Course record MDST
MDST 2002
Media and Communication History
University of Colorado Boulder
2,336 grades32 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score39/100
Below average
Matthew Dale Pickard 204 grades · 1 term 3.77GPA
204 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pickard vs. the course average
A
+31.2
B
−21.8
C
−7.2
D
−2.0
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 5 of 209 enrolled.
Overall4.53 / 5
71 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.51
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.65
Reflection4.75
Respect4.54
Creativity4.51
Feedback4.41
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.55
Questions4.86
Joshua Shepperd 572 grades · 1 term 3.67GPA
572 letter grades
Compare with the course
Shepperd vs. the course average
A
+24.1
B
−15.8
C
−5.7
D
−2.5
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 8 of 580 enrolled.
Overall4.41 / 5
132 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.44
Technology4.98
Synthesis3.45
Collaboration4.87
Connection2.02
Contribution4.93
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity2.00
Grading4.89
Reflection4.22
Respect3.49
Creativity2.73
Feedback3.39
Interaction4.91
Challenge3.47
Questions4.94
Bailey Troutman 90 grades · 1 term 3.66GPA
90 letter grades
Compare with the course
Troutman vs. the course average
A
+18.8
B
−7.8
C
−6.9
D
−1.4
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 90 enrolled.
Overall4.82 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.82
Collaboration4.71
Connection4.90
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity4.69
Grading4.77
Reflection4.76
Respect4.88
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.82
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.76
Questions4.79
Rory Bledsoe 28 grades · 1 term 3.63GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bledsoe vs. the course average
A
+5.3
B
+9.0
C
−9.2
D
−2.5
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.00
Respect4.80
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions3.80
Joel William Thurman 63 grades · 1 term 3.61GPA
63 letter grades
Compare with the course
Thurman vs. the course average
A
+15.6
B
−7.6
C
−7.6
D
+0.6
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 1 of 64 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.54
Contribution4.39
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.61
Grading4.64
Reflection4.52
Respect4.88
Creativity4.64
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.42
Questions4.90
Marissa Ashley Lammon 29 grades · 1 term 3.48GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lammon vs. the course average
A
−3.8
B
+11.3
C
−2.3
D
−2.5
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.80 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration4.67
Connection4.90
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.84
Reflection4.79
Respect4.92
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.89
Challenge4.78
Questions4.90
Talia Aygun 88 grades · 1 term 3.44GPA
88 letter grades
Compare with the course
Aygun vs. the course average
A
+10.3
B
−2.8
C
−5.8
D
−2.5
F
+0.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 2 of 90 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
70 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.30
Contribution4.16
Discussion4.16
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.35
Reflection4.41
Respect4.63
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.28
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.35
Questions4.43
Evan Rowe 79 grades · 1 term 3.40GPA
79 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rowe vs. the course average
A
+6.8
B
−7.7
C
+2.2
D
−2.5
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 1 of 80 enrolled.
Overall4.23 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.28
Technology4.29
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.53
Connection4.42
Contribution4.71
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.42
Grading3.98
Reflection4.08
Respect4.72
Creativity4.22
Feedback3.84
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.20
Questions4.28
Polly E Mclean 157 grades · 1 term 3.39GPA
157 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mclean vs. the course average
A
−6.1
B
+9.6
C
−0.2
D
−0.6
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 2 of 159 enrolled.
Overall3.95 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.77
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.54
Contribution3.91
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.59
Grading3.16
Reflection3.58
Respect4.67
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.42
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.11
Questions3.66
Colette Perold 27 grades · 1 term 3.36GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Perold vs. the course average
A
−7.1
B
+14.1
C
−5.5
D
−2.5
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
6.9% withdrew · 2 of 29 enrolled.
Overall4.93 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.80
Jon Samuel Gordon 37 grades · 1 term 3.32GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gordon vs. the course average
A
−2.2
B
+0.4
C
+4.4
D
+0.2
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.50
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.40
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Kevan Feshami 138 grades · 1 term 3.05GPA
138 letter grades
Compare with the course
Feshami vs. the course average
A
−7.5
B
−4.9
C
+3.9
D
+9.1
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.8% withdrew · 4 of 142 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.60
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Ully Damari Putri 148 grades · 1 term 3.00GPA
148 letter grades
Compare with the course
Putri vs. the course average
A
−24.5
B
+15.2
C
+9.8
D
+0.9
F
−1.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 3 of 151 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.83
Connection4.64
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.57
Reflection4.55
Respect4.88
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.69
Questions4.76
Mark Edward Fairbrother 160 grades · 1 term 3.00GPA
160 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fairbrother vs. the course average
A
−22.7
B
+15.2
C
+4.0
D
+3.1
F
+0.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 5 of 165 enrolled.
Overall4.43 / 5
77 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.47
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.13
Reflection4.43
Respect4.73
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.40
Questions4.67
John Roberts 120 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
120 letter grades
Compare with the course
Roberts vs. the course average
A
−31.5
B
+25.8
C
+5.0
D
−0.9
F
+1.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 2 of 122 enrolled.
Overall4.20 / 5
109 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.44
Technology4.18
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.21
Connection4.18
Contribution4.39
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity4.46
Grading3.85
Reflection4.35
Respect4.34
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.35
Questions4.36
Arthur Bamford 199 grades · 1 term 2.97GPA
199 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bamford vs. the course average
A
−31.4
B
+26.6
C
+3.4
D
+1.5
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 4 of 203 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.39
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.49
Collaboration3.31
Connection4.69
Contribution4.01
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.55
Grading4.45
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.44
Feedback3.86
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.74
Questions4.55
Theodore G Striphas 59 grades · 1 term 2.92GPA
59 letter grades
Compare with the course
Striphas vs. the course average
A
−31.9
B
+19.1
C
+14.6
D
−0.8
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 59 enrolled.
Overall4.82 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.62
Technology4.91
Synthesis4.81
Collaboration4.14
Connection4.72
Contribution4.72
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.81
Reflection4.81
Respect4.91
Creativity4.89
Feedback4.71
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.81
Questions4.90
Cassandra Dana 58 grades · 1 term 2.88GPA
58 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dana vs. the course average
A
−17.6
B
+0.9
C
+11.5
D
−0.8
F
+6.0
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 1 of 59 enrolled.
Overall4.69 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.75
Reflection4.85
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.65
Questions4.85
Hunter Vaughan 80 grades · 1 term 2.58GPA
80 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vaughan vs. the course average
A
−22.7
B
−6.7
C
+13.3
D
+8.7
F
+7.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 3 of 83 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.90
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Dean J Colby 12 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.46
Synthesis4.78
Collaboration4.39
Connection4.57
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.62
Grading4.34
Reflection4.62
Respect4.62
Creativity4.46
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.46
Challenge4.42
Questions4.23
Boushra Batlouni 7 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.10
Connection4.30
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Dean L Colby 11 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.44
Collaboration3.39
Connection4.91
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.21
Inclusivity4.93
Grading3.98
Reflection4.52
Respect4.86
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.72
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.84
Questions3.82
Luz Aida Ruiz Martinez 28 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.53
Contribution4.42
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.64
Reflection4.68
Respect4.86
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.20
Questions4.80
Douglas Kenneth Wagner 19 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.79
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.86
Collaboration4.79
Connection4.79
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.94
Grading4.37
Reflection4.45
Respect4.90
Creativity4.24
Feedback4.29
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.60
Questions4.92
Naim M I Aburaddi 21 reported responses 4.83Eval / 5
Overall4.83 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.92
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.92
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.77
Reflection4.75
Respect4.92
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.71
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.88
Questions4.88
Connor Mchale 68 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
68 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.36
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration2.88
Connection4.06
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.42
Grading4.35
Reflection4.21
Respect4.56
Creativity4.32
Feedback4.53
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.34
Questions4.63
Dina Dorari 37 reported responses 3.85Eval / 5
Overall3.85 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.63
Technology3.79
Synthesis3.47
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.11
Contribution3.55
Discussion4.04
Inclusivity3.93
Grading3.55
Reflection3.39
Respect4.36
Creativity3.47
Feedback3.26
Interaction4.22
Challenge3.38
Questions3.93
Lori Ann Emerson 33 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.60
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Iris Ghatak 16 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.40
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Mehak Sawhney 36 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.90
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.80
Reflection4.75
Respect4.90
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.75
Questions4.85
Sarah Toscano 24 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.90
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Iris Gamber 11 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.45
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.75
Grading3.80
Reflection4.25
Respect5.00
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.20
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.