Class record · ENGR · MCAS

ENGR 1801

Making the Modern World: Design, Ethics & Engineering · 8 instructors on record · 30 sections

How the curve score is built

71Teaching81 raw · 29th percentile of BC classes

−2Easiness adjustmenteasiness 69 · 61 raw workload · lighter than 22% of BC classes

69Curve 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 22% of BC classes.

What the course score is made of

81BC evaluations30 records · weight ×1.0 · Fall 2022 – Fall 2025

—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

50thMore challenging than 50% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

90BC — “Intellectually Challenging”30 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

78thMore work than 78% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

61BC — “Workload”30 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 is a Complex Problem course and is open to FRESHMEN only. You must take ENGR1801 with this course. Together we will consider how engineers and other stakeholders navigate risks related to industrial and environmental disasters, balance financial, technological, and regulatory pressures associated with complex socio-technical problems, and negotiate technical and political liabilities surrounding artificial intelligence, surveillance, and climate adaptation. Engineering systems present pressing technical, ethical, and moral problems that we must grapple with as engaged global citizens. In this course, students will explore the social, cultural, and institutional history of engineering, learn foundational skills in quantitative analysis of real-world engineering designs, and understand the political, environmental, economic, and ethical tradeoffs associated with building the modern world. Students will collaborate on group design projects based on human-centered engineering.

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. 2 of the 8 rows carry a mark saying so.

Rank	Instructor	Curve	Easiness	Challenge	RMP overall
1	Luke PerreaultEngineering Human Centered	8695 raw · 4 records	68−2 to the score	75th	1002 ratings · all classes
2	Glenn GaudetteJohn W. Kozarich ’71 Chair of the Department of Engineering (on leave starting June 2026) · Engineering	8394 raw · 8 records	68−2 to the score	42nd	—no page
3	Jenna TonnAssociate Professor of the Practice, Director of Undergraduate Studies · Engineering Provisional	8191 raw · 2 records	—	—	966 ratings · all classes
4	Jonathan KronesComplex Problems and Enduring Questions Provisional fewer records	6677 raw · 2 records	—	—	646 ratings · all classes
5	Hector RodriguezEngineering Human Centered	6883 raw · 4 records	65−3 to the score	41st	—no page
6	Kristen ConroyAssistant Professor of the Practice · Engineering Provisional fewer records	5867 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	64th	—no page
7	Russell PowellComplex Problems and Enduring Questions	6477 raw · 4 records	68−2 to the score	58th	802 ratings · all classes
8	Siddhant JoshiEngineering Human Centered	5868 raw · 4 records	68−2 to the score	30th	—no page

3 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 30 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

30 sections · newest first

Instructor	Term	Sec	Instr	Course	Work
Kristen Conroy	Fall 2025	01	67	74	60
Siddhant Joshi	Fall 2025	02	67	80	—
Siddhant Joshi	Fall 2025	03	78	74	60
Siddhant Joshi	Fall 2025	04	65	68	60
Siddhant Joshi	Fall 2025	05	61	60	60
Kristen Conroy	Fall 2024	01	68	75	60
Hector Rodriguez	Fall 2024	02	90	74	80
Luke Perreault	Fall 2024	03	93	78	60
Hector Rodriguez	Fall 2024	04	67	65	60
Luke Perreault	Fall 2024	05	95	87	—
Hector Rodriguez	Fall 2024	06	89	69	—
Luke Perreault	Fall 2024	07	95	95	60
Hector Rodriguez	Fall 2024	08	84	76	60
Luke Perreault	Fall 2024	09	98	78	60
Jenna Tonn	Fall 2023	01	91	78	—
Jonathan Krones	Fall 2023	01	77	78	—
Jenna Tonn	Fall 2023	10	91	79	—
Jonathan Krones	Fall 2023	10	76	79	—
Glenn Gaudette	Fall 2022	01	95	89	60
Russell Powell	Fall 2022	02	81	94	60
Russell Powell	Fall 2022	03	77	89	60
Russell Powell	Fall 2022	04	67	83	60
Russell Powell	Fall 2022	05	82	93	60
Glenn Gaudette	Fall 2022	06	100	92	60
Glenn Gaudette	Fall 2022	07	96	87	60

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.