Class record · THEO · MCAS

THEO 1434

Judaism and Christianity in Dialogue · 12 instructors on record · 25 sections

How the curve score is built

60Teaching69 raw · 6th percentile of BC classes

+1Easiness adjustmenteasiness 82 · 49 raw workload · lighter than 67% of BC classes

61Curve 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 67% of BC classes.

What the course score is made of

69BC evaluations25 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

18thMore challenging than 18% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

84BC — “Intellectually Challenging”25 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

33rdMore work than 33% of BC classesranked against every one we hold

49BC — “Workload”25 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.

In 1974, the Vatican explicitly called on Catholics to understand Jews as they understand themselves. In our world of dialogue and post-Holocaust repair of relations, Jews similarly ought to understand Christians. This course will explore key topics in the contemporary Christian-Jewish dialogue with the goal of both enabling this understanding of the other and enhancing self-understanding. Students who do not identify with either tradition are welcome to enrich this conversation. Satisfies Core requirement for: Theology (Sacred Texts and Traditions)

The board

12 instructors · ranked on this class onlyCompare the top 3

Find an instructor among the 12Filters 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. 2 of the 12 rows carry a mark saying so.

Rank	Instructor	Curve	Easiness	Challenge	RMP overall
1	Daniel Joslyn-SiemiatkoskiProfessor; Kraft Family Chair, Director, Center for Christian-Jewish Learning · Theology	8190 raw · 3 records	84+2 to the score	40th	—no page
2	Yiyi ZhangTheology Provisional	7685 raw · 1 record	84+2 to the score	27th	—no page
3	Matthew HassTheology	7686 raw · 3 records	84+2 to the score	17th	863 ratings · all classes
4	John Bosco LugonjaTheology Provisional	6981 raw · 1 record	—	—	—no page
5	Jess NavaretteTheology Provisional	6273 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	12th	—no page
6	Qi ZengTheology Provisional	6273 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	30th	—no page
7	Emily TurnerTheology Provisional	6173 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	55th	—no page
8	Reuben DuniyaTheology Provisional fewer records	5359 raw · 1 record	68−2 to the score	17th	—no page
9	David MaayanTheology Provisional	6674 raw · 2 records	84+2 to the score	6th	—no page
10	Yujia ZhaiTheology	6676 raw · 3 records	81+1 to the score	10th	—no page
11	Domenik AckermannTheology Provisional fewer records	5559 raw · 2 records	78±0 to the score	6th	603 ratings · all classes
12	Ruth LangerProfessor · Theology	5966 raw · 6 records	76±0 to the score	26th	429 ratings · all classes

All 12 instructors listed.

8 of 12 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 25 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

25 sections · newest first

Instructor	Term	Sec	Instr	Course	Work
Jess Navarette	Spring 2026	01	73	57	60
Ruth Langer	Spring 2026	01	66	57	60
Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski	Fall 2025	01	93	88	40
Yiyi Zhang	Fall 2025	01	85	88	40
Ruth Langer	Fall 2025	02	71	67	40
Reuben Duniya	Spring 2025	01	59	59	60
Ruth Langer	Spring 2025	01	61	59	60
Matthew Hass	Spring 2025	02	86	82	40
Matthew Hass	Spring 2025	03	88	82	—
Ruth Langer	Spring 2025	04	80	80	40
Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski	Fall 2024	03	93	90	40
Matthew Hass	Spring 2024	01	83	81	40
Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski	Fall 2023	03	85	81	—
John Bosco Lugonja	Fall 2023	03	81	81	—
Domenik Ackermann	Spring 2023	01	62	62	60
Emily Turner	Spring 2023	02	73	65	60
Ruth Langer	Spring 2023	02	70	65	60
Domenik Ackermann	Fall 2022	01	56	51	40
Yujia Zhai	Fall 2022	02	88	76	60
David Maayan	Spring 2022	01	85	78	40
Qi Zeng	Spring 2022	02	73	44	60
Ruth Langer	Spring 2022	02	49	44	60
Yujia Zhai	Spring 2022	03	77	65	40
David Maayan	Fall 2021	01	64	57	40
Yujia Zhai	Fall 2021	02	63	64	40

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.