Course record MATH
MATH 3430
Ordinary Differential Equations
University of Colorado Boulder
908 grades23 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score21/100
Below average
Jeffrey S Fox 26 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fox vs. the course average
A
+55.8
B
−31.7
C
−16.0
D
−4.6
F
−3.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.
Overall3.48 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology3.20
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration2.40
Connection3.40
Contribution3.20
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.40
Grading3.10
Reflection3.60
Respect4.90
Creativity3.10
Feedback3.10
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.60
Questions3.80
Magda Czubak 31 grades · 1 term 3.34GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Czubak vs. the course average
A
+4.9
B
+13.4
C
−9.5
D
−4.6
F
−4.2
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 1 of 32 enrolled.
Overall4.58 / 5
111 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration3.73
Connection3.79
Contribution4.42
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity3.59
Grading4.77
Reflection4.61
Respect4.88
Creativity4.39
Feedback4.68
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.79
Questions4.84
Yuhao Hu 27 grades · 1 term 3.30GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hu vs. the course average
A
+7.8
B
+9.0
C
−8.6
D
−4.6
F
−3.7
Difference in percentage points.
6.9% withdrew · 2 of 29 enrolled.
Marcos Mazari Armida 33 grades · 1 term 3.23GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Armida vs. the course average
A
+14.2
B
−4.4
C
−6.9
D
+4.5
F
−7.4
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 33 enrolled.
Overall4.53 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.20
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.70
Reflection4.50
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Menevse Eryuzlu 97 grades · 1 term 3.17GPA
97 letter grades
Compare with the course
Eryuzlu vs. the course average
A
+18.5
B
−10.1
C
−6.7
D
+1.6
F
−3.3
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 4 of 101 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.21
Technology3.68
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.56
Connection3.48
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity3.91
Grading4.31
Reflection4.48
Respect4.61
Creativity4.05
Feedback4.21
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.57
Questions4.58
Joseph Benjamin Timmer 118 grades · 1 term 3.10GPA
118 letter grades
Compare with the course
Timmer vs. the course average
A
+6.3
B
−1.2
C
−0.7
D
−0.4
F
−4.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.8% withdrew · 1 of 119 enrolled.
Overall4.58 / 5
76 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.41
Technology3.92
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration4.67
Connection3.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.44
Grading4.03
Reflection4.61
Respect4.80
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.61
Questions4.80
Alexander Gorokhovsky 59 grades · 1 term 3.05GPA
59 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gorokhovsky vs. the course average
A
+7.1
B
+2.2
C
−9.2
D
+0.5
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 3 of 62 enrolled.
Overall3.82 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.74
Technology3.69
Synthesis3.81
Collaboration3.35
Connection3.18
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.44
Inclusivity3.72
Grading3.47
Reflection3.91
Respect4.20
Creativity3.53
Feedback3.43
Interaction4.02
Challenge4.01
Questions4.39
Divya E. Vernerey 62 grades · 1 term 3.01GPA
62 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vernerey vs. the course average
A
same
B
−1.1
C
+8.2
D
−4.6
F
−2.5
Difference in percentage points.
7.5% withdrew · 5 of 67 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration4.46
Connection4.05
Contribution4.24
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.42
Grading4.15
Reflection4.74
Respect4.81
Creativity4.62
Feedback3.78
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.76
Questions4.77
Carla Farsi 56 grades · 1 term 2.95GPA
56 letter grades
Compare with the course
Farsi vs. the course average
A
−8.2
B
+12.9
C
−1.7
D
+2.5
F
−5.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.8% withdrew · 1 of 57 enrolled.
Overall3.30 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.09
Technology2.76
Synthesis2.69
Collaboration3.31
Connection2.38
Contribution3.52
Discussion3.71
Inclusivity4.30
Grading2.75
Reflection3.03
Respect3.46
Creativity2.64
Feedback2.69
Interaction3.99
Challenge3.46
Questions3.16
Judith Packer Jesudason 29 grades · 1 term 2.91GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jesudason vs. the course average
A
−2.4
B
−0.7
C
+4.7
D
−1.2
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
6.5% withdrew · 2 of 31 enrolled.
Overall3.72 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology2.90
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.30
Connection2.40
Contribution2.70
Discussion3.10
Inclusivity2.80
Grading4.30
Reflection3.50
Respect4.60
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.40
Rosa Maria Fuster Aguilera 64 grades · 1 term 2.82GPA
64 letter grades
Compare with the course
Aguilera vs. the course average
A
−2.8
B
−6.7
C
+9.0
D
+1.6
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.5% withdrew · 3 of 67 enrolled.
Overall4.27 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration4.36
Connection4.13
Contribution4.08
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity4.28
Grading4.29
Reflection4.45
Respect4.79
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.16
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.63
Questions4.64
David R Grant 32 grades · 1 term 2.80GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Grant vs. the course average
A
−15.3
B
+12.0
C
+5.9
D
−1.5
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 1 of 33 enrolled.
Overall4.01 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.40
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.60
Connection3.70
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.60
Grading3.90
Reflection4.00
Respect4.50
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.40
Questions4.20
Sheagan Abdallah Karan Arlene John 101 grades · 1 term 2.74GPA
101 letter grades
Compare with the course
John vs. the course average
A
−14.6
B
+6.9
C
+12.7
D
−3.6
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
3.8% withdrew · 4 of 105 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.34
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.48
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity3.78
Grading4.51
Reflection4.06
Respect4.52
Creativity4.62
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.69
Questions4.71
Levi Samuel Lorenzo 28 grades · 1 term 2.54GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lorenzo vs. the course average
A
−22.5
B
+18.3
C
−5.3
D
+6.1
F
+3.3
Difference in percentage points.
9.7% withdrew · 3 of 31 enrolled.
Overall4.23 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology3.60
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.10
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.00
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.60
Questions4.40
Taylor Joseph Klotz 54 grades · 1 term 2.43GPA
54 letter grades
Compare with the course
Klotz vs. the course average
A
−7.0
B
−0.2
C
−8.6
D
+0.9
F
+14.8
Difference in percentage points.
8.5% withdrew · 5 of 59 enrolled.
Overall4.05 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.36
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.05
Contribution3.55
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.35
Grading3.65
Reflection4.44
Respect4.91
Creativity3.95
Feedback3.64
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.38
Questions4.50
Alonso Delfin Ares De Parga 36 grades · 1 term 2.28GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Parga vs. the course average
A
−7.0
B
−6.7
C
−7.6
D
−1.8
F
+23.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 1 of 37 enrolled.
Overall3.96 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.16
Collaboration2.88
Connection3.11
Contribution3.55
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity3.96
Grading4.08
Reflection3.74
Respect4.64
Creativity3.83
Feedback3.98
Interaction4.06
Challenge4.36
Questions4.51
Igor E Rumanov 55 grades · 1 term 2.17GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rumanov vs. the course average
A
−23.9
B
−4.4
C
+13.1
D
+8.1
F
+7.2
Difference in percentage points.
11.3% withdrew · 7 of 62 enrolled.
Overall2.11 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.15
Technology1.90
Synthesis2.10
Collaboration1.55
Connection1.95
Contribution2.40
Discussion2.65
Inclusivity1.85
Grading1.85
Reflection2.25
Respect2.45
Creativity2.15
Feedback1.55
Interaction2.30
Challenge2.50
Questions2.50
Michael B Noyes 20 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.37
Connection4.98
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.94
Reflection4.93
Respect5.00
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.99
Interaction4.85
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Patrick Thaxton Newberry 19 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology3.95
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.89
Connection3.46
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity2.86
Grading4.82
Reflection4.53
Respect5.00
Creativity4.62
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.91
Questions4.82
Nhan Du Vi Nguyen 23 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.32
Synthesis4.83
Collaboration4.95
Connection3.99
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.88
Reflection4.55
Respect4.54
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.90
Questions4.59
Xingzhou Yang 3 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Chindu Mohanakumar 17 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.40
Connection3.80
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions4.60
Zheng Xiao 13 reported responses 3.08Eval / 5
Overall3.08 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology2.40
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration2.30
Connection2.60
Contribution2.50
Discussion3.20
Inclusivity2.20
Grading3.00
Reflection3.20
Respect3.80
Creativity2.90
Feedback3.20
Interaction3.10
Challenge3.20
Questions3.60
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.