MATH 131A
Analysis
Grades
2.96
Average grade awarded in MATH 131A. Not a rating: this is what the grades were.
In the A range
38%
of the 2,121 letter grades
D, F or W
8.0%
of every letter grade awarded, plus withdrawals
Taken pass/no pass
1%
7 of 11 students passed
The registrar's own records: 2,121 grades over 15 terms, Fall 2021 to Fall 2025, summer excluded. Every instructor is pooled here. The table below splits them, and term averages across those 15 terms ran 1.01 to 3.23.
- A+ 130 · 6.1%
- A 445 · 21.0%
- A- 230 · 10.8%
- B+ 244 · 11.5%
- B 268 · 12.6%
- B- 220 · 10.4%
- C+ 143 · 6.7%
- C 155 · 7.3%
- C- 117 · 5.5%
- D+ 22 · 1.0%
- D 41 · 1.9%
- D- 16 · 0.8%
- F 90 · 4.2%
- P 7 of 2,137
- NP 4 of 2,137
- S 2 of 2,137
- I 2 of 2,137
- DR 1 of 2,137
Percentages are of the 2,121 letter grades. Grey bars are non-letter outcomes: passes (P), no-passes (NP), satisfactory (S), incompletes (I), and withdrawals (DR). They are excluded from the GPA entirely rather than scored, because counting a P as a 4.0 would be a fabrication. Withdrawals are the exception to "excluded": DR is not scored, but it IS counted in the D, F or W figure above, which is reported over the letter grades plus the withdrawals. Pass/no pass and S/U outcomes are outside that figure on both sides.
By instructor
| Instructor | Predicted GPA | Raw | n | Terms | A range | Workload | Summer Session A 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XU, PETER reviews ↗ | 2.80 | 2.79 | 217 | 6 | 29% | - | not teaching it |
| YANEZ ETCHEBERRY, JOSE reviews ↗ | 2.79 | 2.77 | 150 | 3 | 32% | - | not teaching it |
| DING, CHANGYING reviews ↗ | 3.02 | 3.03 | 150 | 4 | 39% | - | not teaching it |
| ZHAO, ZIWEN reviews ↗ | 3.14 | 3.16 | 137 | 3 | 42% | - | not teaching it |
| LI, LINFENG reviews ↗ | 3.30 | 3.35 | 120 | 2 | 48% | - | not teaching it |
| CONLEY, WILLIAM JOSEPH reviews ↗ | 2.84 | 2.82 | 117 | 3 | 32% | - | not teaching it |
| WU, JEREMY SHEUNG HIM reviews ↗ | 2.71 | 2.67 | 114 | 3 | 28% | - | not teaching it |
| ARANT, TYLER JAMES reviews ↗ | 3.27 | 3.32 | 108 | 3 | 51% | average | not teaching it |
| CHAPOUTO, ANDREIA reviews ↗ | 2.84 | 2.82 | 103 | 2 | 37% | - | not teaching it |
| BADREDDINE, RANA reviews ↗ | 3.15 | 3.18 | 96 | 3 | 48% | very light | not teaching it |
| MENZ, GEORG reviews ↗ | 3.16 | 3.20 | 86 | 1 | 38% | - | not teaching it |
| BLASIUS, DON M reviews ↗ | 3.11 | 3.14 | 82 | 2 | 38% | - | not teaching it |
| FORLANO, JUSTIN AMEDEO reviews ↗ | 2.76 | 2.71 | 67 | 1 | 31% | - | not teaching it |
| SCAVIA, FEDERICO reviews ↗ | 2.93 | 2.91 | 54 | 1 | 44% | - | not teaching it |
| JUNG, CONNIE reviews ↗ | 2.64 | 2.53 | 51 | 1 | 25% | - | not teaching it |
| SUZUKI, FUMIAKI reviews ↗ | 3.36 | 3.50 | 46 | 1 | 65% | - | not teaching it |
| TAN, HUI reviews ↗ | 2.85 | 2.81 | 40 | 1 | 43% | - | not teaching it |
| VARVAREZOS, KONSTANTINOS KONTOGEORGAKIS reviews ↗ | 3.23 | 3.35 | 39 | 1 | 54% | - | not teaching it |
| MARSDEN, KATIE reviews ↗ | 2.81 | 2.75 | 37 | 1 | 32% | - | not teaching it |
| VISAN, MONICA reviews ↗ | 3.07 | 3.12 | 37 | 1 | 43% | - | not teaching it |
| MUNOZ, SEBASTIAN reviews ↗ | 2.63 | 2.47 | 36 | 1 | 36% | - | not teaching it |
| HAQUE, SAIKATUL reviews ↗ | 2.86 | 2.82 | 35 | 1 | 29% | - | not teaching it |
| SONTHALIA, RISHI SAURABH reviews ↗ | 3.13 | 3.23 | 31 | 1 | 45% | - | not teaching it |
| MUTLU AKATURK, HATICE reviews ↗ | 3.05 | 3.11 | 28 | 1 | 54% | - | not teaching it |
| ALTAF, IQRA reviews ↗ | 2.88 | 2.83 | 27 | 1 | 41% | - | not teaching it |
| PALMER, AARON Z reviews ↗ | 3.10 | 3.19 | 27 | 1 | 33% | - | not teaching it |
| NEEMAN, ITAY reviews ↗ | 2.78 | 2.67 | 27 | 1 | 30% | - | not teaching it |
| NURBEKYAN, LEVON reviews ↗ | 3.11 | 3.23 | 22 | 1 | 36% | - | not teaching it |
| ROUQUIER, RAPHAEL ALEXIS reviews ↗ | 2.80 | 2.67 | 20 | 1 | 25% | - | not teaching it |
| HU, NICHOLAS reviews ↗ | 1.98 | 1.01 | 17 · small sample | 1 | 6% | - | not teaching it |
“Predicted” is shrunk toward the course average, which is itself shrunk toward the department, so an instructor with a handful of students sits near the course mean rather than topping the list.
dibs measures outcomes: grades, seats, how fast a class fills. For what a class is like to sit in, BruinWalk has the reviews.
What comes first
dibs has not read a class page for MATH 131A, so it cannot say what comes before it.
Counted in courses rather than quarters: dibs does not know which of them a department lets you take together.
From the registrar's catalog
dibs has not read the registrar's description for this course. It reads them for general education courses only, so this says nothing about the course. Any section below links out to the registrar, where the catalog text is, and that text is also where a prerequisite the structured list does not carry would be written.