Carney Curve

Boston College course evaluations · Fall 2021 through Spring 2026, ranked class by class

How this list is ordered

Positions account for how many records stand behind each number, so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. Every score shown is the real average — only the ordering is adjusted.

Class record · CSCI · MCAS

CSCI 2244

Randomness and Computation · 8 instructors on record · 19 sections

How the curve score is built
59Teaching68 raw · 5th percentile of BC classes
−2Easiness adjustmenteasiness 68 · 64 raw workload · lighter than 21% of BC classes
57Curve scorethe teaching curve −2 for the workload · at most ±6 either way

Boston College's ratings are bunched at the top — the median instructor averages about 88 out of 100 on the raw scale, and 44% of them clear 90 — so a raw score cannot separate anybody. Every figure here is ranked against BC classes and that rank is re-expressed out of 100, which is what turns a raw 88 — the middle of the university — into a figure that says where somebody actually stands. On this scale 77 is the median, 84 the top quarter and 91 the top tenth. Workload is then an adjustment on top of that, worth nothing at all for an ordinary one. Lighter work than 21% of BC classes.

What the course score is made of
68BC evaluations19 records · weight ×1.0 · Fall 2021 – Spring 2026
—Student reviewsno reviews — does not contribute
—RateMyProfessorsno ratings — does not contribute

The class itself, averaged across everyone who taught it — who taught it is the board below.

How is this worked out?

That is what a student picking a section is actually choosing between: the board carries each instructor's own score for this class, and the score above is the class averaged across all of them.

What the challenge rank is made of
71stMore challenging than 71% of BC classesranked against every one we hold
94BC — “Intellectually Challenging”19 records · raw score out of 100

Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question. It is not a measure of difficulty, grading or workload.

How is this worked out?

Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question for this class only — students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it measures intellectual challenge and NOT grading, workload or quality. Almost every BC class scores high on it, which is why it is shown as a rank rather than a score.

What the workload rank is made of
79thMore work than 79% of BC classesranked against every one we hold
64BC — “Workload”19 records · raw score out of 100

One of Boston College's five workload bands, not a number of hours. Higher means more work, not worse.

How is this worked out?

Boston College reports workload for this class only as one of five bands, not as a number of hours, and it does not publish what the bands mean — so this site will not translate it into hours. Higher means more work, which is not the same as worse.

This course presents the mathematical and computational tools needed to solve problems that involve randomness. For example, an understanding of random variables allows us to efficiently generate the enormous prime numbers needed for information security, and to quantify the expected performance of a machine learning algorithm beyond a small data sample. An understanding of covariance allows high quality compression of audio and video. Topics include combinatorics and counting, random experiments and probability, random variables and distributions, computational modeling of randomness, Bayes' rule, laws of large numbers, vectors and matrices, covariance and principal axes, and Markov chains.

The board

8 instructors · ranked on this class onlyCompare the top 3

Scores are real averages. The order also accounts for how many records back each one — the count is under every score — so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. 1 of the 8 rows carry a mark saying so.

RankInstructorCurveEasinessChallengeRMP overall
1George MohlerComputer Science Provisional8291 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score55th1002 ratings · all classes
2Usman KhanProfessor · Computer Science Provisional7891 raw · 2 records68−2 to the score64th—no page
3Jessica FinocchiaroAssistant Professor · Computer Science Provisional6679 raw · 1 record68−2 to the score71st—no page
4Hsin Hao SuComputer Science Provisional6172 raw · 2 records68−2 to the score65th—no page
5Sergio AlvarezAssociate Professor · Computer Science Provisional5665 raw · 2 records68−2 to the score69th802 ratings · all classes
6Jose Bento Ayres PereiraComputer Science Provisional fewer records4652 raw · 2 records49−7 to the score91st—no page
7Howard StraubingProfessor · Computer Science6477 raw · 4 records68−2 to the score55th588 ratings · all classes
8Carl McTagueComputer Science5667 raw · 5 records63−3 to the score82nd7216 ratings · all classes

6 of 8 rows are marked provisional: fewer than 3 records stand behind the number. That is thin evidence, not a bad instructor — the record count is in every row. The RateMyProfessors column is an instructor's overall figure across everything they teach, not a figure about this class.

How this board is built and ordered

Positions account for how many records stand behind each number, so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. Every score shown is the real average — only the ordering is adjusted. The comparison here is the class itself: a thin record is read against how this class was rated overall, not against the university.

Every instructor with an evaluation record for this class is on this board — it is not a top ten, and nothing is hidden behind a “show more”. Curve is the instructor's score for THIS class only, ranked against every instructor we hold and printed back out of 100, with the raw BC average underneath it; nothing on this board is an average across the other things they teach. Easiness is an adjustment on top of it, worth up to about ±6 — BC's workload item, ranked and turned over, so a lighter section gains and a heavier one loses, while an ordinary one changes nothing — and each row prints the adjustment, signed. The board is ordered on the same figure it prints, adjusted for how many records back it. Challenge is BC's “intellectually challenging” item shown as a rank against every class we hold; students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it is not a measure of difficulty or grading, and it is never marked better or worse.

That site has no course dimension, so its figure is shown for information and kept out of the ranking.

The line

All 13 items · means across 19 records
Instructor4
Course3
Feedback3
Workload & Challengenot ratings

Bars are ranks, not raw scores. Nothing here is graded good or bad.

What each item asks
Explains Clearly
The instructor was effective at creating an understanding of difficult subject matter.
Available
The instructor was available for help outside of class.
Motivating
The instructor motivated me to do my best work.
Sparks Interest
The course stimulated my interest in the subject matter.
Organized
The course was well organized.
Clear Goals
The learning objectives for the course were clear.
Useful Later
What I learned is applicable beyond this course.
Assignments
Assignments and exams contributed to my learning.
Fast Feedback
I received feedback on my work in a timely manner.
Useful Feedback
The feedback I received on my work was meaningful.
Workload
How much work the course took outside class, on Boston College's five-band scale — the band boundaries are not published, so this is not a number of hours.
Challenge
The course was intellectually challenging.
Attendance
Attending class was necessary to do well in this course.
Why these numbers are curved

Both the number and the bar are the rank against every comparable record we hold, printed back out of 100. BC's questions all have a median around 4.5, so on the raw scale every cell here would read in the high eighties and every bar would be nearly full — thirteen numbers that tell you nothing. Each cell prints its raw BC figure and its percentile underneath, so nothing is hidden by the transform. Every bar is one ink colour — nothing here is graded green or red. The hatched bars are not ratings at all: a higher number on either describes a different course, not a better one.

Game log

19 sections · newest first
InstructorTermSecInstrCourseWork
Usman KhanSpring 202601938560
Carl McTagueSpring 202602736760
Carl McTagueFall 202501717160
Usman KhanFall 202502899060
Jessica FinocchiaroSpring 202501796560
Sergio AlvarezSpring 202502635760
George MohlerFall 202401918840
Hsin Hao SuFall 202403808360
Howard StraubingSpring 202401796960
Howard StraubingSpring 202402877960
Carl McTagueFall 2023017067—
Sergio AlvarezSpring 2023016762—
Howard StraubingSpring 202302686160
Jose Bento Ayres PereiraFall 2022014432100
Jose Bento Ayres PereiraFall 2022026060—
Carl McTagueSpring 202201686880
Carl McTagueSpring 202202514780
Howard StraubingFall 202101747260
Hsin Hao SuFall 202102646260
How to read this board

Instructors are ranked on their record in this class only, never on their average across everything they teach. Scores are out of 100 — Boston College's 1–5 agreement scale, ×20, the way these numbers were printed for years. Workload is BC's own five-band figure, not a number of hours, and is shown as a rank. A dash means the question was not reported, and is never a zero.