Course record PHIL
PHIL 3140
Environmental Ethics
University of Colorado Boulder
1,760 grades43 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score41/100
Mixed record
Benjamin Michael Kultgen 36 grades · 1 term 3.48GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kultgen vs. the course average
A
+17.2
B
−12.7
C
−4.1
D
−1.1
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.90
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.10
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback3.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.40
David A Youkey 664 grades · 1 term 3.47GPA
664 letter grades
Compare with the course
Youkey vs. the course average
A
+5.9
B
−2.7
C
−2.1
D
−0.2
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 11 of 675 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
142 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration3.69
Connection4.88
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.86
Grading4.50
Reflection4.74
Respect4.77
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.60
Questions4.83
Joseph Scott Wilson Jr. Jr. 217 grades · 1 term 3.45GPA
217 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jr. vs. the course average
A
+11.3
B
−8.1
C
−3.7
D
−0.6
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 6 of 223 enrolled.
Stanley Matthew Stolte 37 grades · 1 term 3.37GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stolte vs. the course average
A
+1.7
B
+3.0
C
−4.3
D
−1.1
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology3.50
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.59
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.32
Grading4.66
Reflection4.52
Respect4.51
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.59
Questions4.71
Beth A Johnson 152 grades · 1 term 3.33GPA
152 letter grades
Compare with the course
Johnson vs. the course average
A
+0.9
B
−1.2
C
+0.2
D
−0.4
F
+0.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.2% withdrew · 5 of 157 enrolled.
Overall4.18 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.50
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.90
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Scott Andrew Hill 110 grades · 1 term 3.32GPA
110 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hill vs. the course average
A
+3.1
B
−3.0
C
−1.5
D
−0.2
F
+1.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.9% withdrew · 1 of 111 enrolled.
Overall4.69 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.60
Respect5.00
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.70
Maria Colvin 58 grades · 1 term 3.29GPA
58 letter grades
Compare with the course
Colvin vs. the course average
A
−8.5
B
+9.3
C
+2.4
D
−1.1
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 58 enrolled.
Overall3.95 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.85
Technology2.70
Synthesis3.76
Collaboration1.43
Connection4.18
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.53
Grading3.53
Reflection4.05
Respect4.62
Creativity3.92
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.11
Challenge3.92
Questions4.34
Melanie Elizabeth Tate 42 grades · 1 term 3.11GPA
42 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tate vs. the course average
A
−14.6
B
+8.4
C
+4.6
D
+1.3
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 42 enrolled.
Overall4.88 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions5.00
Shane Bodhi Melnitzer 260 grades · 1 term 3.09GPA
260 letter grades
Compare with the course
Melnitzer vs. the course average
A
−21.6
B
+16.4
C
+5.0
D
+0.1
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 9 of 269 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
151 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.32
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.65
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.31
Reflection4.61
Respect4.63
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.68
Questions4.66
Martin Alberto Chamorro 165 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
165 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chamorro vs. the course average
A
−9.0
B
−1.8
C
+7.3
D
+2.6
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
6.8% withdrew · 12 of 177 enrolled.
Overall4.13 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.55
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.30
Questions4.15
James Preston Andrew 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.85GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall3.84 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology3.20
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration2.20
Connection3.80
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.20
Grading3.80
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.20
Matt Ray 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Alexander Ryan Beard 34 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.22
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.47
Connection4.65
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.11
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.41
Reflection4.45
Respect4.62
Creativity3.94
Feedback3.28
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.35
Questions4.25
Daniel Sturgis 23 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.50
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.50
Reflection4.30
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.70
Questions4.60
Jayda Taylor 33 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.84
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.76
Collaboration3.98
Connection4.81
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.41
Reflection4.68
Respect4.88
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.73
Questions4.84
Martin Ablerto Chamorro 21 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.55
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.30
Questions4.15
William Camden Hodge 10 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.70
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.30
Reflection4.50
Respect4.70
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.10
Questions4.30
Benjamin Slater Hale 10 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.71
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.99
Contribution4.55
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.51
Reflection4.98
Respect5.00
Creativity4.96
Feedback4.24
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Mark King Boespflug 1 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Evan Jaymes Frook 1 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Vodehnal Anne Carrie 1 reported responses 1.70Eval / 5
Overall1.70 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology2.00
Synthesis2.00
Collaboration2.00
Connection2.00
Contribution1.00
Discussion2.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading1.00
Reflection1.00
Respect4.00
Creativity2.00
Feedback1.00
Interaction2.00
Challenge1.00
Questions3.00
Carl Alan Huber 10 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.90
Questions4.60
Javier Acevedo De La Torre 12 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Dj Arends 12 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Brandon Michael Price 9 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.10
Connection4.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.40
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.70
Questions4.60
Stephen Thomas Troy 9 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.10
Connection4.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.70
Reflection4.90
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.70
Questions4.60
Corey Samuel William Sherman 5 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.60
Challenge5.00
Questions4.50
Emily Jean Slome 5 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Marshall Jarrell 13 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.90
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.20
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity3.30
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.40
Kris Lauridsen 13 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.50
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.40
Connection4.90
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.10
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
Joseph Wilson 21 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration2.57
Connection4.81
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity4.79
Grading4.38
Reflection4.80
Respect4.72
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.53
Interaction2.68
Challenge4.81
Questions4.62
Henry Campbell 9 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration2.50
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.80
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.30
Interaction3.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.60
Joy Webb 9 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration2.50
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.80
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.70
Interaction3.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.60
Kyle Nathaneal York 6 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.68
Connection4.68
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.58
Grading4.77
Reflection3.91
Respect4.82
Creativity4.82
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.14
Challenge4.77
Questions4.84
Carrie Anne Vodehnal 15 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.16
Synthesis4.44
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.73
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.32
Reflection4.54
Respect4.88
Creativity4.43
Feedback3.62
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.31
Questions4.67
Xingzhu Chen 1 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Tim Burkhardt 46 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.29
Synthesis4.61
Collaboration3.96
Connection4.91
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.83
Reflection4.81
Respect4.86
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.74
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.80
Questions4.94
Merily Salura 6 reported responses 3.49Eval / 5
Overall3.49 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology2.80
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.00
Contribution3.80
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity3.80
Grading2.80
Reflection4.00
Respect3.70
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.80
Questions3.20
Haley Brigitte Gill 6 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration2.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Tyler Porter 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Owen Woods 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Hunter Jin 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Sionna Lynch 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.