Burr, Anthony I

teaching MUS 101C

Class approval

79.8%

average

75.9%

projected (next term)

i.e. 43 respondents (51 total) approved of this course.


22.6%

Percentile among all classes

21.7%

Percentile among MUS classes

Instructor approval

84.7%

average

94.2%

projected (next term)

i.e. 44 respondents (51 total) approved of this instructor's teaching of the course.


33.5%

Percentile among all classes

29.9%

Percentile among MUS classes

Instructor-class rating differential

4.8%

average

18.3%

projected (next term)

This is the difference between the instructor and class approval ratings. A higher value indicates a professor which can compensate for the negative qualities of a class.


75.1%

Percentile among all classes

75.8%

Percentile among MUS classes

Grade (GPA)

3.17

average

3.40

projected (next term)


44.6%

Percentile among all classes

11.0%

Percentile among MUS classes

Estimated time commitment

≈5:22

average

≈5:52

projected (next term)

The average amount of time outside of class needed per week.


50.2%

Percentile among all classes

87.3%

Percentile among MUS classes



This chart shows all MUS 101C classes' instructor and class recommended percentages. The dotted lines represent averages for each axis.

The top right quadrant represents good classes with good professors. Bottom right represents good classes with underwhelming professors, top left represents bad classes redeemed by their professors, and bottom left represents classes with subpar professors and classes.


This chart shows all MUS 101C time commitments and average GPAs. The dotted lines represent averages for each axis.

A point in the top right quadrant is an easy but time-consuming class. Bottom right is hard and time-consuming, bottom left is hard but light on workload, and top left is easy in all respects.

(C) 2019 David Cao, Tung Doan