Class record · PHIL · MCAS

PHIL 1090

Perspectives on Western Culture I/Perspectives I · 30 instructors on record · 67 sections

How the curve score is built

73Teaching84 raw · 36th percentile of BC classes

−2Easiness adjustmenteasiness 67 · 65 raw workload · lighter than 19% of BC classes

71Curve 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 19% of BC classes.

What the course score is made of

84BC evaluations67 records · weight ×1.0 · Fall 2021 – 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

70thMore challenging than 70% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

94BC — “Intellectually Challenging”67 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

81stMore work than 81% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

65BC — “Workload”67 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.

Freshmen only This course addresses the enduring and foundational questions of life through critical engagement with some of the intellectual, moral, and spiritual sources of the present age. The first semester will focus on the religions, philosophies and theologies of the pre-modern world, and especially the philosophical and theological traditions of early Western culture. Students will be asked to read and reflect on the works of Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, Augustine, Aquinas, and more.

The board

30 instructors · ranked on this class onlyCompare the top 3

Find an instructor among the 30Filters 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 30 rows carry a mark saying so.

Rank	Instructor	Curve	Easiness	Challenge	RMP overall
1	Timothy MuldoonAssociate Professor of the Practice · Philosophy	9398 raw · 5 records	68−2 to the score	61st	9814 ratings · all classes
2	Ronald TacelliPhilosophy	9398 raw · 3 records	68−2 to the score	56th	9610 ratings · all classes
3	Kerry CroninPhilosophy	8797 raw · 4 records	57−5 to the score	93rd	10011 ratings · all classes
4	Louis PetilloTheology Provisional fewer records	9497 raw · 2 records	84+2 to the score	69th	9830 ratings · all classes
5	Jeffrey BloechlAlbert J. Fitzgibbons Professor of Philosophy; Chair of the Department · Philosophy Provisional	9096 raw · 2 records	78±0 to the score	69th	803 ratings · all classes
6	Michael FrostPhilosophy	8595 raw · 3 records	65−3 to the score	90th	988 ratings · all classes
7	David StoreyAssociate Professor of the Practice · Philosophy	8494 raw · 3 records	68−2 to the score	72nd	906 ratings · all classes
8	Andrew PrevotTheology Provisional fewer records	9198 raw · 1 record	58−5 to the score	92nd	1005 ratings · all classes
9	Andrew BarretteAssociate Professor of the Practice · Philosophy	8192 raw · 4 records	68−2 to the score	74th	9819 ratings · all classes
10	Robert ElliotPhilosophy Provisional fewer records	8896 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	92nd	—no page
11	Sean HaefnerPhilosophy Provisional	8193 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	72nd	—no page
12	Sarah Livick-MosesTheology Provisional	8092 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	71st	—no page
13	Giovanni Pietro BasilePhilosophy Provisional	7891 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	36th	1001 rating · all classes
14	Brian BramanPart-Time Faculty · Philosophy	7792 raw · 3 records	58−5 to the score	89th	8416 ratings · all classes
15	Chanelle RobinsonTheology Provisional	7792 raw · 1 record	58−5 to the score	92nd	543 ratings · all classes
16	Pheme PerkinsJoseph Professor of Catholic Spirituality Emerita · Theology Provisional	7387 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	71st	5813 ratings · all classes
17	Gregory FloydAssistant Professor · Philosophy Provisional fewer records	7187 raw · 1 record	58−5 to the score	91st	—no page
18	Stephen HudsonPhilosophy	7484 raw · 3 records	84+2 to the score	20th	9816 ratings · all classes
19	Julia LegasPart-Time Faculty · Philosophy Provisional	6578 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	80th	727 ratings · all classes
20	Eileen SweeneyPhilosophy Provisional fewer records	6480 raw · 1 record	58−5 to the score	76th	201 rating · all classes
21	Kelsey Boor MulcaheyPhilosophy Provisional	7085 raw · 2 records	63−3 to the score	64th	—no page
22	Sarah ByersAssociate Professor · Philosophy Provisional fewer records	5867 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	69th	6615 ratings · all classes
23	Deborah Dechiara-QuenzerPhilosophy	7286 raw · 4 records	68−2 to the score	52nd	—no page
24	Katherine KimballTheology Provisional fewer records	5557 raw · 1 record	—	88th	—no page
25	Christopher BergerPhilosophy Provisional	6885 raw · 2 records	58−5 to the score	93rd	5020 ratings · all classes
26	Jason DonnellyTheology Provisional	6479 raw · 2 records	63−3 to the score	75th	8219 ratings · all classes
27	Karen HowardPhilosophy Provisional fewer records	6175 raw · 2 records	63−3 to the score	44th	5411 ratings · all classes
28	Christopher ConstasPhilosophy	6378 raw · 3 records	62−4 to the score	87th	806 ratings · all classes
29	Paul McNellisPhilosophy fewer records	5869 raw · 3 records	65−3 to the score	31st	—no page
30	Antonia AtanassovaAdjunct Faculty · Theology	5970 raw · 4 records	63−3 to the score	75th	—no page

All 30 instructors listed.

18 of 30 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 67 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

67 sections · newest first

Instructor	Term	Sec	Instr	Course	Work
Kerry Cronin	Fall 2025	01	98	96	80
Paul McNellis	Fall 2025	03	69	73	80
Kelsey Boor Mulcahey	Fall 2025	09	85	83	80
Andrew Barrette	Fall 2025	23	95	91	—
Timothy Muldoon	Fall 2025	27	96	92	60
Michael Frost	Fall 2025	31	92	88	60
Andrew Barrette	Fall 2025	33	90	89	60
Timothy Muldoon	Fall 2025	39	97	86	60
David Storey	Fall 2025	43	98	93	60
Kelsey Boor Mulcahey	Fall 2025	49	84	81	60
Gregory Floyd	Fall 2025	51	87	81	80
Ronald Tacelli	Fall 2025	53	99	97	60
David Storey	Fall 2025	59	96	93	60
Sean Haefner	Fall 2025	61	93	91	60
Eileen Sweeney	Fall 2025	63	80	77	80
Jeffrey Bloechl	Fall 2022	01	97	94	60
Paul McNellis	Fall 2022	03	73	71	80
Christopher Berger	Fall 2022	05	77	74	—
Stephen Hudson	Fall 2022	13	79	72	40
Kerry Cronin	Fall 2022	17	98	96	80
Brian Braman	Fall 2022	19	93	89	60
Michael Frost	Fall 2022	25	95	89	60
Antonia Atanassova	Fall 2022	29	76	73	—
Antonia Atanassova	Fall 2022	31	57	57	60
Christopher Constas	Fall 2022	35	80	77	80

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.