Carney Curve

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

Top of the board1.PRTO 3300982.UNAS 3348903.MUSP 1670944.COMM 1060925.MUSP 1660926.ECON 9902887.BSLW 2299918.PHIL 4932939.COMM 19029010.UGMG 10109311.MUSP 26009912.TMPS 803495
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 · ECON · MCAS

ECON 2228

Econometric Methods · 33 instructors on record · 131 sections

How the curve score is built
62Teaching71 raw · 8th percentile of BC classes
+1Easiness adjustmenteasiness 80 · 50 raw workload · lighter than 61% of BC classes
63Curve scorethe teaching curve +1 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 61% of BC classes.

What the course score is made of
71BC evaluations131 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
32ndMore challenging than 32% of BC classesranked against every one we hold
87BC — “Intellectually Challenging”131 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
39thMore work than 39% of BC classesranked against every one we hold
50BC — “Workload”131 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 focuses on testing the predictions of economic theory. Topics covered include simple and multiple regression, multicollinearity, heteroskedasticity, serial correlation, specification errors, errors in variables, and an introduction to simultaneous equation estimation.

The board

33 instructors · ranked on this class onlyCompare the top 3
Filters the rows below. Positions are always against the whole class, so a rank does not change when the list is narrowed.

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. 11 of the 33 rows carry a mark saying so.

RankInstructorCurveEasinessChallengeRMP overall
1Geoffrey SanzenbacherProfessor of the Practice · Economics8896 raw · 10 records68−2 to the score87th9821 ratings · all classes
2Shane McMikenEconomics8792 raw · 5 records96+5 to the score18th—no page
3William BrysonEconomics7685 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score14th—no page
4Juan Luis Fuentes AcostaEconomics7587 raw · 3 records———no page
5Yusuf OzkaraEconomics7586 raw · 3 records78±0 to the score53rd601 rating · all classes
6Xiaoying LanEconomics Provisional7180 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score9th—no page
7Luigi PollioEconomics Provisional fewer records6477 raw · 1 record68−2 to the score89th6818 ratings · all classes
8Edoardo BellaEconomics7281 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score12th—no page
9Zhijie XiaoEconomics Provisional5664 raw · 1 record68−2 to the score71st—no page
10Alberto CappelloEconomics Provisional5151 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score18th—no page
11Brian BethuneEconomics Provisional fewer records5060 raw · 1 record49−7 to the score29th328 ratings · all classes
12David HughesAssistant Professor · Economics7083 raw · 4 records68−2 to the score79th863 ratings · all classes
13Wei YangEconomics fewer records6775 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score9th—no page
14Anirudh Padinjaray PisharamEconomics6978 raw · 5 records84+2 to the score23rd—no page
15Ira AbrahamEconomics fewer records6575 raw · 3 records——601 rating · all classes
16Yunus Semih CoskunEconomics7084 raw · 7 records68−2 to the score65th—no page
17Christopher BaumEconomics Provisional fewer records4746 raw · 2 records68−2 to the score53rd—no page
18Anshuman BhakriEconomics6473 raw · 3 records81+1 to the score9th—no page
19Arnab PalitEconomics6472 raw · 3 records81+1 to the score9th401 rating · all classes
20Cristian Figueroa BerriosEconomics6375 raw · 3 records68−2 to the score72nd—no page
21Jorge Batanero RodriguezEconomics fewer records6268 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score9th—no page
22Vaibhav OjhaEconomics6877 raw · 6 records84+2 to the score20th—no page
23Mustafa RunyunEconomics fewer records5961 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score11th—no page
24Sravan RamaswamyEconomics fewer records6669 raw · 5 records96+5 to the score5th—no page
25Enrico CristoforoniEconomics6873 raw · 7 records97+5 to the score11th—no page
26Shengbin WeiEconomics5758 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score6th—no page
27David CaoEconomics fewer records5555 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score4th—no page
28C MaxwellEconomics6984 raw · 11 records66−3 to the score80th928 ratings · all classes
29Veysel UlusoyEconomics6276 raw · 4 records65−3 to the score53rd5431 ratings · all classes
30Paul CichelloEconomics fewer records6175 raw · 4 records63−3 to the score86th4846 ratings · all classes
31Donald CoxEconomics6577 raw · 6 records68−2 to the score72nd685 ratings · all classes
32Shakeeb KhanEconomics fewer records5969 raw · 4 records68−2 to the score29th502 ratings · all classes
33Kitak KimEconomics6470 raw · 7 records84+2 to the score12th—no page

All 33 instructors listed.

6 of 33 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 131 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

131 sections · newest first
InstructorTermSecInstrCourseWork
C MaxwellSpring 202601857360
Shakeeb KhanSpring 202602576360
C MaxwellSpring 202603847460
Yunus Semih CoskunSpring 202604838160
Zhijie XiaoSpring 202605645960
Yunus Semih CoskunSpring 202606858160
Vaibhav OjhaSpring 202607756840
Kitak KimSpring 202608676340
Shengbin WeiSpring 202609605840
Vaibhav OjhaSpring 202610837940
Vaibhav OjhaSpring 202611827540
Shengbin WeiSpring 202612636340
Shengbin WeiSpring 202613536040
Kitak KimSpring 202614645040
Geoffrey SanzenbacherFall 202501988560
Yunus Semih CoskunFall 202502827760
David HughesFall 202503888460
Yunus Semih CoskunFall 202504908860
Donald CoxFall 202505786860
Paul CichelloFall 202506857660
Kitak KimFall 202507807440
Vaibhav OjhaFall 202508746340
Vaibhav OjhaFall 202509797540
Wei YangFall 202510707740
Kitak KimFall 202511716740

Showing the first 25.

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.