Class record · PHYS · MCAS

PHYS 2050

Introductory Physics Laboratory I · 37 instructors on record · 96 sections

How the curve score is built

53Teaching59 raw · 1st percentile of BC classes

±0Easiness adjustmenteasiness 78 · 60 raw workload · lighter than 52% of BC classes

53Curve scorethe teaching curve ±0 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 52% of BC classes.

What the course score is made of

59BC evaluations96 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

29thMore challenging than 29% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

87BC — “Intellectually Challenging”96 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

48thMore work than 48% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

60BC — “Workload”96 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.

A laboratory course that provides an opportunity to perform experiments on topics in mechanics and acoustics. This lab is intended for students in PHYS2100-2101 or PHYS2200-2201.

The board

37 instructors · ranked on this class onlyCompare the top 3

Find an instructor among the 37Filters 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. 4 of the 37 rows carry a mark saying so.

Rank	Instructor	Curve	Easiness	Challenge	RMP overall
1	Katherine CanavanPhysics	8895 raw · 4 records	76±0 to the score	62nd	—no page
2	Siddharth NandanwarTafti Group · Physics	8894 raw · 4 records	84+2 to the score	22nd	—no page
3	Michael SanchezPhysics Provisional fewer records	99100 raw · 1 record	—	—	—no page
4	Jake Scally1st Year · Physics Provisional	8092 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	25th	—no page
5	Daniel O'LearyPhysics Provisional	7889 raw · 2 records	—	—	—no page
6	Paige RicheyPhysics Provisional	7889 raw · 2 records	—	—	—no page
7	Guan Lin LinRan Group · Physics Provisional	7788 raw · 2 records	—	—	—no page
8	Thomas BarrettPhysics Provisional	7587 raw · 2 records	—	—	—no page
9	Sonny RappaportPhysics Provisional	7488 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	34th	—no page
10	Cameron Grant1st Year · Physics Provisional	7387 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	33rd	—no page
11	Cole Wolfram1st Year · Physics Provisional	7387 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	26th	—no page
12	Christian KahnPhysics Provisional fewer records	6882 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	41st	—no page
13	Yifan GuPhysics Provisional	7285 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	30th	—no page
14	Yihao ZhangBurch Group · Physics Provisional fewer records	6677 raw · 1 record	—	—	—no page
15	Yashvardhan JainPhysics Provisional	7082 raw · 2 records	78±0 to the score	14th	—no page
16	Enrique Gonzalez DelgadoPhysics Provisional	6984 raw · 2 records	63−3 to the score	34th	—no page
17	Tianxing TangPhysics Provisional	6981 raw · 2 records	78±0 to the score	29th	—no page
18	Xuguo ZhouMa Group · Physics Provisional	6981 raw · 2 records	—	—	—no page
19	Keyu ZengPhysics Provisional	6882 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	22nd	—no page
20	Junqi ChenZeljkovic Group · Physics Provisional	6578 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	41st	—no page
21	April Li1st Year · Physics Provisional	6476 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	61st	—no page
22	Pablo Cuadros RomeroMa Group · Physics Provisional	6474 raw · 2 records	—	—	—no page
23	Logan WallPhysics Provisional	6375 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	36th	—no page
24	Qucheng GaoChen Group · Physics Provisional	6275 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	5th	—no page
25	Sudhaman BalguriPhysics Provisional	6274 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	17th	—no page
26	Mingyang GuoPhysics Provisional	6171 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	26th	—no page
27	Mohamed Al BegaoweKempa Group · Physics Provisional	6175 raw · 2 records	63−3 to the score	22nd	—no page
28	Boxi SongEngelbrecht Group · Physics Provisional	6070 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	51st	—no page
29	Kyung Mo KimBurch Group · Physics Provisional	6068 raw · 2 records	—	—	—no page
30	Rule YiFlebus Group · Physics Provisional	5665 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	19th	—no page
31	Qirui RenPhysics Provisional	5358 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	22nd	—no page
32	Xinyi ZhaoTafti Group · Physics Provisional	5353 raw · 2 records	—	—	—no page
33	Jianda LiPhysics Provisional	4747 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	24th	—no page
34	Xingzhi WangPhysics Provisional fewer records	4732 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	48th	—no page
35	Christopher CandeloraZeljkovic Group · Physics	6478 raw · 3 records	63−3 to the score	48th	—no page
36	Xiang ChengPhysics	6172 raw · 4 records	68−2 to the score	41st	—no page
37	Andrzej HerczynskiResearch Professor · Physics	5560 raw · 20 records	67−2 to the score	19th	605 ratings · all classes

All 37 instructors listed.

32 of 37 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 96 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

96 sections · newest first

Instructor	Term	Sec	Instr	Course	Work
Jake Scally	Fall 2025	01	89	63	60
Jake Scally	Fall 2025	03	94	73	60
Sudhaman Balguri	Fall 2025	04	74	58	60
April Li	Fall 2025	05	69	57	60
Sudhaman Balguri	Fall 2025	06	73	69	60
April Li	Fall 2025	07	84	75	60
Cameron Grant	Fall 2025	09	89	77	60
Cameron Grant	Fall 2025	11	85	64	60
Cole Wolfram	Fall 2025	12	85	73	60
Katherine Canavan	Fall 2025	13	100	80	40
Siddharth Nandanwar	Fall 2025	14	93	66	40
Katherine Canavan	Fall 2025	15	85	67	60
Siddharth Nandanwar	Fall 2025	16	98	73	40
Yashvardhan Jain	Fall 2025	17	79	74	60
Xiang Cheng	Fall 2025	18	80	65	60
Xiang Cheng	Fall 2025	19	72	63	60
Yashvardhan Jain	Fall 2025	21	85	65	40
Cole Wolfram	Fall 2025	22	88	68	60
Logan Wall	Fall 2024	01	69	77	60
Logan Wall	Fall 2024	03	82	58	60
Sonny Rappaport	Fall 2024	04	97	69	60
Xingzhi Wang	Fall 2024	05	24	45	60
Sonny Rappaport	Fall 2024	06	78	67	60
Xingzhi Wang	Fall 2024	07	40	56	60
Katherine Canavan	Fall 2024	08	94	76	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.