Course record PSYC
PSYC 4541
Special Topics in Psychology - Social Science
University of Colorado Boulder
1,475 grades24 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score62/100
Strong
June L Gruber 45 grades · 1 term 3.92GPA
45 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gruber vs. the course average
A
+23.7
B
−16.1
C
−5.8
D
−0.7
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 1 of 46 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
97 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.95
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.55
Reflection4.90
Respect4.86
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.41
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.76
Karl G Hill 113 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
113 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hill vs. the course average
A
+21.9
B
−17.1
C
−3.1
D
−0.7
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 3 of 116 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
141 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.79
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.71
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.92
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.63
Reflection4.84
Respect4.90
Creativity4.68
Feedback4.83
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.85
Questions4.79
Michael R Freedman 374 grades · 1 term 3.73GPA
374 letter grades
Compare with the course
Freedman vs. the course average
A
+5.8
B
−0.4
C
−3.9
D
−0.5
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.5% withdrew · 2 of 376 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
331 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.14
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.11
Connection4.98
Contribution4.64
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.53
Reflection4.82
Respect4.89
Creativity4.02
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.91
Questions4.89
Chelsea Patrick Pierotti 129 grades · 1 term 3.72GPA
129 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pierotti vs. the course average
A
+10.8
B
−5.6
C
−3.4
D
−0.7
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 2 of 131 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
95 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.71
Collaboration4.78
Connection4.94
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.87
Reflection4.89
Respect4.94
Creativity4.82
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.89
Questions4.90
Vyga G. Kaufmann 40 grades · 1 term 3.70GPA
40 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kaufmann vs. the course average
A
+10.0
B
−2.5
C
−5.8
D
−0.7
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 40 enrolled.
Overall4.79 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.89
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.62
Connection4.90
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.72
Grading4.60
Reflection4.62
Respect4.91
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.72
Questions4.62
Natalie D Smutzler 233 grades · 1 term 3.67GPA
233 letter grades
Compare with the course
Smutzler vs. the course average
A
+11.5
B
−9.1
C
−2.8
D
−0.3
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.1% withdrew · 5 of 238 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
421 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.58
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.51
Connection4.76
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity4.34
Grading4.56
Reflection4.70
Respect4.63
Creativity4.56
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.63
Questions4.53
Kent Edward Hutchison 39 grades · 1 term 3.56GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hutchison vs. the course average
A
−5.9
B
+10.9
C
−3.2
D
−0.7
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 1 of 40 enrolled.
Overall3.45 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration2.00
Connection5.00
Contribution3.00
Discussion2.00
Inclusivity2.00
Grading3.00
Reflection4.00
Respect4.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.00
Challenge4.00
Questions2.00
Andrew Cummings 77 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
77 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cummings vs. the course average
A
+0.1
B
−0.3
C
−0.6
D
+0.6
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 1 of 78 enrolled.
Overall4.69 / 5
210 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.49
Collaboration4.51
Connection4.85
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.53
Grading4.82
Reflection4.72
Respect4.91
Creativity4.64
Feedback4.64
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.73
Questions4.95
Erik G Willcutt 44 grades · 1 term 3.48GPA
44 letter grades
Compare with the course
Willcutt vs. the course average
A
−12.9
B
+13.6
C
+1.1
D
−0.7
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 1 of 45 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.62
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.64
Collaboration4.09
Connection4.92
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.87
Reflection4.81
Respect4.92
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.87
Questions4.82
Soo H Rhee 47 grades · 1 term 3.35GPA
47 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rhee vs. the course average
A
−7.9
B
+0.5
C
+4.9
D
−0.7
F
+3.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.0% withdrew · 3 of 50 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
53 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.12
Technology4.04
Synthesis3.76
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.17
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.39
Inclusivity4.28
Grading4.57
Reflection4.02
Respect4.65
Creativity3.76
Feedback4.12
Interaction4.32
Challenge4.03
Questions4.83
Jesse Haynes Pate Skene 37 grades · 1 term 3.30GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Skene vs. the course average
A
−10.7
B
+7.4
C
+2.3
D
+2.0
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
5.1% withdrew · 2 of 39 enrolled.
Overall3.12 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology2.70
Synthesis3.10
Collaboration3.20
Connection3.20
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.30
Grading2.30
Reflection2.70
Respect4.40
Creativity2.60
Feedback2.30
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.10
Questions3.70
Chandra Reynolds Gebelin 41 grades · 1 term 3.20GPA
41 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gebelin vs. the course average
A
−21.1
B
+11.6
C
+8.9
D
+1.7
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 1 of 42 enrolled.
Karli K Carston 80 grades · 1 term 3.18GPA
80 letter grades
Compare with the course
Carston vs. the course average
A
−17.5
B
+7.5
C
+4.2
D
+3.0
F
+2.7
Difference in percentage points.
7.0% withdrew · 6 of 86 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
49 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.01
Connection4.55
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.41
Grading4.48
Reflection4.75
Respect4.86
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.78
Questions4.54
Mark Whisman 143 grades · 1 term 2.94GPA
143 letter grades
Compare with the course
Whisman vs. the course average
A
−42.3
B
+23.2
C
+17.3
D
+0.7
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 2 of 145 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
102 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration3.87
Connection4.98
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.62
Grading4.79
Reflection4.79
Respect4.98
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.08
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.77
Questions4.79
Robert Moulder 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.43GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
4.8% withdrew · 1 of 21 enrolled.
Overall4.53 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.70
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Albert E. Kim 13 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.93GPA
13 letter grades · Limited sample
13.3% withdrew · 2 of 15 enrolled.
Overall3.42 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration2.62
Connection2.85
Contribution3.23
Discussion3.77
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.27
Reflection2.85
Respect3.85
Creativity2.88
Feedback2.38
Interaction4.62
Challenge3.35
Questions3.46
Amanda Lynne Mahaffey 342 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
342 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.84
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.83
Connection4.87
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.61
Grading4.76
Reflection4.82
Respect4.80
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.78
Questions4.82
Angela Bryan 8 reported responses 3.52Eval / 5
Overall3.52 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.75
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration2.40
Connection4.45
Contribution4.25
Discussion3.30
Inclusivity4.65
Grading2.95
Reflection4.85
Respect4.25
Creativity3.55
Feedback3.70
Interaction3.00
Challenge3.20
Questions4.25
Raeghan Lea Mueller 84 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
84 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.62
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.39
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.67
Reflection4.62
Respect4.68
Creativity4.56
Feedback4.24
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.63
Questions4.33
Chandra Ann Reynolds 60 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.28
Connection4.62
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.48
Grading4.42
Reflection4.40
Respect4.76
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.57
Questions4.59
Sona Armine Dimidjian 22 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Caitlin Mckimmy 22 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Marie Banich 12 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.60
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Ryan John Goffredi 61 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.79
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.79
Collaboration4.73
Connection4.94
Contribution4.82
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.74
Grading4.87
Reflection4.93
Respect4.89
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.44
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.97
Questions4.96
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.