ENGCOMP 3
English Composition, Rhetoric, and Language
Grades
3.63
Average grade awarded in ENGCOMP 3. Not a rating: this is what the grades were.
In the A range
73%
of the 7,329 letter grades
D, F or W
1.4%
of every letter grade awarded, plus withdrawals
Taken pass/no pass
-
the registrar has this letter grade only this term
The registrar's own records: 7,329 grades over 17 terms, Fall 2021 to Fall 2025, summer excluded. Every instructor is pooled here. The table below splits them, and term averages across those 17 terms ran 3.43 to 3.92.
- A+ 482 · 6.6%
- A 3,229 · 44.1%
- A- 1,619 · 22.1%
- B+ 944 · 12.9%
- B 518 · 7.1%
- B- 198 · 2.7%
- C+ 101 · 1.4%
- C 98 · 1.3%
- C- 40 · 0.5%
- D+ 18 · 0.2%
- D 19 · 0.3%
- D- 7 · 0.1%
- F 56 · 0.8%
- P 35 of 7,401
- NP 3 of 7,401
- I 31 of 7,401
- DR 3 of 7,401
Percentages are of the 7,329 letter grades. Grey bars are non-letter outcomes: passes (P), no-passes (NP), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOE, MICHELE LOUISE reviews ↗ | 3.77 | 3.77 | 653 | 16 | 84% | - | not teaching it |
| PRESCOTT-JOHNSON, TARA L reviews ↗ | 3.67 | 3.67 | 559 | 10 | 75% | - | not teaching it |
| KIPEN, DAVID MORRIS reviews ↗ | 3.50 | 3.50 | 531 | 11 | 56% | - | not teaching it |
| WARTANIAN, RAFFI J reviews ↗ | 3.56 | 3.56 | 514 | 12 | 63% | - | not teaching it |
| DEUEL, NATHAN A reviews ↗ | 3.83 | 3.83 | 407 | 10 | 87% | - | not teaching it |
| MARTINEZ, ANDREW M reviews ↗ | 3.83 | 3.84 | 389 | 9 | 88% | - | not teaching it |
| CHICHESTER, TEDDI LYNN reviews ↗ | 3.80 | 3.81 | 330 | 5 | 87% | - | not teaching it |
| SUSSMAN, DANIEL BENJAMIN reviews ↗ | 3.73 | 3.74 | 325 | 10 | 80% | - | not teaching it |
| MEHDIZADEH, NEDDA reviews ↗ | 3.65 | 3.65 | 317 | 7 | 75% | - | not teaching it |
| POPHAM, SHELBY A reviews ↗ | 2.73 | 2.68 | 310 | 7 | 19% | - | not teaching it |
| PAGE, GABRIEL B reviews ↗ | 3.78 | 3.79 | 243 | 5 | 87% | - | not teaching it |
| FALLOWS, RANDALL JONATHAN reviews ↗ | 3.68 | 3.68 | 232 | 5 | 73% | - | not teaching it |
| JULIANO, LOGAN reviews ↗ | 3.69 | 3.70 | 227 | 4 | 80% | - | not teaching it |
| CAVANAGH, ROBERT LOFTUS reviews ↗ | 3.57 | 3.57 | 213 | 4 | 69% | - | not teaching it |
| STONE, BRUCE D reviews ↗ | 2.90 | 2.84 | 200 | 9 | 28% | - | not teaching it |
| JAURRETCHE, COLLEEN M reviews ↗ | 3.60 | 3.60 | 185 | 6 | 68% | - | not teaching it |
| HITCHNER, THOMAS A reviews ↗ | 3.71 | 3.72 | 170 | 5 | 82% | - | not teaching it |
| CHRISTENSEN, TAMAR S reviews ↗ | 3.50 | 3.48 | 159 | 3 | 55% | - | not teaching it |
| HARTENBERGER, LAURA A reviews ↗ | 3.85 | 3.87 | 153 | 5 | 93% | - | not teaching it |
| LANG, JACOB WARREN reviews ↗ | 3.62 | 3.62 | 149 | 5 | 71% | - | not teaching it |
| WATSON, DANA CAIRNS reviews ↗ | 3.71 | 3.73 | 116 | 2 | 78% | - | not teaching it |
| GOMEZ, CARLOS RAFAEL reviews ↗ | 3.74 | 3.76 | 67 | 2 | 79% | - | not teaching it |
| SAMUELSON, MARY G reviews ↗ | 3.52 | 3.49 | 67 | 3 | 55% | - | not teaching it |
| LISOVSKY, KARL F reviews ↗ | 3.50 | 3.47 | 63 | 2 | 59% | - | not teaching it |
| JULIANO, LINZI MICHEL reviews ↗ | 3.59 | 3.58 | 57 | 2 | 72% | - | not teaching it |
| MANOJLOVIC, MAJA reviews ↗ | 3.80 | 3.86 | 44 | 2 | 86% | - | not teaching it |
| DE, ESHA NIYOGI reviews ↗ | 3.78 | 3.84 | 43 | 1 | 93% | - | not teaching it |
| KERN, ANDREA NICOLE reviews ↗ | 3.89 | 4.00 | 43 | 2 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| SPOONER, MARY reviews ↗ | 3.74 | 3.79 | 41 | 1 | 93% | - | not teaching it |
| DICKEY, DOMINIQUA reviews ↗ | 3.72 | 3.76 | 41 | 1 | 83% | - | not teaching it |
| RHODD-LEE, HOLLAND M reviews ↗ | 3.79 | 3.86 | 41 | 2 | 93% | - | not teaching it |
| BULLWINKLE, DAVID reviews ↗ | 3.77 | 3.82 | 41 | 1 | 85% | - | not teaching it |
| RUBINSON, GREGORY J reviews ↗ | 3.43 | 3.35 | 41 | 2 | 56% | - | not teaching it |
| SOLIS, SAMANTHA reviews ↗ | 3.87 | 3.97 | 38 | 2 | 97% | - | not teaching it |
| EPPS, JAMES LATIFAH reviews ↗ | 3.88 | 4.00 | 36 | 2 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| CARRASCO, AMANDA reviews ↗ | 3.65 | 3.67 | 22 | 1 | 77% | - | not teaching it |
| VOLLRATH, MATTHEW reviews ↗ | 3.80 | 3.93 | 22 | 1 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| KETAI, RACHEL LEWIS reviews ↗ | 3.62 | 3.61 | 22 | 1 | 77% | - | not teaching it |
| PEITZMAN, FAYE C reviews ↗ | 3.58 | 3.54 | 22 | 1 | 64% | - | not teaching it |
| JOHNSON, DARIEN reviews ↗ | 3.67 | 3.70 | 21 | 1 | 90% | - | not teaching it |
| HOEGBERG, MIRANDA reviews ↗ | 3.66 | 3.69 | 21 | 1 | 71% | - | not teaching it |
| RODRIGUEZ DRISSI, SUSANNAH reviews ↗ | 3.75 | 3.86 | 21 | 1 | 86% | - | not teaching it |
| SHERRER, THOMAS A reviews ↗ | 3.69 | 3.75 | 21 | 1 | 76% | - | not teaching it |
| HOLTEN, CHRISTINE reviews ↗ | 3.46 | 3.31 | 20 | 1 | 50% | - | not teaching it |
| ESCOBEDO, CINDY R reviews ↗ | 3.64 | 3.65 | 20 | 1 | 65% | - | not teaching it |
| PATCHIGONDLA, JADA reviews ↗ | 3.58 | 3.54 | 19 · small sample | 1 | 63% | - | not teaching it |
| FOXX, KIANA reviews ↗ | 3.41 | 3.21 | 19 · small sample | 1 | 53% | - | not teaching it |
| DAVIS, MARGARET ELLEN reviews ↗ | 3.74 | 3.84 | 18 · small sample | 1 | 89% | - | not teaching it |
| MCIVER, MIA LOUISE GROVES reviews ↗ | 3.59 | 3.55 | 16 · small sample | 1 | 69% | - | 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 3, 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.