Course record PHIL
PHIL 1250
Poverty, Power, and Patriotism: Issues of Global Justice
University of Colorado Boulder
1,314 grades20 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score23/100
Below average
Wayne Nicholas Hardaker 69 grades · 1 term 3.62GPA
69 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hardaker vs. the course average
A
+31.4
B
−16.1
C
−7.3
D
−4.6
F
−3.3
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 1 of 70 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration2.95
Connection4.65
Contribution3.90
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.35
Reflection4.45
Respect4.60
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.60
Interaction3.95
Challenge4.50
Questions4.45
Alexandra Lloyd 72 grades · 1 term 3.31GPA
72 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lloyd vs. the course average
A
+14.5
B
−5.9
C
−7.5
D
+2.3
F
−3.3
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 1 of 73 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Gail E. Linsenbard 288 grades · 1 term 3.17GPA
288 letter grades
Compare with the course
Linsenbard vs. the course average
A
+5.4
B
−1.4
C
−0.9
D
−1.5
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 10 of 298 enrolled.
Overall4.21 / 5
146 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration3.47
Connection4.74
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.28
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.36
Reflection4.59
Respect4.59
Creativity4.19
Feedback3.89
Interaction4.08
Challenge4.43
Questions4.48
Hye-Ryoung Kang 65 grades · 1 term 3.13GPA
65 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kang vs. the course average
A
−1.1
B
+9.9
C
−10.0
D
+1.5
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
8.5% withdrew · 6 of 71 enrolled.
Yong Dou Kim 183 grades · 1 term 3.11GPA
183 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kim vs. the course average
A
+3.2
B
+1.0
C
−3.8
D
+1.4
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.1% withdrew · 4 of 187 enrolled.
Overall4.21 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.21
Technology3.79
Synthesis3.84
Collaboration2.83
Connection4.24
Contribution3.98
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity4.36
Grading3.54
Reflection3.71
Respect4.65
Creativity4.11
Feedback3.39
Interaction4.14
Challenge4.40
Questions3.88
Eric C Brown 34 grades · 1 term 3.01GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Brown vs. the course average
A
−2.9
B
−11.4
C
+22.2
D
−4.6
F
−3.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 1 of 35 enrolled.
Overall4.14 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.60
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.80
Grading3.60
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.30
Questions4.40
Spencer Jay Case 35 grades · 1 term 2.98GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
Case vs. the course average
A
−15.4
B
+5.0
C
+12.6
D
+1.1
F
−3.3
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 2 of 37 enrolled.
Overall3.79 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.20
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.70
Contribution4.20
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.70
Reflection3.90
Respect3.90
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.50
Interaction3.90
Challenge3.80
Questions3.50
Shane Bodhi Melnitzer 61 grades · 1 term 2.94GPA
61 letter grades
Compare with the course
Melnitzer vs. the course average
A
−1.8
B
+3.2
C
−3.3
D
−1.4
F
+3.2
Difference in percentage points.
7.6% withdrew · 5 of 66 enrolled.
Overall4.14 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.85
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.15
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.55
Grading3.90
Reflection4.00
Respect4.60
Creativity3.55
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.35
Questions3.90
Edward Andrew Greetis 370 grades · 1 term 2.92GPA
370 letter grades
Compare with the course
Greetis vs. the course average
A
−8.9
B
+5.7
C
+1.8
D
same
F
+1.5
Difference in percentage points.
4.1% withdrew · 16 of 386 enrolled.
Overall4.42 / 5
132 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.81
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.51
Collaboration4.21
Connection4.64
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.76
Grading4.22
Reflection4.43
Respect4.74
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.61
Questions4.50
Stanley Matthew Stolte 137 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
137 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stolte vs. the course average
A
−9.0
B
−7.2
C
+7.3
D
+3.4
F
+5.4
Difference in percentage points.
6.2% withdrew · 9 of 146 enrolled.
Overall3.78 / 5
106 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.14
Technology3.38
Synthesis3.84
Collaboration3.63
Connection3.73
Contribution3.87
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity4.06
Grading3.68
Reflection3.95
Respect3.81
Creativity3.89
Feedback2.85
Interaction3.98
Challenge4.11
Questions3.41
Nathaniel Edward Anderson 36 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology3.40
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.43
Connection3.97
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.33
Grading3.93
Reflection4.37
Respect4.73
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.87
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.13
Questions4.60
Jennifer Joyce Gallagher 44 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.83
Connection4.63
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.67
Reflection4.77
Respect4.87
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.67
Questions4.77
Carl Alan Huber 16 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.47
Connection4.83
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.43
Reflection4.63
Respect4.93
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.37
Questions4.87
Idowu Odeyemi 38 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology3.73
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.17
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.03
Reflection4.27
Respect4.57
Creativity3.93
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.27
Questions4.33
Charlie Roberts 17 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology3.27
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration3.63
Connection4.33
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.60
Grading3.57
Reflection4.00
Respect4.93
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.93
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.27
Questions4.10
Adam Joseph Shriver 10 reported responses 3.75Eval / 5
Overall3.75 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology3.95
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration3.19
Connection4.65
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.62
Grading3.81
Reflection4.20
Respect4.49
Creativity4.54
Feedback3.34
Interaction3.77
Challenge4.27
Questions4.16
Robert Anthony Williams 24 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.88
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration3.14
Connection4.80
Contribution4.50
Discussion3.94
Inclusivity4.80
Grading3.94
Reflection4.56
Respect4.73
Creativity4.59
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.61
Questions4.43
Derick Hughes 43 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.29
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration3.65
Connection4.72
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.23
Respect4.60
Creativity4.19
Feedback4.06
Interaction4.08
Challenge4.58
Questions4.40
Spencer Cardwell 33 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology3.87
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.87
Connection4.67
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.50
Reflection4.43
Respect4.73
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.43
Questions4.47
Lauren Sorelle 12 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.97
Contribution4.87
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.97
Reflection4.57
Respect4.97
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.77
Questions4.30
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.