Course record PHIL
PHIL 1440
Critical Thinking
University of Colorado Boulder
2,451 grades40 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score31/100
Below average
Michael Scott Sechman 118 grades · 1 term 3.90GPA
118 letter grades
Compare with the course
Sechman vs. the course average
A
+34.6
B
−21.0
C
−6.8
D
−2.5
F
−4.3
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 118 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
77 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.94
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.83
Collaboration3.57
Connection4.83
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.39
Reflection4.59
Respect4.81
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.16
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.67
Questions4.52
Bret Joseph Donnelly 101 grades · 1 term 3.59GPA
101 letter grades
Compare with the course
Donnelly vs. the course average
A
+21.2
B
−13.9
C
−6.4
D
+1.4
F
−2.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.8% withdrew · 4 of 105 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
74 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.76
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration4.21
Connection4.74
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.77
Reflection4.61
Respect4.86
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.68
Challenge4.71
Questions4.91
Caleb M Pickard 71 grades · 1 term 3.45GPA
71 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pickard vs. the course average
A
+13.0
B
−5.2
C
−6.5
D
−2.5
F
+1.3
Difference in percentage points.
10.1% withdrew · 8 of 79 enrolled.
Overall4.71 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.80
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.75
Reflection4.60
Respect4.85
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.65
Questions5.00
Edward Barnett Shear 1,045 grades · 1 term 3.37GPA
1,045 letter grades
Compare with the course
Shear vs. the course average
A
+2.4
B
+2.3
C
−1.5
D
−1.5
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 36 of 1,081 enrolled.
Overall4.28 / 5
609 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.28
Collaboration4.14
Connection4.27
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.06
Grading4.23
Reflection4.24
Respect4.72
Creativity4.09
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.41
Questions4.54
Andrew Raymond Young 68 grades · 1 term 3.33GPA
68 letter grades
Compare with the course
Young vs. the course average
A
+10.1
B
−10.1
C
−3.5
D
+1.9
F
+1.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 1 of 69 enrolled.
Julia Staffel 543 grades · 1 term 3.28GPA
543 letter grades
Compare with the course
Staffel vs. the course average
A
+2.3
B
−4.5
C
+1.9
D
same
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 19 of 562 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
377 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.36
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration3.62
Connection4.66
Contribution4.31
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity4.36
Grading4.42
Reflection4.45
Respect4.75
Creativity4.11
Feedback3.81
Interaction4.41
Challenge4.56
Questions4.64
Owen Henry Forbes 137 grades · 1 term 3.19GPA
137 letter grades
Compare with the course
Forbes vs. the course average
A
−9.3
B
+10.2
C
+1.6
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.1% withdrew · 3 of 140 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
122 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.34
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.49
Contribution4.29
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity4.02
Grading4.21
Reflection4.24
Respect4.75
Creativity4.06
Feedback4.16
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.26
Questions4.62
Beth A Johnson 36 grades · 1 term 3.09GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Johnson vs. the course average
A
−8.8
B
+2.8
C
+4.5
D
+0.2
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
7.7% withdrew · 3 of 39 enrolled.
Overall4.54 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.70
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.60
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.40
Michael J Zerella 38 grades · 1 term 2.92GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zerella vs. the course average
A
−21.8
B
+19.6
C
−4.1
D
+10.6
F
−4.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 39 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.89
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration4.04
Connection4.70
Contribution3.79
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity4.53
Grading3.87
Reflection4.85
Respect4.77
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.84
Questions4.59
Garrett Zantow Bredeson 68 grades · 1 term 2.91GPA
68 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bredeson vs. the course average
A
−29.6
B
+20.8
C
+6.8
D
+4.8
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
8.1% withdrew · 6 of 74 enrolled.
Michael James Bevan 144 grades · 1 term 2.46GPA
144 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bevan vs. the course average
A
−29.0
B
+5.6
C
+8.0
D
+5.1
F
+10.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 5 of 149 enrolled.
Overall3.86 / 5
158 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology3.51
Synthesis4.18
Collaboration3.02
Connection4.15
Contribution3.47
Discussion3.96
Inclusivity3.79
Grading3.91
Reflection4.13
Respect4.43
Creativity3.67
Feedback3.41
Interaction3.98
Challenge4.24
Questions4.38
Kristin Demetriou 82 grades · 1 term 2.23GPA
82 letter grades
Compare with the course
Demetriou vs. the course average
A
−36.5
B
+6.4
C
+10.2
D
+3.6
F
+16.4
Difference in percentage points.
10.9% withdrew · 10 of 92 enrolled.
Quinn Thomas Hermon 12 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.13
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration3.77
Connection4.57
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity4.00
Grading3.73
Reflection4.57
Respect4.57
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.67
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.30
Questions4.43
Javier Acevedo De La Torre 23 reported responses 4.06Eval / 5
Overall4.06 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.87
Collaboration4.03
Connection3.40
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity3.60
Grading3.87
Reflection4.33
Respect4.83
Creativity3.93
Feedback3.73
Interaction4.43
Challenge3.83
Questions4.20
Wen Xu 52 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.27
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.43
Connection4.28
Contribution4.42
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity4.20
Grading3.93
Reflection4.32
Respect4.68
Creativity3.52
Feedback3.72
Interaction4.28
Challenge4.30
Questions4.53
Paige Massey 36 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration3.97
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.50
Reflection4.67
Respect4.93
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.63
Questions4.77
Jason Pranaitis 12 reported responses 3.79Eval / 5
Overall3.79 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.60
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.30
Connection4.40
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.30
Reflection4.30
Respect4.30
Creativity3.40
Feedback2.90
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.90
Questions4.30
Raul Saucedo Ceballos 27 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology3.45
Synthesis3.18
Collaboration2.80
Connection2.95
Contribution2.58
Discussion2.26
Inclusivity2.72
Grading3.78
Reflection2.93
Respect2.72
Creativity2.91
Feedback2.22
Interaction2.28
Challenge2.93
Questions2.74
Tyler Porter 69 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
69 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.05
Synthesis4.36
Collaboration4.61
Connection4.39
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.38
Reflection4.63
Respect4.73
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.12
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.48
Questions4.69
Gabe Kaul 7 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.84
Technology3.15
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration4.08
Connection4.68
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.61
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.46
Reflection4.08
Respect4.77
Creativity4.84
Feedback3.54
Interaction4.15
Challenge4.84
Questions3.08
Matthew Wennemann 14 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration2.53
Connection3.50
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.37
Grading3.83
Reflection4.53
Respect4.73
Creativity4.23
Feedback3.67
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.47
Questions4.73
Travis Rebello 15 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.70
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.53
Grading4.03
Reflection4.40
Respect4.57
Creativity3.47
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.57
Questions4.93
Amirhossein Ajalloeian 40 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration3.98
Connection4.95
Contribution4.93
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.94
Grading4.50
Reflection4.48
Respect4.96
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.92
Questions4.96
Zelda Kieser 27 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration3.87
Connection4.23
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.20
Questions4.43
Kristin Marie Mickelson 29 reported responses 3.26Eval / 5
Overall3.26 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.75
Technology3.07
Synthesis3.29
Collaboration2.19
Connection2.79
Contribution2.18
Discussion2.09
Inclusivity3.15
Grading2.72
Reflection3.36
Respect4.10
Creativity3.35
Feedback2.06
Interaction3.01
Challenge3.78
Questions2.89
Katie Mccabe 41 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.30
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.27
Reflection4.40
Respect4.50
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.37
Questions4.50
Kira Dorst 39 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology3.73
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.67
Connection4.27
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity4.13
Grading4.37
Reflection4.30
Respect4.47
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.37
Questions4.67
Jonathyn C Zapf 19 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.87
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.86
Collaboration2.76
Connection4.98
Contribution4.83
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.86
Grading4.16
Reflection4.86
Respect5.00
Creativity4.99
Feedback4.29
Interaction3.85
Challenge5.00
Questions4.72
Yurong Zhu 84 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
84 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology4.49
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration4.08
Connection4.51
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.61
Reflection4.35
Respect4.82
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.19
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.54
Questions4.73
Rebecca Bailey 43 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.83
Connection4.17
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity3.78
Grading4.30
Reflection4.35
Respect4.62
Creativity3.82
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.05
Questions4.57
James Marks 53 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
53 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.63
Reflection4.72
Respect4.83
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.70
Questions4.85
Charlie Roberts 12 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.37
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.07
Reflection4.70
Respect4.87
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.13
Challenge4.50
Questions4.87
David Mghanga Mwakima 18 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.30
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.40
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.10
Questions4.40
Denise Cummins 184 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5
184 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.08
Collaboration3.44
Connection4.63
Contribution3.86
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity4.23
Grading4.07
Reflection4.07
Respect4.42
Creativity3.79
Feedback3.45
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.26
Questions4.49
Hunter Jin 15 reported responses 4.04Eval / 5
Overall4.04 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.30
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.37
Connection3.83
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.03
Reflection4.40
Respect4.40
Creativity3.07
Feedback3.57
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.27
Questions4.37
Xingzhu Chen 34 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration3.16
Connection3.98
Contribution3.86
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.74
Grading4.18
Reflection4.22
Respect4.36
Creativity3.54
Feedback3.76
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.04
Questions4.26
Erica A Nieblas 6 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge5.00
Questions4.00
Dawn Marie Jacob 37 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.37
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.27
Grading4.70
Reflection4.47
Respect4.73
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.60
Questions4.83
Brita Ager-Hart 12 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.95
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.00
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity4.35
Grading4.70
Reflection3.85
Respect4.50
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.55
Challenge3.80
Questions4.35
Ruby Pfeifle 9 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.33
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.80
Reflection4.23
Respect4.57
Creativity3.43
Feedback3.37
Interaction4.57
Challenge3.87
Questions4.57
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.