Course record PHIL
PHIL 1200
Contemporary Social Problems
University of Colorado Boulder
2,489 grades41 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score38/100
Below average
Sandra Skene 72 grades · 1 term 3.80GPA
72 letter grades
Compare with the course
Skene vs. the course average
A
+37.2
B
−24.1
C
−9.4
D
−2.1
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 3 of 75 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.85
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.75
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.65
Questions4.70
Emily Jean Slome 67 grades · 1 term 3.72GPA
67 letter grades
Compare with the course
Slome vs. the course average
A
+27.4
B
−16.0
C
−7.8
D
−0.6
F
−3.0
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 1 of 68 enrolled.
Overall4.74 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.89
Synthesis4.99
Collaboration4.64
Connection5.00
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.96
Grading4.92
Reflection4.96
Respect4.91
Creativity4.92
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.99
Questions4.96
Samuel Joseph Director 33 grades · 1 term 3.70GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Director vs. the course average
A
+27.1
B
−20.3
C
−1.7
D
−2.1
F
−3.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 1 of 34 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Andrew David Chapman 251 grades · 1 term 3.62GPA
251 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chapman vs. the course average
A
+22.4
B
−12.1
C
−7.2
D
−1.7
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 4 of 255 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
105 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.89
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.61
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.94
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity4.86
Grading4.74
Reflection4.69
Respect4.85
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.64
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.75
Questions4.88
Zak Alexander Kopeikin 212 grades · 1 term 3.56GPA
212 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kopeikin vs. the course average
A
+22.4
B
−16.4
C
−3.2
D
−1.2
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 4 of 216 enrolled.
Overall4.80 / 5
117 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.87
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.44
Connection4.94
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.86
Reflection4.87
Respect4.97
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.68
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.80
Questions4.93
Wayne Nicholas Hardaker 38 grades · 1 term 3.50GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hardaker vs. the course average
A
+8.9
B
+1.8
C
−5.5
D
−2.1
F
−3.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 39 enrolled.
Overall3.97 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration2.20
Connection4.80
Contribution3.10
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.20
Questions4.90
Benjamin Michael Kultgen 40 grades · 1 term 3.39GPA
40 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kultgen vs. the course average
A
+5.8
B
+0.1
C
−5.8
D
+0.4
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 40 enrolled.
Overall3.72 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration2.60
Connection4.50
Contribution2.50
Discussion2.80
Inclusivity4.60
Grading3.80
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity3.60
Feedback2.80
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.90
Questions4.50
Brita Ager-Hart 130 grades · 1 term 3.37GPA
130 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ager-Hart vs. the course average
A
+16.0
B
−11.7
C
−6.2
D
−1.4
F
+3.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 4 of 134 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
65 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.62
Technology4.12
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.41
Connection4.50
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.61
Grading4.47
Reflection4.41
Respect4.56
Creativity3.97
Feedback4.34
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.20
Questions4.35
Michael J Zerella 34 grades · 1 term 3.27GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zerella vs. the course average
A
−1.7
B
+5.8
C
−1.9
D
+0.8
F
−3.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 34 enrolled.
Overall4.65 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.11
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration3.83
Connection4.76
Contribution4.66
Discussion4.97
Inclusivity4.74
Grading4.67
Reflection4.37
Respect4.97
Creativity4.63
Feedback4.29
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.66
Questions4.73
Daniel Patrick Kaufman 269 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
269 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kaufman vs. the course average
A
−1.1
B
+2.9
C
−1.1
D
−1.0
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 10 of 279 enrolled.
Overall3.56 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology3.50
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.50
Contribution3.10
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.10
Reflection3.90
Respect4.40
Creativity3.20
Feedback2.60
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.00
Questions3.40
Maggie Suzanne Taylor 66 grades · 1 term 3.20GPA
66 letter grades
Compare with the course
Taylor vs. the course average
A
−1.7
B
−3.6
C
+2.9
D
+2.4
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 1 of 67 enrolled.
Donna Reeves 37 grades · 1 term 3.19GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Reeves vs. the course average
A
−24.6
B
+32.4
C
−5.4
D
+0.6
F
−3.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 37 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.64
Technology4.54
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration3.82
Connection4.85
Contribution4.28
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity4.39
Grading3.99
Reflection4.65
Respect4.74
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.46
Questions4.43
David Isaac Boonin 220 grades · 1 term 3.15GPA
220 letter grades
Compare with the course
Boonin vs. the course average
A
−11.7
B
+13.0
C
−0.8
D
−0.8
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
3.9% withdrew · 9 of 229 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
90 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.92
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration4.46
Connection4.94
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.74
Grading4.73
Reflection4.89
Respect4.81
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.82
Questions4.83
Ajume H Wingo 165 grades · 1 term 3.13GPA
165 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wingo vs. the course average
A
−12.9
B
+13.0
C
+0.7
D
−0.3
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.6% withdrew · 1 of 166 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
215 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.32
Technology3.32
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration3.69
Connection4.59
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity4.55
Grading3.38
Reflection4.57
Respect4.47
Creativity3.41
Feedback3.57
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.50
Questions4.40
Maria Colvin 34 grades · 1 term 3.09GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Colvin vs. the course average
A
−10.5
B
+8.8
C
+3.9
D
−2.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 1 of 35 enrolled.
Overall4.04 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology3.10
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.80
Grading3.20
Reflection4.00
Respect4.60
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.50
Questions3.70
Martin Alberto Chamorro 67 grades · 1 term 3.05GPA
67 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chamorro vs. the course average
A
−3.9
B
−5.6
C
+4.2
D
+6.8
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
6.9% withdrew · 5 of 72 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.90
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect4.60
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.90
Questions4.60
Christopher Charles Heathwood 134 grades · 1 term 3.02GPA
134 letter grades
Compare with the course
Heathwood vs. the course average
A
−7.6
B
−1.8
C
+6.4
D
+2.3
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
7.6% withdrew · 11 of 145 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
100 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration3.75
Connection4.70
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.45
Reflection4.55
Respect4.75
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.55
Questions4.60
Erica A Nieblas 64 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
64 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nieblas vs. the course average
A
−15.7
B
+11.3
C
+1.7
D
−0.6
F
+3.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 64 enrolled.
Overall4.22 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.29
Synthesis4.87
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.78
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.19
Reflection4.67
Respect4.98
Creativity4.19
Feedback3.78
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.77
Questions4.56
Sherri Lynn Conklin 37 grades · 1 term 2.94GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Conklin vs. the course average
A
−16.5
B
+16.2
C
−8.1
D
−2.1
F
+10.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 37 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.90
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.10
Reflection4.70
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.30
Questions4.20
Gail E. Linsenbard 173 grades · 1 term 2.93GPA
173 letter grades
Compare with the course
Linsenbard vs. the course average
A
−15.8
B
+3.4
C
+10.0
D
+2.5
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 6 of 179 enrolled.
Overall4.13 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration2.91
Connection4.94
Contribution4.50
Discussion3.91
Inclusivity4.72
Grading4.09
Reflection4.51
Respect4.60
Creativity4.04
Feedback3.14
Interaction3.63
Challenge4.59
Questions4.43
Wyatt Monroe Mcdaniel 130 grades · 1 term 2.91GPA
130 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mcdaniel vs. the course average
A
−20.1
B
+6.8
C
+11.5
D
+1.7
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.4% withdrew · 6 of 136 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.97
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.97
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.97
Contribution4.96
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.96
Grading4.94
Reflection4.95
Respect4.96
Creativity4.95
Feedback4.93
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.96
Questions4.97
Richard Alonzo Fyfe 65 grades · 1 term 2.83GPA
65 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fyfe vs. the course average
A
−28.6
B
+21.4
C
+6.2
D
+0.9
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.4% withdrew · 3 of 68 enrolled.
Overall3.91 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology3.30
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration2.95
Connection4.35
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.60
Reflection4.05
Respect4.30
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.80
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.05
Questions3.85
Tim Burkhardt 75 grades · 1 term 2.75GPA
75 letter grades
Compare with the course
Burkhardt vs. the course average
A
−23.7
B
+10.2
C
+9.2
D
+0.5
F
+3.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 75 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.54
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration3.35
Connection4.70
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.55
Reflection4.35
Respect4.55
Creativity3.85
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.31
Questions4.69
Caleb M Pickard 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.75GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.65 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.60
Alastair J. Norcross 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.28GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology3.73
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration4.92
Connection4.92
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.23
Reflection4.81
Respect4.62
Creativity4.31
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.85
Questions4.69
Eric Juneghon Lee 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.05GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
5.9% withdrew · 1 of 17 enrolled.
Patrick R Leland 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.61GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
11.1% withdrew · 3 of 27 enrolled.
Overall3.82 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.10
Connection3.90
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.80
Reflection4.10
Respect3.90
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.60
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.90
Questions4.00
Nathaniel Edward Anderson 3 reported responses 4.96Eval / 5
Overall4.96 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Bret Joseph Donnelly 32 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.67
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.40
Reflection4.73
Respect4.87
Creativity3.97
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Colton Kinzema 48 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.59
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.62
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity4.82
Grading4.35
Reflection4.78
Respect4.91
Creativity4.31
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.94
Challenge4.79
Questions4.97
Martin Ablerto Chamorro 4 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.80
Challenge5.00
Questions4.50
Jasmine Carter 5 reported responses 3.74Eval / 5
Overall3.74 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.40
Connection3.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.40
Reflection3.80
Respect4.00
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.00
Questions3.80
Jennifer Joyce Gallagher 22 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.90
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.85
Reflection4.95
Respect4.85
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.95
Questions4.95
Connor Kayhan Kianpour 28 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration3.97
Connection4.87
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.63
Reflection4.67
Respect4.83
Creativity4.17
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.77
Questions4.80
Kira Dorst 107 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
107 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology3.17
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.18
Connection4.52
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.03
Reflection4.53
Respect4.63
Creativity3.67
Feedback3.92
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.32
Questions4.50
Jasmine Rae Straight 28 reported responses 3.89Eval / 5
Overall3.89 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.19
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.53
Connection4.71
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.72
Grading4.03
Reflection4.37
Respect4.48
Creativity4.07
Feedback2.12
Interaction4.32
Challenge4.33
Questions3.52
Idowu Odeyemi 168 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
168 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration4.34
Connection4.58
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.71
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.31
Reflection4.51
Respect4.76
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.87
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.61
Questions4.55
Kyle Nathaneal York 43 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.75
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.80
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.05
Reflection4.65
Respect4.80
Creativity4.05
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.75
Questions4.50
Travis Rebello 37 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.80
Contribution4.85
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.65
Reflection4.70
Respect4.95
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Lauren Sorelle 12 reported responses 4.83Eval / 5
Overall4.83 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.93
Collaboration4.83
Connection4.93
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.87
Grading4.70
Reflection4.93
Respect4.93
Creativity4.93
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.93
Questions4.93
Nathan Huffine 17 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.33
Connection4.83
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.47
Reflection4.90
Respect4.93
Creativity4.17
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.87
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.