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 · MATH · MCAS

MATH 1004

Finite Probability and Applications · 33 instructors on record · 71 sections

How the curve score is built
63Teaching73 raw · 10th percentile of BC classes
+2Easiness adjustmenteasiness 83 · 46 raw workload · lighter than 70% of BC classes
65Curve 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 70% of BC classes.

What the course score is made of
73BC evaluations71 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
16thMore challenging than 16% of BC classesranked against every one we hold
84BC — “Intellectually Challenging”71 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
30thMore work than 30% of BC classesranked against every one we hold
46BC — “Workload”71 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.

Not open to students who have completed their Mathematics Core Curriculum Requirement without permission of the Department Chairperson (except for Psychology majors completing their second mathematics corequisite). This course, for students in the humanities, social sciences, and Lynch School of Education, is an introduction to finite combinatorics and probability, emphasizing applications. Topics include finite sets and partitions, enumeration, probability, expectation, and random variables.

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

RankInstructorCurveEasinessChallengeRMP overall
1Amy DohertyAdjunct Instructor · Mathematics9095 raw · 8 records83+2 to the score12th—no page
2Liyang ZhangMathematics8593 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score27th947 ratings · all classes
3Ioannis ZachosMathematics8089 raw · 4 records84+2 to the score9th8814 ratings · all classes
4Miguel Prado GodoyMathematics Provisional fewer records8592 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score14th—no page
5Laura SeabergMathematics7988 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score51st—no page
6August SchmidtMathematics Provisional fewer records8190 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score63rd—no page
7Thomas HameisterMathematics Provisional8092 raw · 1 record68−2 to the score29th746 ratings · all classes
8Tsz Hin FungMathematics Provisional8089 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score41st—no page
9Joaquin Ignacio Lema PerezMathematics7891 raw · 3 records68−2 to the score76th—no page
10Erika WardAssociate Professor of the Practice · Mathematics Provisional7585 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score17th9215 ratings · all classes
11Robyn BrooksMathematics Provisional7587 raw · 2 records78±0 to the score37th749 ratings · all classes
12Sophia FanelleMathematics Provisional7383 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score18th—no page
13Tingting FangMathematics Provisional7282 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score23rd—no page
14Zachary GardnerMathematics Provisional fewer records7081 raw · 1 record———no page
15Yaoying FuMathematics Provisional7285 raw · 2 records68−2 to the score41st—no page
16Yifan WuMathematics Provisional fewer records6778 raw · 1 record———no page
17Matthew ZevenbergenMathematics Provisional7183 raw · 2 records78±0 to the score11th—no page
18Fraser Malcolm Watt BinnsMathematics Provisional6572 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score14th—no page
19Jacob CaudellMathematics Provisional fewer records6571 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score25th601 rating · all classes
20Nathan GeistMathematics7385 raw · 4 records76±0 to the score4th—no page
21Zijian HanMathematics Provisional6166 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score0th—no page
22Enhao FengMathematics Provisional5760 raw · 1 record—9th—no page
23Kevin YehMathematics Provisional5766 raw · 1 record68−2 to the score9th—no page
24Yuzheng YanMathematics Provisional5758 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score37th—no page
25Marius HuberMathematics Provisional fewer records5153 raw · 1 record68−2 to the score9th—no page
26Ian HooverMathematics Provisional6775 raw · 2 records84+2 to the score26th—no page
27Tobi MoektijonoMathematics Provisional5864 raw · 2 records—82nd—no page
28Mujie WangMathematics Provisional5358 raw · 2 records68−2 to the score4th2621 ratings · all classes
29Jee Uhn KimMathematics Provisional fewer records5154 raw · 2 records68−2 to the score17th—no page
30Siddharth MahendrakerMathematics5758 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score34th—no page
31Ryan ContrerasMathematics fewer records5552 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score1st627 ratings · all classes
32Cemre YavuzMathematics fewer records5868 raw · 4 records68−2 to the score51st6413 ratings · all classes
33Mckee KrumpakMathematics5962 raw · 6 records84+2 to the score11th3010 ratings · all classes

All 33 instructors listed.

23 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 71 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

71 sections · newest first
InstructorTermSecInstrCourseWork
Yuzheng YanSpring 202601586040
Amy DohertySpring 202602979440
Amy DohertySpring 202603959560
Siddharth MahendrakerSpring 202604535140
Siddharth MahendrakerSpring 202605636040
Sophia FanelleSpring 202606837740
Amy DohertyFall 202501979340
Amy DohertyFall 202502989640
Mujie WangFall 202503565460
Nathan GeistFall 202504717340
Zijian HanFall 202505666340
August SchmidtFall 202506908840
Nathan GeistSummer 2025019790—
Joaquin Ignacio Lema PerezSummer 202504909080
Amy DohertySpring 202502918340
Thomas HameisterSpring 202503928360
Tingting FangSpring 202504828440
Siddharth MahendrakerSpring 202505585040
Matthew ZevenbergenSpring 202506817340
Amy DohertyFall 202401888440
Amy DohertyFall 202402979340
Yaoying FuFall 202403878560
Joaquin Ignacio Lema PerezFall 202404888540
Nathan GeistFall 202406807760
Nathan GeistSummer 202403927760

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.