Course record PHYS
PHYS 2020
General Physics 2
University of Colorado Boulder
1,125 grades41 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score27/100
Below average
Colin G West 346 grades · 1 term 3.36GPA
346 letter grades
Compare with the course
West vs. the course average
A
+18.3
B
−2.5
C
−12.8
D
−1.5
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.6% withdrew · 2 of 348 enrolled.
Overall4.85 / 5
145 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.81
Collaboration4.71
Connection4.82
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.64
Grading4.81
Reflection4.91
Respect4.82
Creativity4.64
Feedback4.54
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.90
Questions4.81
Nuris Figueroa Morales 153 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
153 letter grades
Compare with the course
Morales vs. the course average
A
−3.5
B
+9.3
C
−2.3
D
−1.5
F
−2.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.6% withdrew · 1 of 154 enrolled.
Overall3.91 / 5
240 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.75
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.65
Collaboration3.95
Connection4.15
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.15
Grading4.00
Reflection4.05
Respect4.45
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.15
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.00
Questions3.95
Alysia Diane Marino 99 grades · 1 term 3.04GPA
99 letter grades
Compare with the course
Marino vs. the course average
A
+5.4
B
−2.7
C
−2.0
D
−1.1
F
+0.4
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 5 of 104 enrolled.
Overall4.37 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.60
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.40
Reflection4.50
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.70
Questions4.60
Eleanor R Hodby 199 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
199 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hodby vs. the course average
A
−13.5
B
+6.7
C
+7.5
D
−1.1
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
5.2% withdrew · 11 of 210 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
338 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration4.21
Connection4.58
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity3.74
Grading4.34
Reflection4.51
Respect4.50
Creativity4.22
Feedback3.89
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.52
Questions4.49
Tobin Leo Munsat 254 grades · 1 term 2.63GPA
254 letter grades
Compare with the course
Munsat vs. the course average
A
−10.2
B
−5.2
C
+9.5
D
+3.0
F
+2.8
Difference in percentage points.
5.2% withdrew · 14 of 268 enrolled.
Overall4.10 / 5
119 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration3.38
Connection4.38
Contribution3.36
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.27
Reflection4.37
Respect4.73
Creativity4.11
Feedback3.49
Interaction4.09
Challenge4.50
Questions4.34
Shijie Zhong 74 grades · 1 term 2.59GPA
74 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zhong vs. the course average
A
−14.4
B
−4.3
C
+14.6
D
+4.0
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
8.6% withdrew · 7 of 81 enrolled.
Overall4.48 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.50
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Yifan Hong 31 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.89
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration4.47
Connection4.48
Contribution4.46
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity3.42
Grading4.18
Reflection4.58
Respect4.98
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.94
Challenge4.63
Questions4.91
Xu Zheng 10 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.60
Connection3.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.75
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.25
Questions4.50
Sarang Yeola 16 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.50
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.05
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.85
Questions4.90
Evan Wynn Wickenden 16 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.15
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.25
Grading3.50
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.85
Questions4.70
Chao Yin 14 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.50
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.95
Reflection4.60
Respect4.85
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.55
Questions4.80
Michael A Dubson 14 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.40
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity2.40
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Daniel Glenn Steckhahn 8 reported responses 3.84Eval / 5
Overall3.84 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity1.00
Grading3.00
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.90
Questions3.90
Sarah Kerr 5 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Nikolay Yegovtsev 18 reported responses 3.90Eval / 5
Overall3.90 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology3.95
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration4.45
Connection3.75
Contribution4.10
Discussion3.95
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.10
Reflection3.90
Respect3.90
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.00
Questions4.10
Noah Lordi 16 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.95
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.35
Grading4.70
Reflection5.00
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.75
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions5.00
Roman Gabriel Marcarelli 52 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.51
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.45
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.41
Grading4.62
Reflection4.65
Respect4.93
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.70
Questions4.86
Tobias Gaillard Oliver 50 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.62
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.59
Contribution4.71
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.12
Grading4.57
Reflection4.71
Respect4.80
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.62
Questions4.71
Aaron Sokolik 3 reported responses 3.60Eval / 5
Overall3.60 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.70
Contribution3.70
Discussion2.70
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.30
Reflection3.30
Respect4.30
Creativity3.30
Feedback3.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge3.30
Questions3.00
Alyx Patterson 25 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.40
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.55
Reflection4.65
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.80
Questions4.85
Jesse Kruse 28 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.70
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.45
Reflection4.85
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Cai E. Cash 35 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.70
Reflection4.85
Respect4.95
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.90
Thomas Baker 29 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.00
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.25
Reflection4.65
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.50
Questions4.55
Sankalp Gaur 6 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology3.30
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Ben Johnston 11 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.60
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity3.85
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect4.70
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.55
Questions4.60
Jacob Monahan 50 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.75
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.75
Reflection4.85
Respect4.85
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Luke Adams 21 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.65
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.15
Reflection4.75
Respect4.60
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.75
Questions4.55
Michael Joseph Schefferstein 1 reported responses 3.80Eval / 5
Overall3.80 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Synthesis2.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.00
Contribution2.00
Reflection3.00
Ryan Yik Wah Lau 18 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.42
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.53
Grading4.72
Reflection4.42
Respect4.95
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.80
Questions4.95
Matthew Fox 31 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.40
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.65
Reflection4.65
Respect4.85
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.65
Questions4.85
Alana Press 51 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.74
Collaboration4.84
Connection4.61
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity4.32
Grading4.60
Reflection4.78
Respect4.85
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.83
Questions4.63
Justin Nicoski 16 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.50
Contribution4.85
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.95
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.75
Questions5.00
Spencer Jordan Hall 12 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.50
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.70
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.10
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.40
Christopher Pochas 21 reported responses 3.87Eval / 5
Overall3.87 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology3.60
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.00
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.60
Grading3.20
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback2.80
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.10
Questions4.20
Dennis Vadimovich Perepelitsa 38 reported responses 4.07Eval / 5
Overall4.07 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.20
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.10
Respect4.40
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.30
Questions4.10
Chanin Kumpeerakij 15 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.05
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.35
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity3.25
Grading4.55
Reflection4.60
Respect4.25
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.15
Questions4.50
Daniel S Dessau 4 reported responses 3.88Eval / 5
Overall3.88 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology3.00
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.20
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.00
Reflection3.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.50
Questions3.80
Matthew Marzano 30 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.55
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.45
Reflection4.50
Respect4.75
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.65
Questions4.70
Shuyan Zhou 28 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.30
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.45
Reflection4.45
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.55
Questions4.60
Matteo Wilczak 19 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.75
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.55
Reflection4.75
Respect4.75
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.65
Questions4.65
Ya-Wen Chuang 22 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.70
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.90
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.