Carney Curve

Boston College course evaluations · Fall 2021 through Spring 2026, ranked class by class

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 · SCWK · SSW

SCWK 7747

Research Methods in Social Work Practice · 17 instructors on record · 58 sections

How the curve score is built
60Teaching69 raw · 6th percentile of BC classes
+2Easiness adjustmenteasiness 84 · 41 raw workload · lighter than 75% of BC classes
62Curve 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 75% of BC classes.

What the course score is made of
69BC evaluations58 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
20thMore challenging than 20% of BC classesranked against every one we hold
85BC — “Intellectually Challenging”58 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
25thMore work than 25% of BC classesranked against every one we hold
41BC — “Workload”58 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.

Prerequisite for all advanced research courses. Required of all M.S.W. students. An introduction to research methods and statistical analysis of social work data. The course covers basic methods of social research including principles of research investigation, research design and problem formulation, survey methods, sampling, measurements, and the use of a statistical software package for descriptive and basic inferential statistics for data analysis and hypothesis testing.

The board

17 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. 4 of the 17 rows carry a mark saying so.

RankInstructorCurveEasinessChallenge
1Christina MatzSocial Work9196 raw · 8 records82+1 to the score22nd
2Scott EastonSocial Work8794 raw · 5 records84+2 to the score39th
3Thomas CreaSocial Work fewer records8894 raw · 4 records84+2 to the score70th
4William ByansiSocial Work8894 raw · 4 records84+2 to the score26th
5Melissa BrownSocial Work Provisional fewer records9396 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score21st
6Megan TaylorSocial Work Provisional8794 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score36th
7Sophia EisenbergSocial Work Provisional8492 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score9th
8Patrick MulkernSocial Work Provisional8089 raw · 1 record84+2 to the score19th
9Charles CurrieCounseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Provisional7587 raw · 1 record——
10Laura BondSocial Work Provisional7587 raw · 2 records——
11Spencer SandbergSocial Work Provisional7586 raw · 2 records—6th
12Matias Placencio-CastroSocial Work7585 raw · 4 records84+2 to the score13th
13Ricardo Suarez RojasCounseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Provisional fewer records7082 raw · 2 records—19th
14Catherine TaylorSocial Work7281 raw · 4 records84+2 to the score15th
15Indrani SaranSocial Work7080 raw · 5 records81+1 to the score17th
16Thanh TranSocial Work fewer records5143 raw · 3 records84+2 to the score3rd
17Thomas O'HareSocial Work6879 raw · 10 records——

All 17 instructors listed.

8 of 17 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.

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.

The line

All 13 items · means across 58 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

58 sections · newest first
InstructorTermSecInstrCourseWork
Matias Placencio-CastroFall 202501916940
Christina MatzFall 202502917440
Thomas O'HareFall 2025039386—
Christina MatzFall 202504948160
Thomas O'HareFall 2025057358—
William ByansiFall 2025061007840
Catherine TaylorFall 202507624940
Sophia EisenbergFall 202507924940
Catherine TaylorFall 202509796440
Patrick MulkernFall 202509896440
William ByansiFall 202510968140
Megan TaylorFall 202511947640
Scott EastonFall 202511967640
Thomas CreaSummer 202501928440
William ByansiFall 202401866540
Christina MatzFall 202402997640
Thomas O'HareFall 2024038282—
Christina MatzFall 2024049777—
Spencer SandbergFall 2024048677—
Thomas O'HareFall 2024059181—
Indrani SaranFall 202406886860
Scott EastonFall 202407978640
William ByansiFall 202408956540
Catherine TaylorFall 202409887040
Catherine TaylorFall 202410967640

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.