INF STD 289
Seminar: Special Issues in Information Studies
Grades
3.88
Average grade awarded in INF STD 289. Not a student rating: this is what the grades were.
In the A range
95%
of the 556 letter grades
D, F or W
0.9%
of every letter grade awarded, plus withdrawals
Taken pass/no pass
<1%
1 of 1 student passed
The registrar's own records: 556 grades over 12 terms, Fall 2021 to Fall 2025. Every instructor is pooled here.
What is inside that record
No summer session is in that record.
The table below splits them, and term averages across those 12 terms ran 3.76 to 4.00.
Historical grades for all professors, across recorded terms. The course summary above includes all professors.
- A+ 138 · 24.8%
- A 297 · 53.4%
- A- 94 · 16.9%
- B+ 15 · 2.7%
- B 5 · 0.9%
- C+ 1 · 0.2%
- C 1 · 0.2%
- F 5 · 0.9%
- P 1 of 596
- S 24 of 596
- I 15 of 596
Percentages are of the 556 letter grades. Grey bars are non-letter outcomes: passes (P), satisfactory (S), and incompletes (I).
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.
By instructor
| Instructor | Predicted GPA | Raw | n | Terms | A range | Workload | Summer Session A 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VO DANG, THANH THUY reviews ↗ | 3.89 | 3.89 | 127 | 5 | 93% | - | not teaching it |
| VANCOUR, SHAWN G reviews ↗ | 3.77 | 3.75 | 109 | 6 | 91% | - | not teaching it |
| CARBONE, KATHY MICHELLE reviews ↗ | 3.94 | 3.96 | 64 | 3 | 98% | - | not teaching it |
| MENDES, LUIZ H reviews ↗ | 3.90 | 3.90 | 45 | 2 | 98% | - | not teaching it |
| VILLA NICHOLAS, MELISSA reviews ↗ | 3.90 | 3.91 | 35 | 2 | 94% | - | not teaching it |
| EVERETT, DINO reviews ↗ | 3.93 | 3.96 | 31 | 2 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| NGUYEN, CINDY ANH reviews ↗ | 3.84 | 3.81 | 27 | 1 | 93% | - | not teaching it |
| REESE, MEREDITH ANNE reviews ↗ | 3.95 | 4.00 | 25 | 1 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| SUTHERLAND, TONIA reviews ↗ | 3.85 | 3.83 | 24 | 1 | 96% | - | not teaching it |
| MONTOYA, ROBERT D reviews ↗ | 3.94 | 3.99 | 24 | 1 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| DRUCKER, JOHANNA R reviews ↗ | 3.80 | 3.73 | 18 · | 1 | 94% | - | not teaching it |
| FURNER, JONATHAN reviews ↗ | 3.94 | 4.00 | 15 · | 1 | 100% | - | not teaching it |
| FRANKE, TODD M reviews ↗ | 3.93 | 4.00 | 12 · | 1 | 100% | - | 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.
From the registrar's catalog
Seminar, three and one half hours. Identification, analysis, and discussion of critical intellectual, social, and technological issues facing the profession. Topics may include (but not limited to) expert systems, literacy, electronic networks, youth at risk, information literacy, historical bibliography, preservation of electronic media, etc. May be repeated with topic change. Letter grading.
Sections in Summer Session A 2026
From the people who took it
Student reviews
What taking INF STD 289 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.