Course record PHYS
PHYS 3330
Electronics for the Physical Sciences
University of Colorado Boulder
480 grades18 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score25/100
Below average
Minhyea Lee 128 grades · 1 term 3.45GPA
128 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A
+6.1
B
+0.4
C
−4.4
D
−0.5
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
6.6% withdrew · 9 of 137 enrolled.
Overall4.16 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology4.28
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.93
Connection4.18
Contribution4.39
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity2.42
Grading4.08
Reflection4.42
Respect4.31
Creativity4.39
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.48
Questions4.63
Daniel S Dessau 96 grades · 1 term 3.36GPA
96 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dessau vs. the course average
A
+2.5
B
−1.5
C
+1.0
D
−1.3
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 4 of 100 enrolled.
Overall4.08 / 5
57 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.83
Technology4.05
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.58
Connection3.91
Contribution4.03
Discussion3.88
Inclusivity2.94
Grading3.36
Reflection3.60
Respect4.20
Creativity3.91
Feedback3.75
Interaction4.28
Challenge3.98
Questions3.82
Eric Zimmerman 45 grades · 1 term 3.31GPA
45 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zimmerman vs. the course average
A
+5.2
B
−5.0
C
+0.6
D
−1.3
F
+0.5
Difference in percentage points.
6.3% withdrew · 3 of 48 enrolled.
Overall4.07 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.19
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.36
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.39
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.38
Grading3.40
Reflection4.19
Respect4.77
Creativity4.11
Feedback3.75
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.45
Questions4.58
Michael Dennis Litos 54 grades · 1 term 3.23GPA
54 letter grades
Compare with the course
Litos vs. the course average
A
−1.1
B
−0.2
C
−0.9
D
+0.6
F
+1.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.8% withdrew · 1 of 55 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.60
Contribution4.42
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity3.35
Grading3.92
Reflection4.65
Respect4.77
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.77
Questions4.38
Dmitry Reznik 54 grades · 1 term 3.22GPA
54 letter grades
Compare with the course
Reznik vs. the course average
A
−2.9
B
+1.7
C
+0.9
D
+0.6
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
8.5% withdrew · 5 of 59 enrolled.
Overall3.55 / 5
53 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.52
Technology2.73
Synthesis3.16
Collaboration3.96
Connection3.70
Contribution2.79
Discussion3.12
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.04
Reflection3.49
Respect3.80
Creativity3.35
Feedback2.61
Interaction4.18
Challenge3.28
Questions2.84
Cindy Anne Regal 103 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
103 letter grades
Compare with the course
Regal vs. the course average
A
−10.1
B
+2.3
C
+4.3
D
+1.7
F
+1.9
Difference in percentage points.
8.8% withdrew · 10 of 113 enrolled.
Overall3.84 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.37
Connection4.55
Contribution3.72
Discussion3.63
Inclusivity4.39
Grading3.05
Reflection4.08
Respect4.23
Creativity3.63
Feedback3.11
Interaction4.77
Challenge3.97
Questions3.93
John P Cumalat 6 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.70
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.80
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions5.00
Kevin M Stenson 35 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology4.57
Synthesis3.87
Collaboration4.52
Connection3.99
Contribution3.76
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity3.35
Grading4.23
Reflection3.87
Respect4.91
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.12
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.55
Questions4.29
Noel A Clark 90 reported responses 3.65Eval / 5
Overall3.65 / 5
90 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.17
Technology2.84
Synthesis3.11
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.88
Contribution3.08
Discussion3.03
Inclusivity3.00
Grading2.72
Reflection3.28
Respect4.08
Creativity2.99
Feedback2.61
Interaction4.17
Challenge3.40
Questions3.15
Gang Cao 71 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5
71 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.92
Technology4.34
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.07
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity4.56
Grading3.50
Reflection3.91
Respect4.70
Creativity4.03
Feedback3.55
Interaction4.48
Challenge4.40
Questions4.43
Edward Tortorici 66 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.86
Connection4.42
Contribution4.38
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity4.24
Grading3.49
Reflection4.27
Respect4.43
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.73
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.39
Questions4.26
Sascha Kempf 26 reported responses 3.53Eval / 5
Overall3.53 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.81
Technology3.40
Synthesis2.91
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.90
Contribution2.91
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity2.32
Grading2.80
Reflection3.01
Respect4.10
Creativity2.61
Feedback2.90
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.80
Questions3.80
James Karl Thompson 15 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.10
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.60
Reflection4.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Stephen R Wagner 15 reported responses 4.11Eval / 5
Overall4.11 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.40
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.40
Reflection4.10
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.20
Questions3.90
Lauren Kennedy 7 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Henry C Kapteyn 14 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection3.90
Contribution4.10
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.80
Reflection3.70
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.20
Questions4.10
Corbin Allison 9 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.55
Contribution4.45
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.85
Reflection4.65
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.85
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.65
Questions4.85
Ivan I Smalyukh 11 reported responses 3.29Eval / 5
Overall3.29 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.80
Technology3.40
Synthesis2.90
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.90
Contribution2.90
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity2.30
Grading2.60
Reflection3.00
Respect3.80
Creativity2.70
Feedback2.90
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.40
Questions3.80
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.