Course record PHIL
PHIL 1160
Introduction to Medical Ethics
University of Colorado Boulder
2,002 grades34 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score43/100
Mixed record
Emily Jean Slome 70 grades · 1 term 3.64GPA
70 letter grades
Compare with the course
Slome vs. the course average
A
+21.0
B
−13.9
C
−3.9
D
−2.3
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 70 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration3.75
Connection4.80
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.80
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.60
Questions4.85
Samuel Joseph Director 71 grades · 1 term 3.59GPA
71 letter grades
Compare with the course
Director vs. the course average
A
+12.9
B
−2.8
C
−6.9
D
−0.9
F
−2.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 71 enrolled.
Wayne Nicholas Hardaker 80 grades · 1 term 3.56GPA
80 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hardaker vs. the course average
A
+16.5
B
−13.3
C
+0.2
D
−1.1
F
−2.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 2 of 82 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.05
Connection4.90
Contribution3.80
Discussion3.65
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.45
Reflection4.50
Respect4.55
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Eric C Brown 61 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
61 letter grades
Compare with the course
Brown vs. the course average
A
+15.7
B
−9.9
C
−2.9
D
−2.3
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.2% withdrew · 2 of 63 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.60
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.60
Questions4.10
Scott Andrew Hill 94 grades · 1 term 3.46GPA
94 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hill vs. the course average
A
+9.1
B
−1.9
C
−5.8
D
−1.3
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 94 enrolled.
Overall4.53 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.85
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.35
Reflection4.55
Respect4.90
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.95
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.55
Pamela J Lomelino 351 grades · 1 term 3.43GPA
351 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lomelino vs. the course average
A
+7.9
B
−3.9
C
−1.4
D
−1.8
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 5 of 356 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
133 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.56
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration3.71
Connection4.78
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.41
Inclusivity4.71
Grading4.40
Reflection4.69
Respect4.56
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.06
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.61
Questions4.37
Donna Reeves 72 grades · 1 term 3.36GPA
72 letter grades
Compare with the course
Reeves vs. the course average
A
−14.5
B
+24.6
C
−6.9
D
−1.0
F
−2.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 2 of 74 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.59
Connection4.52
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.47
Grading4.18
Reflection4.57
Respect4.70
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.22
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.52
Questions4.50
Derick Hughes 65 grades · 1 term 3.31GPA
65 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hughes vs. the course average
A
−2.4
B
+7.4
C
−3.4
D
−0.8
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
4.4% withdrew · 3 of 68 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration3.30
Connection4.70
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.15
Reflection4.55
Respect4.75
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.60
Questions4.65
Megan Louise Kitts 145 grades · 1 term 3.29GPA
145 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kitts vs. the course average
A
+1.8
B
−2.0
C
−0.1
D
+1.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 2 of 147 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
123 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.54
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.87
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.72
Reflection4.74
Respect4.90
Creativity4.46
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.72
Questions4.81
Heather M Stewart 39 grades · 1 term 3.25GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stewart vs. the course average
A
+6.8
B
−11.6
C
+4.3
D
−2.3
F
+2.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 39 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Eric Juneghon Lee 179 grades · 1 term 3.22GPA
179 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A
−2.8
B
−3.9
C
+6.8
D
+1.6
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 4 of 183 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
166 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.91
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration4.69
Connection4.84
Contribution4.76
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.67
Reflection4.67
Respect4.92
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.75
Questions4.87
Tim Burkhardt 505 grades · 1 term 3.18GPA
505 letter grades
Compare with the course
Burkhardt vs. the course average
A
−3.3
B
+0.5
C
+0.8
D
+1.0
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 15 of 520 enrolled.
Overall4.67 / 5
436 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.89
Technology4.54
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration3.67
Connection4.83
Contribution4.56
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.82
Grading4.58
Reflection4.67
Respect4.94
Creativity4.17
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.78
Questions4.85
Melanie Elizabeth Tate 35 grades · 1 term 3.15GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tate vs. the course average
A
−3.3
B
+1.9
C
−2.5
D
+0.5
F
+3.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.8% withdrew · 1 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration3.19
Connection4.63
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.19
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.21
Interaction4.22
Challenge4.65
Questions4.65
Shane Bodhi Melnitzer 71 grades · 1 term 3.00GPA
71 letter grades
Compare with the course
Melnitzer vs. the course average
A
−18.1
B
+7.0
C
+5.8
D
+4.7
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.1% withdrew · 3 of 74 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
109 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.11
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.59
Connection4.70
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity4.74
Grading4.30
Reflection4.46
Respect4.80
Creativity4.02
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.66
Questions4.67
Julia Levin 100 grades · 1 term 2.89GPA
100 letter grades
Compare with the course
Levin vs. the course average
A
−28.7
B
+22.4
C
+1.9
D
+0.7
F
+3.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 2 of 102 enrolled.
Overall4.41 / 5
81 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology3.33
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration3.11
Connection4.72
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.28
Reflection4.25
Respect4.64
Creativity3.75
Feedback4.45
Interaction3.84
Challenge4.52
Questions4.70
Ajene Nicar Robinson-Burris 64 grades · 1 term 2.87GPA
64 letter grades
Compare with the course
Robinson-Burris vs. the course average
A
−18.8
B
+7.9
C
+6.1
D
+0.8
F
+4.0
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 1 of 65 enrolled.
Overall4.28 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration3.85
Connection4.75
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.05
Reflection4.65
Respect4.85
Creativity3.95
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.45
Questions4.20
Maggie Suzanne Taylor 4 reported responses 4.88Eval / 5
Overall4.88 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.98
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.92
Connection5.00
Contribution4.98
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.98
Interaction4.94
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Marjorie Louise Mclain 27 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.70
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.90
Reflection4.30
Respect4.30
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.10
Questions4.00
David Ian Valencia 17 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.50
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.20
Questions4.00
Connor Kayhan Kianpour 30 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.97
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.93
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.97
Grading4.67
Reflection4.90
Respect4.93
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.97
Challenge4.93
Questions4.93
Charles Doremieux 16 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.20
Reflection4.40
Respect4.50
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.10
Questions4.20
Marshall Jarrell 16 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.50
Questions4.40
Henry Campbell 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
1 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
Sparrow Locurto 39 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.27
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.73
Contribution4.83
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.53
Reflection4.77
Respect4.90
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.83
Questions4.83
Kimberly Madero 4 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.80
Erich Mark Riesen 9 reported responses 4.88Eval / 5
Overall4.88 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology4.85
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.08
Connection4.95
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.85
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Amanda Michelle Loeffelholz 62 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5
62 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology3.94
Synthesis4.96
Collaboration4.62
Connection5.00
Contribution4.87
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.99
Grading4.91
Reflection4.94
Respect4.99
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.72
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.90
Questions4.79
Edward Andrew Greetis 128 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
128 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration4.06
Connection4.76
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.23
Reflection4.53
Respect4.63
Creativity4.35
Feedback3.88
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.70
Questions4.46
Robert Anthony Williams 13 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.08
Collaboration2.65
Connection4.58
Contribution4.05
Discussion3.82
Inclusivity4.58
Grading3.74
Reflection4.20
Respect4.51
Creativity3.92
Feedback3.65
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.20
Questions3.81
Travis Rebello 30 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.17
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.80
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.50
Reflection4.87
Respect4.83
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.83
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.80
Questions4.87
Gift Nwaozor 61 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology3.63
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration3.47
Connection4.42
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity4.47
Grading3.82
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.58
Interaction4.02
Challenge4.30
Questions4.30
John Joseph Porter 38 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.78
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.72
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.39
Reflection4.48
Respect4.72
Creativity4.32
Feedback3.63
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.58
Questions4.32
Adam Joseph Shriver 10 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration3.65
Connection4.70
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity4.55
Grading4.30
Reflection4.20
Respect4.55
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Ritam Chakraborty 21 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology3.33
Synthesis4.07
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.40
Contribution3.73
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity4.40
Grading2.77
Reflection3.97
Respect4.43
Creativity3.10
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.17
Questions4.13
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.