Course record MUEL
MUEL 1184
Voice Class
University of Colorado Boulder
346 grades20 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score77/100
Strong
Melissa Lubecke 34 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lubecke vs. the course average
A
+10.1
B
−7.8
C
−2.0
D
−0.3
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 34 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology4.23
Synthesis3.61
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.63
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.71
Inclusivity4.06
Grading4.38
Reflection4.11
Respect4.17
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.71
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.09
Questions4.83
Seth Mcclain Tack 49 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tack vs. the course average
A
+2.8
B
+0.4
C
same
D
−0.3
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 1 of 50 enrolled.
Overall4.36 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.28
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.31
Connection4.43
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity4.32
Grading3.91
Reflection4.48
Respect4.95
Creativity4.26
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.61
Questions4.20
Paul Jeffrey Wolf 44 grades · 1 term 3.83GPA
44 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wolf vs. the course average
A
+1.6
B
+1.3
C
−2.0
D
+2.0
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 1 of 45 enrolled.
Overall4.71 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.05
Connection4.39
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.37
Grading4.92
Reflection4.81
Respect4.97
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.93
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.72
Questions4.95
Sarah Elizabeth Cain 36 grades · 1 term 3.66GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cain vs. the course average
A
−9.2
B
+6.1
C
+6.3
D
−0.3
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 2 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.77 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.58
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.79
Contribution4.87
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.88
Reflection4.37
Respect5.00
Creativity4.94
Feedback4.96
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.62
Questions4.83
Benjamin Boskoff 57 grades · 1 term 3.64GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Boskoff vs. the course average
A
−2.8
B
−0.8
C
+1.5
D
−0.3
F
+2.4
Difference in percentage points.
5.0% withdrew · 3 of 60 enrolled.
Overall4.69 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.40
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.40
Reflection4.70
Respect4.70
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Thomas Bocchi 36 grades · 1 term 3.59GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bocchi vs. the course average
A
−9.2
B
+8.9
C
−2.0
D
−0.3
F
+2.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 2 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.42
Connection4.48
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.57
Reflection4.80
Respect4.91
Creativity4.29
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.72
Questions4.52
David Everett Starry 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
12 letter grades · Limited sample
7.7% withdrew · 1 of 13 enrolled.
Erik James Erlandson 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.97GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
16.7% withdrew · 2 of 12 enrolled.
Kailyn Marie Martino 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.88GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
4.3% withdrew · 1 of 23 enrolled.
Overall4.86 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.74
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.74
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.68
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.84
Reflection4.90
Respect4.98
Creativity4.74
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.88
Questions4.95
Sabina Lee Balsamo 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.55GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
7.7% withdrew · 2 of 26 enrolled.
Christine Marie Li 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.55GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration3.91
Connection4.11
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.61
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.70
Reflection4.65
Respect4.45
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.61
Questions4.77
Alex Joseph King 8 reported responses 4.90Eval / 5
Overall4.90 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.57
Connection5.00
Contribution4.96
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.78
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.85
Feedback4.96
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.74
Kelly E Riordan 9 reported responses 4.90Eval / 5
Overall4.90 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.86
Technology4.98
Synthesis4.93
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.86
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.86
Grading4.98
Reflection5.00
Respect4.98
Creativity4.93
Feedback4.98
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.98
Questions5.00
Ben Boskoff 19 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.79
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.93
Collaboration4.74
Connection4.91
Contribution4.96
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.88
Reflection4.88
Respect4.97
Creativity4.95
Feedback4.96
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.94
Questions4.92
Miguel Ortega Ba<F1>Ales 15 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.46
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.41
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.66
Reflection4.66
Respect4.96
Creativity4.74
Feedback4.87
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.53
Questions4.69
Alice Jeanne Del Simone 17 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.58
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.69
Grading4.74
Reflection4.65
Respect5.00
Creativity4.46
Feedback4.87
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.86
Questions5.00
Alleigh Watson 5 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.23
Technology4.16
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.16
Contribution3.84
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.27
Grading4.16
Reflection4.16
Respect4.62
Creativity4.23
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.45
Questions4.62
Benjamin South 27 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration4.79
Connection4.57
Contribution4.87
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.91
Reflection4.89
Respect4.96
Creativity4.76
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.94
Questions4.93
Whitney Robinson 11 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology4.98
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.91
Connection4.79
Contribution4.93
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.98
Reflection5.00
Respect4.98
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.93
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.91
Questions5.00
Miguel Angel Ortega Banales 5 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.60
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.80
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect4.80
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.