Course record PHIL
PHIL 1400
Philosophy and the Sciences
University of Colorado Boulder
1,126 grades27 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score32/100
Below average
Scott Andrew Hill 38 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hill vs. the course average
A
+30.2
B
−11.6
C
−9.9
D
−4.8
F
−3.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.50
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.60
Questions4.30
Edward Barnett Shear 29 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Shear vs. the course average
A
+28.9
B
−18.0
C
−5.6
D
−1.3
F
−3.9
Difference in percentage points.
17.1% withdrew · 6 of 35 enrolled.
Michael J Zerella 135 grades · 1 term 3.43GPA
135 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zerella vs. the course average
A
+14.3
B
−0.4
C
−6.6
D
−3.3
F
−3.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 2 of 137 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
112 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.72
Technology4.59
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.05
Connection4.68
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.47
Grading4.63
Reflection4.45
Respect4.66
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.63
Questions4.77
Eric Juneghon Lee 41 grades · 1 term 3.38GPA
41 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A
+15.0
B
−10.9
C
+2.1
D
−2.4
F
−3.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 41 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
86 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.81
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.64
Connection4.42
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.43
Reflection4.57
Respect4.77
Creativity4.18
Feedback4.19
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.66
Questions4.91
Benjamin Michael Kultgen 37 grades · 1 term 3.34GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kultgen vs. the course average
A
+15.9
B
−8.2
C
−4.4
D
−2.1
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.82 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.46
Connection4.70
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.72
Reflection4.69
Respect5.00
Creativity4.85
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.85
Questions4.92
Heather A Demarest 130 grades · 1 term 3.17GPA
130 letter grades
Compare with the course
Demarest vs. the course average
A
+7.3
B
−3.7
C
−1.8
D
−4.0
F
+2.2
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 10 of 140 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.66
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.44
Collaboration4.62
Connection4.67
Contribution4.44
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.41
Reflection4.69
Respect4.71
Creativity4.01
Feedback3.49
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.63
Questions4.56
Iskra Nikova Fileva 34 grades · 1 term 3.16GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fileva vs. the course average
A
−14.1
B
+29.4
C
−9.6
D
−1.9
F
−3.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 34 enrolled.
Overall3.85 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology2.50
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.50
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.00
Reflection4.40
Respect4.30
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.10
Questions4.30
Robert D Rupert 68 grades · 1 term 3.05GPA
68 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rupert vs. the course average
A
+8.0
B
−10.3
C
+0.7
D
−1.9
F
+3.4
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 4 of 72 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.96
Technology4.89
Synthesis4.93
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.81
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.77
Reflection4.93
Respect4.92
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.78
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.89
Questions3.39
Carol Cleland 244 grades · 1 term 2.93GPA
244 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cleland vs. the course average
A
−10.7
B
+6.5
C
+4.3
D
−1.1
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
8.3% withdrew · 22 of 266 enrolled.
Overall4.09 / 5
134 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.11
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration3.97
Connection4.78
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity4.63
Grading3.98
Reflection4.80
Respect4.14
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.44
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.72
Questions4.43
Joseph Scott Wilson Jr. Jr. 370 grades · 1 term 2.83GPA
370 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jr. vs. the course average
A
−9.5
B
+1.0
C
+2.6
D
+4.9
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
5.9% withdrew · 23 of 393 enrolled.
Joseph Wilson 129 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5
129 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.38
Contribution4.39
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity4.38
Grading4.35
Reflection4.36
Respect4.85
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.82
Questions3.97
Jacob Hartman 28 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration3.77
Connection4.33
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.37
Grading3.73
Reflection4.67
Respect4.70
Creativity3.43
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.50
Questions4.37
Owen Henry Forbes 24 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.88
Contribution4.76
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.88
Grading3.77
Reflection4.77
Respect4.88
Creativity4.76
Feedback4.76
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.77
Questions4.88
Javier Acevedo De La Torre 13 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.50
Connection3.90
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.20
Grading3.90
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Kieran Britt 22 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.53
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.50
Reflection4.83
Respect4.90
Creativity4.37
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Daniel Douglas Carr 10 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.20
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.80
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Amirhossein Ajalloeian 39 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.48
Technology4.17
Synthesis4.28
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.59
Contribution4.38
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.67
Reflection4.38
Respect4.93
Creativity4.11
Feedback3.39
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.57
Questions4.38
Paige Massey 20 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.83
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.03
Contribution4.07
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity4.83
Grading3.93
Reflection3.67
Respect3.80
Creativity4.23
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.00
Questions4.20
Dj Arends 4 reported responses 3.45Eval / 5
Overall3.45 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.84
Technology3.77
Synthesis3.07
Collaboration2.23
Connection3.77
Contribution3.00
Discussion2.23
Inclusivity3.65
Grading4.61
Reflection3.00
Respect4.54
Creativity3.07
Feedback3.77
Interaction3.07
Challenge3.77
Questions4.31
Brita Ager-Hart 26 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration3.93
Connection3.70
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.37
Reflection4.33
Respect4.47
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.97
Questions4.00
Kira Dorst 39 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology3.67
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.43
Connection4.00
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.17
Grading3.97
Reflection4.63
Respect4.73
Creativity3.93
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Yurong Zhu 45 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.91
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.86
Contribution4.91
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.88
Reflection4.93
Respect4.93
Creativity4.81
Feedback4.86
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.82
Questions4.86
Spencer Cardwell 25 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration3.10
Connection4.54
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.68
Reflection4.76
Respect4.83
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.68
Questions4.91
James Preston Andrew 8 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration3.40
Connection3.90
Contribution4.50
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.90
Reflection4.50
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.90
Questions4.40
James Marks 3 reported responses 4.96Eval / 5
Overall4.96 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.75
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.75
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Matthew Robert Pike 90 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
90 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.61
Technology4.56
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.28
Connection4.61
Contribution4.71
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.41
Reflection4.65
Respect4.62
Creativity4.35
Feedback3.92
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.62
Questions4.37
Ritam Chakraborty 17 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.27
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.37
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.03
Reflection4.47
Respect4.63
Creativity3.97
Feedback3.93
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.63
Questions4.20
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.