Course record MATH
MATH 3001
Analysis 1
University of Colorado Boulder
552 grades22 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score24/100
Below average
Yuhao Hu 29 grades · 1 term 3.37GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hu vs. the course average
A
+9.9
B
+6.6
C
−7.8
D
−2.9
F
−5.8
Difference in percentage points.
6.5% withdrew · 2 of 31 enrolled.
Judith Packer Jesudason 67 grades · 1 term 3.12GPA
67 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jesudason vs. the course average
A
−2.6
B
+14.9
C
−8.1
D
−2.9
F
−1.3
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 3 of 70 enrolled.
Overall4.37 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.88
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration4.19
Connection3.89
Contribution3.99
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity3.21
Grading4.89
Reflection4.38
Respect4.79
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.78
Questions4.79
Martin E Walter 25 grades · 1 term 3.04GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Walter vs. the course average
A
+5.6
B
−11.3
C
+14.4
D
−2.9
F
−5.8
Difference in percentage points.
7.4% withdrew · 2 of 27 enrolled.
Sean Daniel O'Rourke 72 grades · 1 term 3.03GPA
72 letter grades
Compare with the course
O'Rourke vs. the course average
A
+8.8
B
−3.6
C
−4.9
D
−1.5
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 4 of 76 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
78 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.13
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration3.97
Connection3.73
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.13
Grading4.42
Reflection4.61
Respect4.76
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.71
Questions4.75
Agnes France Marie Beaudry 49 grades · 1 term 3.03GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Beaudry vs. the course average
A
−1.7
B
+11.5
C
−5.2
D
−2.9
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
7.5% withdrew · 4 of 53 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.79
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.79
Collaboration3.82
Connection3.50
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity4.29
Grading4.78
Reflection4.78
Respect4.89
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.89
Questions4.70
Robin John Deeley 71 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
71 letter grades
Compare with the course
Deeley vs. the course average
A
+3.8
B
+2.5
C
−10.3
D
+2.7
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.6% withdrew · 5 of 76 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.32
Technology3.13
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration3.31
Connection3.12
Contribution4.11
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity2.66
Grading3.71
Reflection4.51
Respect4.80
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.61
Questions4.79
Magda Czubak 43 grades · 1 term 2.79GPA
43 letter grades
Compare with the course
Czubak vs. the course average
A
−5.8
B
+3.5
C
−7.6
D
+11.1
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
10.4% withdrew · 5 of 48 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.80
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.95
Grading4.40
Reflection4.55
Respect4.75
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.85
Questions4.75
Carla Farsi 57 grades · 1 term 2.39GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Farsi vs. the course average
A
−19.1
B
−12.0
C
+29.3
D
−1.1
F
+3.0
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 2 of 59 enrolled.
Overall3.71 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.62
Technology3.56
Synthesis3.10
Collaboration3.08
Connection3.02
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.63
Inclusivity3.32
Grading2.95
Reflection3.17
Respect4.43
Creativity3.42
Feedback2.58
Interaction3.35
Challenge3.10
Questions3.56
Eric Stade 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.30GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.
Overall4.80 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.98
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.95
Collaboration4.69
Connection4.22
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.94
Grading4.79
Reflection4.98
Respect4.98
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.72
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.98
Questions4.98
Jeanne Nielsen Clelland 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.25GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
4.0% withdrew · 1 of 25 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.40
Connection3.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Menevse Eryuzlu 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.81GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.30
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.20
Questions4.60
Franz Nathaniel Thiem 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.73GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
8.3% withdrew · 2 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.60
Connection3.80
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.10
Reflection4.50
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.80
Questions4.00
Robert Tubbs 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.71GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
6.7% withdrew · 1 of 15 enrolled.
Overall4.17 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.30
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.60
Reflection4.30
Respect4.10
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.30
Questions4.70
Markus Josef Pflaum 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.68GPA
23 letter grades · Limited sample
4.2% withdrew · 1 of 24 enrolled.
Overall3.91 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.41
Technology3.02
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration3.02
Connection2.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity2.71
Grading3.98
Reflection4.59
Respect4.59
Creativity4.29
Feedback3.29
Interaction4.39
Challenge4.68
Questions4.10
James Anton Rickards 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.51GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.48 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration3.70
Connection2.40
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.60
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Alexander Nita 10 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.74
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration3.26
Connection3.94
Contribution4.87
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.63
Reflection4.55
Respect4.95
Creativity4.87
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.19
Challenge4.94
Questions4.87
Alonso Delfin Ares De Parga 15 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration3.95
Connection3.77
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity3.65
Grading4.67
Reflection4.67
Respect4.62
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.62
Questions4.81
Jonathan S Wise 4 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology2.70
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.20
Challenge5.00
Questions4.50
Siddhant Agrawal 16 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.80
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.80
Questions4.70
Alexander Gorokhovsky 8 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.20
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.40
Connection3.30
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions4.60
Erik Royd Feirin Knutsen 6 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.30
Connection5.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.60
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.50
David R Grant 9 reported responses 3.98Eval / 5
Overall3.98 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.00
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.20
Connection3.50
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.10
Reflection4.10
Respect4.50
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.30
Questions4.40
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.