Course record PHIL
PHIL 2240
Philosophy and Sports
University of Colorado Boulder
1,726 grades29 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score38/100
Below average
Colin C Smith 114 grades · 1 term 3.77GPA
114 letter grades
Compare with the course
Smith vs. the course average
A
+30.3
B
−17.5
C
−8.9
D
−2.0
F
−1.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 2 of 116 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
78 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.87
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration4.37
Connection4.87
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.67
Reflection4.80
Respect4.93
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.77
Questions4.83
James Preston Andrew 75 grades · 1 term 3.55GPA
75 letter grades
Compare with the course
Andrew vs. the course average
A
+18.1
B
−8.4
C
−7.6
D
−2.0
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 2 of 77 enrolled.
Overall4.26 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.81
Technology4.51
Synthesis4.64
Collaboration3.89
Connection4.53
Contribution4.86
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.81
Grading3.78
Reflection4.52
Respect4.63
Creativity4.47
Feedback3.81
Interaction3.62
Challenge4.62
Questions4.62
Benjamin Michael Kultgen 114 grades · 1 term 3.40GPA
114 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kultgen vs. the course average
A
+12.8
B
−9.6
C
−5.4
D
+0.7
F
+1.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 2 of 116 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
78 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.87
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.86
Collaboration4.11
Connection4.90
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.46
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.81
Respect4.93
Creativity4.63
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.83
Questions4.61
Edward Barnett Shear 294 grades · 1 term 3.37GPA
294 letter grades
Compare with the course
Shear vs. the course average
A
+7.3
B
−6.3
C
−1.1
D
−1.3
F
+1.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 11 of 305 enrolled.
Overall4.26 / 5
187 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.36
Collaboration3.54
Connection4.72
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.19
Inclusivity4.51
Grading4.09
Reflection4.39
Respect4.71
Creativity4.14
Feedback3.42
Interaction4.05
Challenge4.45
Questions4.05
Christopher Ray Dengler 140 grades · 1 term 3.34GPA
140 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dengler vs. the course average
A
+6.8
B
−7.4
C
−0.4
D
+2.3
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
2.8% withdrew · 4 of 144 enrolled.
Overall4.58 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.75
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.55
Grading4.30
Reflection4.55
Respect4.70
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.65
Questions4.25
Alexander Evan Wolf-Root 305 grades · 1 term 3.29GPA
305 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wolf-Root vs. the course average
A
+1.2
B
−1.3
C
−1.1
D
+0.3
F
+0.8
Difference in percentage points.
1.0% withdrew · 3 of 308 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
115 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.49
Synthesis4.44
Collaboration4.12
Connection4.54
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.21
Reflection4.53
Respect4.66
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.24
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.27
Questions4.67
Alexandra Lloyd 108 grades · 1 term 3.18GPA
108 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lloyd vs. the course average
A
−13.1
B
+12.9
C
+1.3
D
−0.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.8% withdrew · 2 of 110 enrolled.
Overall4.41 / 5
58 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.76
Collaboration4.04
Connection4.87
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity4.28
Grading4.29
Reflection4.73
Respect4.57
Creativity4.68
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.14
Challenge4.74
Questions4.75
Eric C Brown 310 grades · 1 term 3.15GPA
310 letter grades
Compare with the course
Brown vs. the course average
A
−9.4
B
+4.3
C
+5.6
D
+0.3
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 6 of 316 enrolled.
Overall4.19 / 5
264 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology3.36
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration3.64
Connection4.37
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.17
Inclusivity4.32
Grading3.58
Reflection4.06
Respect4.18
Creativity3.96
Feedback3.61
Interaction4.08
Challenge4.18
Questions3.77
Garrett Zantow Bredeson 266 grades · 1 term 3.08GPA
266 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bredeson vs. the course average
A
−20.4
B
+16.1
C
+3.9
D
+0.7
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 4 of 270 enrolled.
Overall4.70 / 5
226 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.76
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.83
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity4.84
Grading4.63
Reflection4.74
Respect4.84
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.76
Questions4.79
Bret Joseph Donnelly 86 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
86 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.92
Collaboration4.56
Connection4.96
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.91
Reflection4.87
Respect4.94
Creativity4.87
Feedback4.95
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.95
Questions4.94
Colton Kinzema 1 reported responses 2.45Eval / 5
Overall2.45 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration2.00
Connection2.00
Contribution2.00
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity2.00
Grading2.00
Reflection3.00
Respect3.00
Creativity3.00
Feedback1.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.00
Questions5.00
Brita Ager-Hart 36 reported responses 3.87Eval / 5
Overall3.87 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.97
Technology3.03
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.07
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity4.27
Grading3.77
Reflection4.27
Respect4.37
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.33
Interaction4.33
Challenge3.60
Questions3.93
Carl Alan Huber 51 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.63
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.53
Grading4.47
Reflection4.67
Respect4.70
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.43
Questions4.73
Daniel Douglas Carr 27 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.88
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.42
Collaboration4.43
Connection4.43
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.61
Inclusivity4.88
Grading4.68
Reflection4.34
Respect4.98
Creativity4.60
Feedback3.83
Interaction4.89
Challenge4.42
Questions4.42
Marshall Jarrell 28 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.89
Technology4.59
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.24
Connection4.70
Contribution4.89
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.89
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect4.99
Creativity4.99
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.12
Challenge4.99
Questions4.80
Tyler Porter 12 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology3.93
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.30
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.10
Reflection4.03
Respect4.33
Creativity3.50
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.30
Questions4.60
Jennifer Joyce Gallagher 19 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.87
Contribution4.87
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.83
Reflection4.97
Respect4.90
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.87
Questions4.90
Sparrow Locurto 92 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
92 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.86
Technology4.06
Synthesis4.71
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.71
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.40
Reflection4.84
Respect4.91
Creativity4.13
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Hunter Jin 68 reported responses 4.21Eval / 5
Overall4.21 / 5
68 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.04
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.54
Connection4.38
Contribution3.79
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity4.37
Grading3.88
Reflection4.12
Respect4.47
Creativity4.07
Feedback3.44
Interaction4.26
Challenge4.06
Questions4.32
Merily Salura 25 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.08
Technology3.40
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.82
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity3.76
Grading3.49
Reflection3.71
Respect4.06
Creativity4.01
Feedback3.72
Interaction4.29
Challenge3.79
Questions3.84
Joy Webb 46 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.84
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.78
Contribution4.93
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.84
Grading4.85
Reflection4.88
Respect4.88
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.94
Challenge4.80
Questions4.87
Spencer Cardwell 21 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.77
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.67
Reflection4.90
Respect4.63
Creativity4.03
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.57
Questions4.77
Wayne Nicholas Hardaker 17 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration2.80
Connection4.80
Contribution3.25
Discussion3.30
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.65
Reflection4.25
Respect4.95
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.65
Kimberly Madero 10 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.70
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.90
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.10
Challenge5.00
Questions4.60
Erica A Nieblas 28 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.71
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.08
Reflection4.32
Respect4.57
Creativity4.48
Feedback3.43
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.78
Questions4.22
Nathan Huffine 14 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.47
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect4.73
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Paige Adzema 17 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.30
Contribution4.40
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.90
Reflection4.20
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.90
Interaction3.80
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Qiushi Huang 15 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.20
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.20
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.70
Interaction3.70
Challenge4.30
Questions4.10
Dawn Marie Jacob 19 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.13
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.40
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.17
Reflection4.57
Respect4.57
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.53
Questions4.60
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.