Blecharz, Wojciech A

teaching MUS 120B

Class approval

70.9%

average

108.6%

projected (next term)

i.e. 10 respondents (14 total) approved of this course.


10.5%

Percentile among all classes

13.4%

Percentile among MUS classes

Instructor approval

94.5%

average

144.9%

projected (next term)

i.e. 13 respondents (14 total) approved of this instructor's teaching of the course.


63.7%

Percentile among all classes

64.0%

Percentile among MUS classes

Instructor-class rating differential

23.6%

average

36.3%

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.


98.5%

Percentile among all classes

100.0%

Percentile among MUS classes

Grade (GPA)

2.92

average

5.60

projected (next term)


23.2%

Percentile among all classes

3.8%

Percentile among MUS classes

Estimated time commitment

≈5:23

average

≈-2:-42

projected (next term)

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


50.7%

Percentile among all classes

87.9%

Percentile among MUS classes



This chart shows all MUS 120B 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 120B 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