Course record PHIL
PHIL 2290
Philosophy and Gender
University of Colorado Boulder
1,743 grades35 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score48/100
Mixed record
Wayne Nicholas Hardaker 39 grades · 1 term 3.81GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hardaker vs. the course average
A
+24.0
B
−20.6
C
−5.9
D
+3.9
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 39 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.60
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.50
Reflection4.40
Respect4.60
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Sandra Skene 633 grades · 1 term 3.73GPA
633 letter grades
Compare with the course
Skene vs. the course average
A
+16.2
B
−13.0
C
−2.4
D
−0.7
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.2% withdrew · 8 of 641 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
265 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.16
Synthesis4.39
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.69
Contribution4.38
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity4.79
Grading4.49
Reflection4.51
Respect4.51
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.09
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.39
Questions4.39
Thomas Anthony Bonn 68 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
68 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bonn vs. the course average
A
+0.8
B
+3.3
C
−4.4
D
−1.2
F
+1.4
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 1 of 69 enrolled.
Overall4.48 / 5
62 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration3.48
Connection4.76
Contribution4.71
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity4.89
Grading4.29
Reflection4.57
Respect4.86
Creativity4.81
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.74
Questions4.41
Alexandra Lloyd 94 grades · 1 term 3.46GPA
94 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lloyd vs. the course average
A
−4.4
B
+6.7
C
−1.7
D
−0.1
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 3 of 97 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
126 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration3.57
Connection4.80
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.43
Reflection4.67
Respect4.93
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.63
Questions4.70
Matthew Shields 263 grades · 1 term 3.43GPA
263 letter grades
Compare with the course
Shields vs. the course average
A
−12.4
B
+14.5
C
−0.2
D
−0.4
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 4 of 267 enrolled.
Overall4.74 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.65
Reflection4.65
Respect4.95
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.75
Questions4.85
Gail E. Linsenbard 435 grades · 1 term 3.34GPA
435 letter grades
Compare with the course
Linsenbard vs. the course average
A
−11.3
B
+5.4
C
+4.4
D
+1.3
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 11 of 446 enrolled.
Overall4.20 / 5
222 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration2.99
Connection4.66
Contribution4.55
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity4.74
Grading3.86
Reflection4.41
Respect4.61
Creativity4.09
Feedback3.69
Interaction3.77
Challenge4.42
Questions3.97
Eric C Brown 36 grades · 1 term 3.34GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Brown vs. the course average
A
−9.9
B
+10.2
C
−3.1
D
−1.2
F
+4.1
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 2 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.08 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.20
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.70
Reflection4.30
Respect4.30
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.30
Questions4.20
Dawn Marie Jacob 74 grades · 1 term 3.33GPA
74 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jacob vs. the course average
A
−14.2
B
+16.1
C
−0.5
D
−1.2
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 1 of 75 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
94 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.42
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration3.31
Connection4.63
Contribution4.48
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity4.66
Grading4.26
Reflection4.56
Respect4.64
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.38
Interaction3.98
Challenge4.57
Questions4.38
Kristin Demetriou 101 grades · 1 term 3.28GPA
101 letter grades
Compare with the course
Demetriou vs. the course average
A
−12.8
B
+4.6
C
+5.0
D
+0.8
F
+2.5
Difference in percentage points.
7.3% withdrew · 8 of 109 enrolled.
Jennifer Joyce Gallagher 21 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.89
Technology3.65
Synthesis4.04
Collaboration4.04
Connection4.59
Contribution3.82
Discussion3.65
Inclusivity4.92
Grading3.31
Reflection4.66
Respect4.97
Creativity3.42
Feedback3.35
Interaction4.63
Challenge3.54
Questions4.44
Lisa N Thomas-Smith 5 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.60
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.40
Challenge5.00
Questions4.00
Megan Louise Kitts 48 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.67
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.87
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.67
Questions4.80
Erica A Nieblas 35 reported responses 3.92Eval / 5
Overall3.92 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.06
Connection4.68
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.50
Reflection4.33
Respect4.71
Creativity4.64
Feedback3.69
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.58
Questions4.17
Ajene Nicar Robinson-Burris 2 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.50
Contribution3.00
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge5.00
Questions4.50
Austin James Silberberg 76 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
76 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.85
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.50
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.65
Questions4.85
Kira Dorst 28 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.84
Technology3.08
Synthesis3.87
Collaboration3.93
Connection3.74
Contribution3.87
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.24
Grading3.61
Reflection3.71
Respect3.91
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.54
Interaction4.24
Challenge3.87
Questions3.54
Evan Jaymes Frook 50 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology3.62
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration3.88
Connection4.65
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.28
Reflection4.63
Respect4.79
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.49
Questions4.64
Amanda Michelle Loeffelholz 44 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.91
Technology4.32
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.54
Connection4.95
Contribution4.81
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.55
Reflection4.97
Respect4.93
Creativity4.74
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.96
Questions4.91
Emily Jean Slome 14 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration3.33
Connection4.67
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.12
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.60
Reflection4.42
Respect4.85
Creativity4.42
Feedback3.62
Interaction4.25
Challenge4.35
Questions4.64
Rebecca Bailey 18 reported responses 3.77Eval / 5
Overall3.77 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.80
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.40
Reflection3.60
Respect4.40
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.90
Questions3.90
Henry Campbell 17 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.90
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.90
Reflection3.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.50
Questions4.30
Kristin Marie Mickelson 35 reported responses 3.39Eval / 5
Overall3.39 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.97
Technology2.99
Synthesis3.43
Collaboration3.28
Connection3.07
Contribution3.63
Discussion3.25
Inclusivity3.96
Grading2.75
Reflection3.21
Respect3.93
Creativity3.39
Feedback2.33
Interaction3.11
Challenge3.63
Questions2.97
Rowen Foliver 13 reported responses 3.66Eval / 5
Overall3.66 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology3.30
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.40
Connection3.67
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity4.83
Grading3.47
Reflection3.93
Respect4.40
Creativity3.47
Feedback2.53
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.97
Questions3.57
Joy Webb 5 reported responses 4.90Eval / 5
Overall4.90 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Kimberly Madero 15 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.40
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Robert Anthony Williams 10 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration2.60
Connection3.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.00
Grading3.70
Reflection3.90
Respect4.40
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.00
Interaction3.50
Challenge4.20
Questions3.70
Charlie Roberts 31 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration2.90
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction3.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.40
Sparrow Locurto 28 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.47
Connection4.37
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.87
Grading4.13
Reflection4.63
Respect4.77
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.60
Levi Smith 13 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.93
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.87
Contribution4.87
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.00
Reflection4.87
Respect4.97
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.87
Questions4.53
Shane Bodhi Melnitzer 51 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration4.28
Connection4.74
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.96
Grading4.21
Reflection4.70
Respect4.84
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.58
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.76
Questions4.73
Sionna Lynch 17 reported responses 3.74Eval / 5
Overall3.74 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.43
Technology3.17
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.16
Connection4.36
Contribution4.35
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity4.97
Grading3.79
Reflection4.62
Respect3.75
Creativity3.72
Feedback2.93
Interaction4.24
Challenge3.13
Questions4.34
Joseph Wilson 4 reported responses 3.25Eval / 5
Overall3.25 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.30
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.20
Inclusivity4.20
Grading2.50
Reflection4.00
Respect4.20
Creativity3.20
Feedback2.20
Interaction3.50
Challenge3.80
Questions3.50
Haley Brigitte Gill 12 reported responses 2.77Eval / 5
Overall2.77 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology2.40
Synthesis2.80
Collaboration1.00
Connection3.30
Contribution3.20
Discussion3.20
Inclusivity4.20
Grading2.70
Reflection3.10
Respect3.70
Creativity2.70
Feedback2.60
Interaction1.10
Challenge3.40
Questions2.60
Hye-Ryoung Kang 5 reported responses 3.90Eval / 5
Overall3.90 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology2.50
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.60
Connection5.00
Contribution4.40
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity5.00
Grading2.00
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity3.50
Feedback2.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge5.00
Questions4.50
Gift Nwaozor 7 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.75
Connection4.35
Contribution3.75
Discussion3.85
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.15
Reflection4.75
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.65
Questions4.15
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.