ENGCOMP 3
English Composition, Rhetoric, and Language
Grades
3.63
Average grade awarded in ENGCOMP 3. Not a student 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. Every instructor is pooled here.
What is inside that record
4 of those terms are summer sessions, and summer sessions are counted here.
The table below splits them, and term averages across those 17 terms ran 3.43 to 3.92.
Historical grades for all professors, across recorded terms. The course summary above includes all professors.
- 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).
How the non-letter outcomes are counted
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 | Spring 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOE, MICHELE LOUISE reviews ↗ | 3.77 | 3.77 | 653 | 16 | 84% | average | not teaching it |
| PRESCOTT-JOHNSON, TARA L reviews ↗ | 3.67 | 3.67 | 559 | 10 | 75% | light | not teaching it |
| KIPEN, DAVID MORRIS reviews ↗ | 3.50 | 3.50 | 531 | 11 | 56% | light | not teaching it |
| WARTANIAN, RAFFI J reviews ↗ | 3.56 | 3.56 | 514 | 12 | 63% | very light | not teaching it |
| DEUEL, NATHAN A reviews ↗ | 3.83 | 3.83 | 407 | 10 | 87% | average | not teaching it |
| MARTINEZ, ANDREW M reviews ↗ | 3.83 | 3.84 | 389 | 9 | 88% | very light | not teaching it |
| CHICHESTER, TEDDI LYNN reviews ↗ | 3.80 | 3.81 | 330 | 5 | 87% | average | not teaching it |
| SUSSMAN, DANIEL BENJAMIN reviews ↗ | 3.73 | 3.74 | 325 | 10 | 80% | light | not teaching it |
| MEHDIZADEH, NEDDA reviews ↗ | 3.65 | 3.65 | 317 | 7 | 75% | heavy | not teaching it |
| POPHAM, SHELBY A reviews ↗ | 2.73 | 2.68 | 310 | 7 | 19% | heavy | not teaching it |
| PAGE, GABRIEL B reviews ↗ | 3.78 | 3.79 | 243 | 5 | 87% | very light | not teaching it |
| FALLOWS, RANDALL JONATHAN reviews ↗ | 3.68 | 3.68 | 232 | 5 | 73% | average | 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% | light | not teaching it |
| STONE, BRUCE D reviews ↗ | 2.90 | 2.84 | 200 | 9 | 28% | average | not teaching it |
| JAURRETCHE, COLLEEN M reviews ↗ | 3.60 | 3.60 | 185 | 6 | 68% | light | not teaching it |
| HITCHNER, THOMAS A reviews ↗ | 3.71 | 3.72 | 170 | 5 | 82% | light | not teaching it |
| CHRISTENSEN, TAMAR S reviews ↗ | 3.50 | 3.48 | 159 | 3 | 55% | average | not teaching it |
| HARTENBERGER, LAURA A reviews ↗ | 3.85 | 3.87 | 153 | 5 | 93% | very light | not teaching it |
| LANG, JACOB WARREN reviews ↗ | 3.62 | 3.62 | 149 | 5 | 71% | very light | not teaching it |
| WATSON, DANA CAIRNS reviews ↗ | 3.71 | 3.73 | 116 | 2 | 78% | average | 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% | heavy | not teaching it |
| LISOVSKY, KARL F reviews ↗ | 3.50 | 3.47 | 63 | 2 | 59% | average | 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% | average | not teaching it |
| DE, ESHA NIYOGI reviews ↗ | 3.78 | 3.84 | 43 | 1 | 93% | average | 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% | light | not teaching it |
| RHODD-LEE, HOLLAND M reviews ↗ | 3.79 | 3.86 | 41 | 2 | 93% | heavy | 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% | heavy | 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% | light | 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 · | 1 | 63% | - | not teaching it |
| FOXX, KIANA reviews ↗ | 3.41 | 3.21 | 19 · | 1 | 53% | - | not teaching it |
| DAVIS, MARGARET ELLEN reviews ↗ | 3.74 | 3.84 | 18 · | 1 | 89% | light | not teaching it |
| MCIVER, MIA LOUISE GROVES reviews ↗ | 3.59 | 3.55 | 16 · | 1 | 69% | average | not teaching it |
Why Predicted is not the Raw average
“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.
Grade records describe outcomes. For what a course is like to take, read student reviews written on dibs below or follow the separate external review link.
Workload and assignments
Work types reported in BruinWalk reviews of this course, across recorded instructors and terms. They may differ from this term's syllabus.
dibs has not read this course’s reviews, so it cannot say what kind of work it sets. That is dibs not having looked. It is not a course without papers or exams, and the reviews linked below are the answer until dibs catches up.
What comes first
The chain dibs can see is 1 course long before ENGCOMP 3. Read from Fall 2026, because dibs has not read a class page for ENGCOMP 3 in Spring 2026 and a department can change what it requires. This is a floor, not a deadline: dibs has not read a class page for ENGCOMP 2 and ENGCOMP 2I, so the real chain can only be longer than this, never shorter.
Counted in courses rather than quarters: dibs does not know which of them a department lets you take together.
In Springs
Ran in 4 of the last 4 Springs.
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
Lecture, three hours. Enforced requisite: satisfaction of Entry-Level Writing requirement or course 2 or 2I (C or better). Not open for credit to students with credit for course 3D, 3DS, 3E, or 3SL. Rhetorical techniques and skillful argument. Analysis of varieties of academic prose and writing of minimum of 20 pages of revised text. Completion of course with grade of C or better satisfies Writing I requirement. Letter grading.
Sections in Spring 2026
From the people who took it
Student reviews
What taking ENGCOMP 3 was like: the work, the teaching, and what students wish they’d known.
Your experience could be the first.
No student reviews are available to read on dibs for this course yet. Took it? Tell the next person what helped, what was hard, and how you spent your time.
Looking for more perspectives?
External reviews are separate and do not count toward the dibs rating.