaction4.25
Challenge3.81
Questions4.06
Summer Haag 48 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5

48 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.05
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.85
Grading4.40
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.65
Questions4.75
Rebekah Yuki Jones 98 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5

98 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.44
Technology4.22
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration4.41
Connection3.93
Contribution4.14
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity3.69
Grading4.54
Reflection4.57
Respect4.89
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.39
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.64
Questions4.87
Nick Jamesson 98 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5

98 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.24
Connection3.86
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity3.59
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.63
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.45
Questions4.70
Howy Jordan 39 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5

39 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.32
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration4.34
Connection4.04
Contribution4.44
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity3.75
Grading4.75
Reflection4.57
Respect4.75
Creativity4.24
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.57
Questions4.75
Andrew Ward Doumont 64 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5

64 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.67
Contribution3.93
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.33
Grading4.57
Reflection4.57
Respect4.70
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.50
Questions4.63
Sam Reeder 97 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5

97 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.04
Connection3.76
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.61
Inclusivity3.09
Grading4.49
Reflection4.38
Respect4.50
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.46
Challenge4.64
Questions4.77
Edouard Pierre Heitzmann 60 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5

60 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.73
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity3.23
Grading4.33
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.53
Questions4.77
Stephanie Youngmi Oh 49 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5

49 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.85
Connection3.45
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity2.95
Grading4.35
Reflection4.15
Respect4.80
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.15
Challenge4.45
Questions4.55
Wei Jit Wu Lu 70 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5

70 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.33
Connection3.93
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.40
Reflection4.70
Respect4.73
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.37
Questions4.60
Jasmin Millan Rodriguez 46 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5

46 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.05
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.55
Grading4.25
Reflection4.50
Respect4.75
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.60
Questions4.65
Tuscany Vennard Que Mccann 77 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5

77 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.37
Connection3.90
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity3.47
Grading4.50
Reflection4.43
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.63
Questions4.67
Sangman Lee 99 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5

99 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.38
Connection3.95
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity3.83
Grading4.46
Reflection4.62
Respect4.75
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Vladislav Bukshtynov 9 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5

9 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration1.35
Connection3.55
Contribution3.02
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.58
Grading4.77
Reflection4.52
Respect4.91
Creativity4.82
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.84
Questions4.93
Ari Atkins 72 reported responses 4.06Eval / 5
Overall4.06 / 5

72 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.87
Collaboration4.23
Connection3.60
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity3.07
Grading3.87
Reflection4.30
Respect4.10
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.07
Questions4.27
Jun S Hong 36 reported responses 3.84Eval / 5
Overall3.84 / 5

36 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.55
Technology4.25
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.85
Contribution3.55
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.90
Grading3.65
Reflection3.80
Respect4.50
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.25
Interaction4.25
Challenge3.90
Questions4.25
Darwin Tallana 130 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5

130 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.21
Connection3.82
Contribution4.12
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.31
Grading4.36
Reflection4.38
Respect4.74
Creativity4.36
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.41
Challenge4.43
Questions4.66
Alex Lajeunesse 68 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5

68 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.92
Technology4.31
Synthesis3.88
Collaboration3.96
Connection3.67
Contribution3.74
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity2.94
Grading4.51
Reflection4.01
Respect4.56
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.39
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.53
Questions4.62
Constantin Dorin Dumitrascu 44 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5

44 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.05
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.95
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.40
Respect4.75
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.45
Questions4.75
Taylor Rogers 71 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5

71 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.52
Connection4.04
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity3.32
Grading4.53
Reflection4.62
Respect4.68
Creativity4.56
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.77
Questions4.73
Yanxin Li 52 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5

52 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.17
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.03
Connection3.80
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity3.13
Grading4.17
Reflection4.23
Respect4.60
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.13
Questions4.53
Jack Dalton 22 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5

22 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.30
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity2.20
Grading4.20
Reflection4.00
Respect4.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.90
Questions4.20
Tim J Schumacher 21 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5

21 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.68
Connection4.36
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.84
Reflection4.84
Respect4.99
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.89
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.89
Questions4.99
Samik Dasgupta 18 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5

18 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.40
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.30
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.30
Questions4.30
Eli Orvis 71 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5

71 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.33
Connection3.83
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity3.57
Grading4.50
Reflection4.37
Respect4.83
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.53
Questions4.63
Anoushka Nerella Kameswari Umamaheshwar 45 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5

45 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.13
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.67
Respect4.60
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.63
Questions4.60
Orlando Reyes 38 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5

38 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.47
Connection3.90
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.03
Grading4.50
Reflection4.63
Respect4.80
Creativity4.63
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.77
Questions4.73
Basia Klos 47 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5

47 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.90
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.37
Grading4.40
Reflection4.37
Respect4.50
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.67
Questions4.60
Show fewer
Find a course or professor

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