Course record MCEN
MCEN 3012
Thermodynamics
University of Colorado Boulder
1,208 grades22 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score28/100
Below average
Kari A Sholtes 40 grades · 1 term 3.32GPA
40 letter grades
Compare with the course
Sholtes vs. the course average
A
+15.2
B
−10.9
C
−1.5
D
−0.9
F
−1.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 40 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.79
Connection4.77
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.63
Reflection4.81
Respect4.86
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.72
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.91
Questions4.80
Joan Kathryn Tisdale 53 grades · 1 term 3.29GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tisdale vs. the course average
A
+13.0
B
−10.1
C
+0.5
D
−3.4
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 54 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.40
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Hope Andrea Michelsen 529 grades · 1 term 3.23GPA
529 letter grades
Compare with the course
Michelsen vs. the course average
A
+7.6
B
−3.2
C
−2.5
D
−1.9
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
3.8% withdrew · 21 of 550 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
527 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.41
Technology4.27
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration3.74
Connection4.61
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.81
Grading4.12
Reflection4.35
Respect4.63
Creativity4.38
Feedback3.83
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.57
Questions4.66
Kevin Terry 28 grades · 1 term 3.19GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Terry vs. the course average
A
−11.2
B
+18.7
C
−2.2
D
−3.4
F
−1.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.60
Contribution4.30
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.70
Reflection4.60
Respect4.60
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Nicole Jeanne Labbe 63 grades · 1 term 3.06GPA
63 letter grades
Compare with the course
Labbe vs. the course average
A
−3.3
B
+4.4
C
−3.8
D
+3.0
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 1 of 64 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.60
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Jeremy Koch 52 grades · 1 term 3.01GPA
52 letter grades
Compare with the course
Koch vs. the course average
A
−9.0
B
+9.7
C
−3.0
D
+4.3
F
−1.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 53 enrolled.
Overall4.42 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.90
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.20
Reflection4.60
Respect5.00
Creativity4.90
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Julie Elizabeth Steinbrenner 57 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Steinbrenner vs. the course average
A
−15.3
B
+16.0
C
+2.8
D
−1.6
F
−1.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 1 of 58 enrolled.
Jeffrey Steven Knutsen 191 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
191 letter grades
Compare with the course
Knutsen vs. the course average
A
−3.2
B
−2.3
C
+3.4
D
+1.8
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.4% withdrew · 13 of 204 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
268 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.59
Connection4.90
Contribution4.42
Discussion4.71
Inclusivity3.91
Grading4.59
Reflection4.80
Respect4.78
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.86
Questions4.78
Peter Paul Mitrano 97 grades · 1 term 2.83GPA
97 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mitrano vs. the course average
A
−17.1
B
+12.1
C
+2.1
D
+1.8
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 97 enrolled.
Overall3.82 / 5
99 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.53
Technology3.15
Synthesis3.46
Collaboration3.36
Connection3.80
Contribution3.69
Discussion3.79
Inclusivity2.92
Grading2.61
Reflection3.29
Respect4.10
Creativity3.31
Feedback2.13
Interaction3.84
Challenge3.56
Questions2.58
Andrew P Baugher 64 grades · 1 term 2.66GPA
64 letter grades
Compare with the course
Baugher vs. the course average
A
−14.8
B
+0.7
C
+3.8
D
+6.0
F
+4.3
Difference in percentage points.
7.2% withdrew · 5 of 69 enrolled.
Overall4.36 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.40
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.40
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
Jesus Hector Morales Espejo 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.72GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 14 enrolled.
Overall5.00 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Jennifer Dolan Herdman 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.35GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.
Overall4.37 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.90
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.20
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.40
Questions4.90
Jeff F Glusman 57 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
57 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration3.85
Connection4.60
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.65
Grading4.15
Reflection4.45
Respect4.75
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.25
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Kari Autumn Leech 13 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Jan Adam Norris Ii 6 reported responses 3.42Eval / 5
Overall3.42 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology2.91
Synthesis3.07
Collaboration3.72
Connection4.84
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity2.70
Grading2.14
Reflection4.42
Respect4.82
Creativity3.63
Feedback1.37
Interaction4.82
Challenge3.86
Questions4.40
Francisco Castro 5 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction3.80
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Joany Tisdale 7 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.90
Connection5.00
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Nathan John Mcneill 18 reported responses 3.80Eval / 5
Overall3.80 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.30
Contribution3.70
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.60
Reflection3.60
Respect4.20
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.20
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.10
Questions3.70
Gregory James Hampson 71 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
71 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.48
Technology4.38
Synthesis4.41
Collaboration3.71
Connection4.75
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity3.71
Grading4.31
Reflection4.43
Respect4.65
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.43
Questions4.51
Caroline Frischmon 52 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.70
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Emily Amaya Evans Artale 2 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.50
Grading5.00
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.00
Questions5.00
Connor Callaway 11 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.