Course record SOCY
SOCY 1001
Introduction to Sociology
University of Colorado Boulder
4,360 grades43 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score28/100
Below average
Amanda Stewart 193 grades · 1 term 3.55GPA
193 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stewart vs. the course average
A
+22.9
B
−9.5
C
−7.0
D
−3.4
F
−3.0
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 6 of 199 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
67 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.05
Connection4.85
Contribution4.29
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.55
Reflection4.52
Respect4.85
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.22
Interaction4.68
Challenge4.37
Questions4.82
Tracy Michelle Kirkland 111 grades · 1 term 3.50GPA
111 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kirkland vs. the course average
A
+24.7
B
−15.2
C
−5.6
D
−3.0
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.9% withdrew · 1 of 112 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.41
Technology3.99
Synthesis4.18
Collaboration3.35
Connection4.50
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity4.92
Grading3.44
Reflection4.21
Respect4.79
Creativity4.08
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.16
Challenge4.32
Questions4.24
Earle Jay Watterworth 57 grades · 1 term 3.39GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Watterworth vs. the course average
A
+13.1
B
−6.0
C
−1.4
D
−2.1
F
−3.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 1 of 58 enrolled.
Overall3.57 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.07
Technology2.80
Synthesis4.08
Collaboration2.58
Connection4.64
Contribution4.11
Discussion3.91
Inclusivity4.39
Grading2.82
Reflection3.73
Respect4.14
Creativity3.21
Feedback2.60
Interaction4.14
Challenge3.77
Questions3.74
Laurent Cilia 1,186 grades · 1 term 3.34GPA
1,186 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cilia vs. the course average
A
+12.3
B
−3.3
C
−6.4
D
−2.5
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
1.2% withdrew · 14 of 1,200 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
623 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.19
Technology4.56
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.36
Connection4.75
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.74
Grading4.47
Reflection4.44
Respect4.43
Creativity4.24
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.11
Challenge4.48
Questions4.37
David Cook-Martin 761 grades · 1 term 3.26GPA
761 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cook-Martin vs. the course average
A
+5.1
B
+1.8
C
−4.4
D
−1.4
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 21 of 782 enrolled.
Overall3.88 / 5
339 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.01
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.18
Connection4.59
Contribution3.49
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.08
Reflection4.10
Respect4.60
Creativity3.79
Feedback3.02
Interaction4.18
Challenge3.91
Questions4.01
Marshall David Smith 47 grades · 1 term 3.08GPA
47 letter grades
Compare with the course
Smith vs. the course average
A
+4.6
B
−4.7
C
−5.2
D
+2.5
F
+2.8
Difference in percentage points.
4.1% withdrew · 2 of 49 enrolled.
Overall3.40 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.69
Technology3.10
Synthesis3.63
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.43
Contribution3.87
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity4.28
Grading3.06
Reflection3.67
Respect3.67
Creativity3.31
Feedback2.87
Interaction3.99
Challenge3.69
Questions3.33
Liam C Downey 391 grades · 1 term 2.88GPA
391 letter grades
Compare with the course
Downey vs. the course average
A
−7.1
B
−3.2
C
+5.7
D
+3.5
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 5 of 396 enrolled.
Overall3.89 / 5
178 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.16
Synthesis4.14
Collaboration3.54
Connection4.76
Contribution3.93
Discussion4.34
Inclusivity4.69
Grading3.98
Reflection4.24
Respect4.67
Creativity3.98
Feedback3.25
Interaction4.14
Challenge4.14
Questions4.19
Glenda D Walden 374 grades · 1 term 2.86GPA
374 letter grades
Compare with the course
Walden vs. the course average
A
−14.2
B
+6.7
C
+5.0
D
−0.2
F
+2.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.1% withdrew · 16 of 390 enrolled.
Overall3.83 / 5
325 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration2.90
Connection4.40
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.60
Grading3.80
Reflection3.90
Respect4.60
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.00
Thomas Pearson Wadsworth 375 grades · 1 term 2.85GPA
375 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wadsworth vs. the course average
A
−15.0
B
+4.5
C
+8.7
D
+1.2
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.8% withdrew · 15 of 390 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology4.79
Synthesis3.99
Collaboration2.62
Connection4.77
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.76
Grading4.57
Reflection4.87
Respect4.24
Creativity3.88
Feedback3.99
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.79
Questions4.82
Lori Ann Peek 781 grades · 1 term 2.85GPA
781 letter grades
Compare with the course
Peek vs. the course average
A
−13.9
B
+4.9
C
+5.3
D
+3.1
F
+0.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 16 of 797 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
748 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.80
Contribution4.19
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.59
Questions4.60
Michael L Radelet 84 grades · 1 term 2.51GPA
84 letter grades
Compare with the course
Radelet vs. the course average
A
−23.9
B
−2.6
C
+19.6
D
+9.2
F
−2.4
Difference in percentage points.
11.6% withdrew · 11 of 95 enrolled.
William Blade Wagner 79 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
79 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.61
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.83
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.88
Grading4.74
Reflection4.76
Respect4.92
Creativity4.46
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.66
Challenge4.55
Questions4.84
Brigid Morgan Mark 286 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
286 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.41
Technology4.56
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration4.26
Connection4.55
Contribution4.24
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.45
Reflection4.45
Respect4.69
Creativity4.12
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.66
Challenge4.33
Questions4.57
Adenife T Modile 304 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
304 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.62
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.56
Collaboration4.28
Connection4.87
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity4.91
Grading4.00
Reflection4.71
Respect4.80
Creativity4.43
Feedback3.94
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.61
Questions4.01
Nicole Aggarwal 94 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
94 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.74
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.66
Contribution4.46
Discussion4.61
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.69
Reflection4.56
Respect4.85
Creativity4.28
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.48
Questions4.81
Hannah L Edwards 135 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
135 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.74
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.36
Connection4.85
Contribution4.74
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.89
Grading4.44
Reflection4.82
Respect4.91
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.70
Questions4.81
Kristofer Allen Hoyt 41 reported responses 4.21Eval / 5
Overall4.21 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.92
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.81
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.75
Grading3.78
Reflection4.65
Respect4.61
Creativity4.43
Feedback3.77
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.57
Questions3.75
Ian Whalen 109 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
109 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.79
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.12
Connection4.98
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.61
Reflection4.76
Respect4.71
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.81
Questions4.61
Jason Downing 43 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology3.98
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration3.95
Connection4.43
Contribution4.25
Discussion3.76
Inclusivity4.39
Grading3.99
Reflection4.25
Respect4.39
Creativity4.02
Feedback3.85
Interaction3.55
Challenge4.06
Questions4.01
Justin Vinneau Palarino 2 reported responses 3.80Eval / 5
Overall3.80 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.00
Reflection4.00
Respect4.00
Creativity3.00
Feedback3.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.50
Questions3.00
Austin Fitzgerald 35 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.87
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.87
Grading4.60
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Salvatore Lapuma 104 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
104 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.80
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.12
Reflection4.64
Respect4.75
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.38
Questions4.42
Robert Scott 131 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
131 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.61
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.43
Connection4.90
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.37
Reflection4.49
Respect4.89
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.26
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.60
Questions4.75
Zoe Lefkowitz 26 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.27
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration3.87
Connection4.60
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.20
Reflection4.40
Respect4.63
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.47
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.93
Questions4.63
Selena Munoz-Jones 25 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology4.01
Synthesis4.44
Collaboration3.13
Connection4.73
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.76
Grading4.19
Reflection4.30
Respect4.86
Creativity4.03
Feedback4.26
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.39
Questions4.02
Ashley Myrtle Blinkhorn 51 reported responses 4.04Eval / 5
Overall4.04 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.14
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.11
Connection4.39
Contribution4.06
Discussion4.31
Inclusivity4.47
Grading3.24
Reflection4.17
Respect4.20
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.17
Interaction4.25
Challenge3.96
Questions3.68
Noor Toor 132 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
132 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration4.52
Connection4.72
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.71
Inclusivity4.79
Grading4.58
Reflection4.56
Respect4.92
Creativity4.39
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.39
Questions4.64
Kylie Christoffersen 64 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
64 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.17
Connection4.73
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.73
Reflection4.60
Respect4.93
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.83
Hannah Lyden 30 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.50
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.37
Reflection4.40
Respect4.53
Creativity4.27
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.17
Questions4.37
Annabel Fay 87 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
87 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration4.38
Connection4.80
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.76
Grading4.66
Reflection4.64
Respect4.90
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.59
Questions4.48
Eduardo Lievanos Medina 82 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
82 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.59
Connection4.81
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.83
Reflection4.57
Respect4.88
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.57
Questions4.79
Mady Kienstra 78 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
78 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.56
Collaboration4.46
Connection4.73
Contribution4.46
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.74
Grading4.70
Reflection4.53
Respect4.81
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.19
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.45
Questions4.65
Sydney Nemetz 83 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
83 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.24
Connection4.85
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.87
Reflection4.71
Respect4.77
Creativity4.39
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.55
Questions4.82
Blade Wagner 22 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.37
Connection4.73
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.63
Reflection4.70
Respect4.93
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.63
Questions4.83
Lucy Merrill 73 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
73 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.64
Connection4.85
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.75
Reflection4.65
Respect4.91
Creativity4.51
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.78
Questions4.82
Suleyman Kiroglu 72 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5
72 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.12
Connection4.48
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.18
Inclusivity4.48
Grading3.74
Reflection4.13
Respect4.47
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.31
Interaction4.39
Challenge3.91
Questions3.90
Elan Rochell-Share 36 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration4.39
Connection4.81
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.17
Reflection4.51
Respect4.69
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.59
Questions4.52
Minh Anh Ly 39 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.67
Connection4.60
Contribution4.48
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.64
Reflection4.65
Respect4.83
Creativity4.16
Feedback4.39
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.63
Questions4.56
Matthew Sean Bravo 4 reported responses 4.84Eval / 5
Overall4.84 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Ileana Morales 59 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
59 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.51
Synthesis4.39
Collaboration4.33
Connection4.75
Contribution4.46
Discussion4.49
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.47
Reflection4.56
Respect4.82
Creativity4.12
Feedback4.14
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.45
Questions4.46
Melike Tozlu 28 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.47
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.63
Creativity4.03
Feedback3.73
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.10
Questions4.40
Megan Swanson 22 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.83
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.57
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.70
Questions4.63
Alena Gabrielson 2 reported responses 3.87Eval / 5
Overall3.87 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.50
Contribution3.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.00
Reflection4.00
Respect4.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.