Class record · MGMT · CSOM

MGMT 3099

Strategic Management · 8 instructors on record · 72 sections

How the curve score is built

74Teaching84 raw · 38th percentile of BC classes

+1Easiness adjustmenteasiness 80 · 51 raw workload · lighter than 61% of BC classes

75Curve 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

84BC evaluations72 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

53rdMore challenging than 53% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

91BC — “Intellectually Challenging”72 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

51BC — “Workload”72 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 the senior integrative capstone course of the CSOM core. This course provides future leaders and strategists with an understanding of strategic management that will enable them to function effectively in a complex, global economy. Successful strategists need to define goals, analyze the organization and its environment, make choices, and take concerted actions to effect positive change in their organization and society. Using the conceptual tools and analytic frameworks of strategic management, this course provides a perspective that is integrative, yet analytical. This perspective helps students make sense of the global business and societal environments, understand the ambiguities and dilemmas of management, and learn how to take effective action.

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.

Rank	Instructor	Curve	Easiness	Challenge	RMP overall
1	Jeremiah PottsLecturer · Management and Organization	8292 raw · 21 records	73−1 to the score	70th	—no page
2	Agnieszka KiernerAssociate Professor of the Practice · Management and Organization	8191 raw · 7 records	76±0 to the score	65th	—no page
3	Christopher Wilson-ByrneManagement and Organization	7990 raw · 9 records	76±0 to the score	58th	—no page
4	Mohan SubramaniamManagement and Organization Provisional	7887 raw · 1 record	84+2 to the score	37th	—no page
5	Nancy LowdManagement and Organization Provisional fewer records	7585 raw · 1 record	84+2 to the score	24th	663 ratings · all classes
6	Juan MontesManagement and Organization	7687 raw · 20 records	82+1 to the score	43rd	—no page
7	Marta GeletkanyczAssociate Professor · Management and Organization	7586 raw · 11 records	82+1 to the score	40th	465 ratings · all classes
8	Heide AbelliManagement and Organization Provisional	7284 raw · 2 records	78±0 to the score	25th	201 rating · all classes

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 72 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

72 sections · newest first

Instructor	Term	Sec	Instr	Course	Work
Juan Montes	Spring 2026	01	87	83	—
Juan Montes	Spring 2026	02	88	85	40
Agnieszka Kierner	Spring 2026	03	94	91	60
Jeremiah Potts	Spring 2026	04	93	91	60
Jeremiah Potts	Spring 2026	05	96	93	60
Nancy Lowd	Spring 2026	06	85	78	40
Juan Montes	Fall 2025	01	73	69	40
Juan Montes	Fall 2025	02	90	87	40
Agnieszka Kierner	Fall 2025	04	91	93	60
Marta Geletkanycz	Fall 2025	05	89	84	40
Marta Geletkanycz	Fall 2025	06	82	83	40
Jeremiah Potts	Fall 2025	07	90	84	60
Jeremiah Potts	Fall 2025	08	94	88	60
Christopher Wilson-Byrne	Fall 2025	09	87	79	60
Juan Montes	Spring 2025	01	84	81	40
Juan Montes	Spring 2025	02	86	74	40
Agnieszka Kierner	Spring 2025	03	96	92	40
Jeremiah Potts	Spring 2025	04	94	89	40
Jeremiah Potts	Spring 2025	05	96	94	60
Christopher Wilson-Byrne	Spring 2025	06	92	87	40
Juan Montes	Fall 2024	01	94	86	60
Juan Montes	Fall 2024	02	86	77	40
Agnieszka Kierner	Fall 2024	04	97	95	60
Marta Geletkanycz	Fall 2024	05	80	81	40
Marta Geletkanycz	Fall 2024	06	89	84	40

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.