ENGCOMP 100W
Interdisciplinary Academic Writing
Needs a grade of C or better: C- does not count, and neither does a Passed grade.
Grades
3.88
Average grade awarded in ENGCOMP 100W. Not a rating: this is what the grades were.
In the A range
93%
of the 795 letter grades
D, F or W
0.6%
of every letter grade awarded, plus withdrawals
Taken pass/no pass
3%
86% of those passed
The registrar's own records: 795 grades over 12 terms, Fall 2021 to Fall 2025, summer excluded. Every instructor is pooled here. The table below splits them, and term averages across those 12 terms ran 3.63 to 3.99.
- A+ 119 · 15.0%
- A 529 · 66.5%
- A- 89 · 11.2%
- B+ 30 · 3.8%
- B 10 · 1.3%
- B- 9 · 1.1%
- C+ 2 · 0.3%
- C 2 · 0.3%
- F 5 · 0.6%
- P 18 of 820
- NP 3 of 820
- I 4 of 820
Percentages are of the 795 letter grades. Grey bars are non-letter outcomes: passes (P), no-passes (NP), and incompletes (I). They are excluded from the GPA entirely rather than scored, because counting a P as a 4.0 would be a fabrication.
By instructor
| Instructor | Predicted GPA | Raw | n | Terms | A range | Workload | Fall 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FALLOWS, RANDALL JONATHAN reviews ↗ | 3.86 | 3.85 | 200 | 6 | 89% | - | not teaching it |
| MCIVER, MIA LOUISE GROVES reviews ↗ | 3.92 | 3.92 | 113 | 4 | 95% | - | not teaching it |
| RODRIGUEZ DRISSI, SUSANNAH reviews ↗ | 3.95 | 3.97 | 97 | 4 | 98% | - | not teaching it |
| WANG, BRENDA B reviews ↗ | 3.91 | 3.91 | 63 | 3 | 95% | - | not teaching it |
| MARTINEZ, ANDREW M reviews ↗ | 3.92 | 3.93 | 59 | 3 | 97% | - | not teaching it |
| CHRISTENSEN, TAMAR S reviews ↗ | 3.66 | 3.58 | 50 | 3 | 80% | - | not teaching it |
| SPOONER, MARY reviews ↗ | 3.84 | 3.83 | 40 | 1 | 93% | - | not teaching it |
| JAURRETCHE, COLLEEN M reviews ↗ | 3.81 | 3.77 | 34 | 2 | 91% | - | not teaching it |
| CARRASCO, AMANDA reviews ↗ | 3.94 | 3.99 | 21 | 1 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| MENDOZA, ROBERT EDWARD reviews ↗ | 3.94 | 4.00 | 21 | 1 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| WANKIER, ANDREW reviews ↗ | 3.94 | 4.00 | 20 | 1 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| ESCOBEDO, CINDY R reviews ↗ | 3.86 | 3.85 | 20 | 1 | 95% | - | not teaching it |
| GOMEZ, CARLOS RAFAEL reviews ↗ | 3.92 | 3.96 | 20 | 1 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| WEINMAN, AVERY J reviews ↗ | 3.92 | 3.96 | 19 · small sample | 1 | 95% | - | not teaching it |
| HITCHNER, THOMAS A reviews ↗ | 3.78 | 3.69 | 18 · small sample | 1 | 72% | - | 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 ENGCOMP 100W, 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.
In Falls
Has not run in Fall in the 4 Falls dibs holds records for, back to Winter 2022. That is 4 years of grade records rather than the course catalog, so it says what has happened and not what the department will do next.
From the terms dibs holds, which start in Fall 2021 and exclude summer. A department can run a course in a quarter it never has before.
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.