Course record PSYC
PSYC 2606
Social Psychology
University of Colorado Boulder
3,849 grades18 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score33/100
Below average
Balbir Singh 39 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Singh vs. the course average
A
+35.2
B
−18.3
C
−12.2
D
−2.7
F
−2.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 1 of 40 enrolled.
Overall4.37 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.80
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.50
Questions4.90
Eric John Pedersen Ph.D. 466 grades · 1 term 3.44GPA
466 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ph.D. vs. the course average
A
+22.5
B
−15.0
C
−6.0
D
−0.4
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.9% withdrew · 4 of 470 enrolled.
Erik Knight 567 grades · 1 term 3.44GPA
567 letter grades
Compare with the course
Knight vs. the course average
A
+12.4
B
+0.2
C
−9.5
D
−2.2
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 10 of 577 enrolled.
Overall4.43 / 5
422 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.89
Contribution3.74
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity4.71
Grading4.38
Reflection4.52
Respect4.73
Creativity4.16
Feedback3.81
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.51
Questions4.62
Miriam Guy Clayton 39 grades · 1 term 3.39GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Clayton vs. the course average
A
+25.0
B
−20.8
C
−4.6
D
−0.2
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 1 of 40 enrolled.
Jennifer Catherine Cole 36 grades · 1 term 3.29GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cole vs. the course average
A
+11.1
B
−8.2
C
−3.7
D
+2.8
F
−2.0
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 2 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.50
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Christopher Alan Loersch 101 grades · 1 term 3.18GPA
101 letter grades
Compare with the course
Loersch vs. the course average
A
+6.8
B
−5.1
C
−4.9
D
+4.2
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 5 of 106 enrolled.
D Brett King 1,735 grades · 1 term 3.05GPA
1,735 letter grades
Compare with the course
King vs. the course average
A
−6.4
B
+5.5
C
+1.8
D
−0.2
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 26 of 1,761 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
1,247 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.71
Collaboration3.93
Connection4.83
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.84
Grading4.80
Reflection4.71
Respect4.90
Creativity4.63
Feedback4.28
Interaction4.66
Challenge4.77
Questions4.77
Ryan Dean Curtis 826 grades · 1 term 2.84GPA
826 letter grades
Compare with the course
Curtis vs. the course average
A
−11.2
B
−0.7
C
+7.3
D
+1.8
F
+2.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 31 of 857 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
828 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.32
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration3.92
Connection4.65
Contribution3.91
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity4.47
Grading4.40
Reflection4.46
Respect4.66
Creativity4.31
Feedback3.93
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.46
Questions4.45
Marrissa D Grant 40 grades · 1 term 2.75GPA
40 letter grades
Compare with the course
Grant vs. the course average
A
−16.7
B
+6.2
C
+7.7
D
−0.2
F
+3.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 40 enrolled.
Brooke Marie Huibregtse 56 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
56 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.61
Technology4.89
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.66
Connection4.93
Contribution4.94
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.58
Grading4.94
Reflection4.91
Respect4.95
Creativity4.87
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.92
Questions4.69
Eric Pedersen 127 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
127 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.79
Contribution4.29
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity4.69
Grading4.42
Reflection4.59
Respect4.71
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.99
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.50
Questions4.69
Miriam Guy Clayton Erickson 25 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.90
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.90
Diane K Martichuski 35 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.76
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.79
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.78
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity4.96
Grading4.87
Reflection4.79
Respect4.95
Creativity4.84
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.84
Questions4.64
Emily Cavallaro 2 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.50
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Reflection5.00
Interaction4.50
Matthew Puretz 1 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection5.00
Contribution3.00
Inclusivity5.00
Reflection5.00
Interaction5.00
Dani Grant 15 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.60
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.50
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Shaw L. Ketels 55 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.08
Connection4.94
Contribution4.56
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.74
Grading4.60
Reflection4.63
Respect4.77
Creativity4.41
Feedback3.73
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.58
Questions4.62
Joshua Raphael Correll 36 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.40
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.