Class record · PRTO · CSOM

PRTO 1000

Portico · 11 instructors on record · 169 sections

How the curve score is built

81Teaching90 raw · 65th percentile of BC classes

+1Easiness adjustmenteasiness 80 · 50 raw workload · lighter than 61% of BC classes

82Curve 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

90BC evaluations169 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

43rdMore challenging than 43% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

90BC — “Intellectually Challenging”169 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

50BC — “Workload”169 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 course is required for all Carroll School students and must be taken in the fall semester of their first year at BC. Portico fulfills the Carroll School ethics requirement. This is the introductory course for Carroll School of Management's first year students. Topics will include ethics, leadership, globalization, economic development, capitalism, innovation, entrepreneurship, vocational discernment, and the functional areas of business. This will be an interactive three-credit seminar, serving as one of the five courses in the fall semester and fulfilling the ethics requirement for the Carroll School. The instructor will serve as academic advisor during the student's first year.

The board

11 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 11 rows carry a mark saying so.

Rank	Instructor	Curve	Easiness	Challenge	RMP overall
1	Michael SmithAssociate Professor of the Practice · Undergrad Management Honors/Ethics	9497 raw · 30 records	78±0 to the score	57th	9630 ratings · all classes
2	Amy La CombeUndergrad Management Honors/Ethics	9397 raw · 31 records	77±0 to the score	42nd	—no page
3	Jeremy EvansAssociate Professor of the Practice · Business Law and Society	9396 raw · 18 records	84+2 to the score	31st	10010 ratings · all classes
4	Joseph CioniAssociate Professor of the Practice · Business Law and Society	9097 raw · 30 records	74−1 to the score	63rd	9629 ratings · all classes
5	Melissa FitzpatrickUndergrad Management Honors/Ethics fewer records	9497 raw · 6 records	83+2 to the score	50th	1003 ratings · all classes
6	Rachel SpoonerBusiness Law	8795 raw · 5 records	78±0 to the score	63rd	9015 ratings · all classes
7	Christine RojcewiczAssistant Professor of the Practice · Business Law and Society	8090 raw · 24 records	80+1 to the score	33rd	488 ratings · all classes
8	Ethan SullivanSenior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Program and Chairperson · Business Law and Society Provisional fewer records	8595 raw · 2 records	68−2 to the score	55th	—no page
9	Ryan MulderrigUndergrad Management Honors/Ethics	8089 raw · 7 records	84+2 to the score	15th	—no page
10	Ian CorbinUndergrad Management Honors/Ethics	7787 raw · 3 records	84+2 to the score	40th	947 ratings · all classes
11	Stephen MendelsohnAssistant Professor of the Practice · Business Law and Society	7486 raw · 13 records	78±0 to the score	34th	804 ratings · all classes

1 of 11 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 169 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

169 sections · newest first

Instructor	Term	Sec	Instr	Course	Work
Amy La Combe	Fall 2025	01	97	91	60
Amy La Combe	Fall 2025	02	97	95	60
Amy La Combe	Fall 2025	03	98	94	60
Amy La Combe	Fall 2025	04	96	93	60
Amy La Combe	Fall 2025	05	97	97	40
Amy La Combe	Fall 2025	06	93	87	60
Christine Rojcewicz	Fall 2025	07	94	82	40
Christine Rojcewicz	Fall 2025	08	92	91	60
Christine Rojcewicz	Fall 2025	09	86	91	40
Christine Rojcewicz	Fall 2025	10	86	88	60
Christine Rojcewicz	Fall 2025	11	86	94	—
Christine Rojcewicz	Fall 2025	12	84	82	60
Rachel Spooner	Fall 2025	13	93	86	40
Joseph Cioni	Fall 2025	14	96	90	40
Joseph Cioni	Fall 2025	15	95	92	40
Joseph Cioni	Fall 2025	16	95	91	60
Joseph Cioni	Fall 2025	17	100	96	60
Joseph Cioni	Fall 2025	18	100	95	60
Joseph Cioni	Fall 2025	19	97	93	40
Michael Smith	Fall 2025	20	95	92	40
Michael Smith	Fall 2025	21	100	90	60
Michael Smith	Fall 2025	22	99	91	60
Michael Smith	Fall 2025	23	96	84	40
Michael Smith	Fall 2025	24	99	94	60
Michael Smith	Fall 2025	25	99	98	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.