AI Rate Professor

Philosophy

Sangeeta Mishra

Courses not reported · 6 lifetime ratings

AI rating
23/100
RMP rating
2.2/5
Take again
33.33%
Difficulty
3.3

The decision

Choose Sangeeta Mishra only if , and accept unclear lecture value.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerTough graderCaring but confusingTest-heavyFew graded itemsNo late work
  • Reviews are split between recent caring-professor comments and .
  • Students repeatedly warn that vague deductions and few graded items make grades fragile.
  • The course is not impossible, but , and .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

32/100

Getting an A requires strong reading, notes, assignments, and exams, while and .

Online evidence , while but still shows grade fragility.

Is the course easy?

Standard

44/100

Basic philosophy may be manageable for prepared students, but and overcomplicated explanations raise the difficulty.

In-person reviews provide most evidence and are mixed, while the only online .

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

62/100

Most reviews do not show strict attendance, but as mandatory.

Online evidence says attendance was not mandatory, while one mandatory section.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

35/100

Recommendation is weak because negative reviews cite confusing teaching, tough grading, and .

Online evidence is entirely negative, while and older negative reviews.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

18/100

Several students , and low assignment averages.

Format shift

The only online review is harsh on grading, and and some clearer recent grading evidence.

Workload

Moderate

46/100

The workload is not described as huge, but , and no-late-work rules raise pressure.

Format shift

In-person reviews provide most workload evidence, while .

Teaching experience

Poor

34/100

Students describe her as caring, but many say lectures are confusing, biased, discussion-heavy, or not very useful.

Format shift

In-person evidence is mixed, while the only online review describes a poor teaching experience.

Assessment method

Balanced

62/100

, and tests, with grades affected heavily by few items.

Format shift

, and , while online evidence does not clearly describe assessment format.

Luni fit check

Weigh these signals against your actual schedule.

Get help balancing workload, grading, and timing when no option is an obvious fit.

Course format

Compare the in-person and online experience.

Classroom format

In person

5 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

In-person reviews are mixed, with some students calling her caring and fair if you read, while others find the .

Main concern

Grades depend heavily on a small number of assignments, tests, and .

What students said

“ .”
001
“Only 4 HWs but your grade is affected heavily if you miss even just one.”
001

Remote format

Online

1 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

The single online review is strongly negative and and poor teaching experience.

Main concern

Online evidence points to strict grading with .

What students said

“Even if you follow every direction, the professor manages to STILL dock you off for no logical reason.”
001

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Exam evidence supports tests and quizzes but does not clearly prove open-book rules, .

TestsQuizzesFew Graded ItemsReviews do not clearly prove proctoring

Assessment risk

Standard

45/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, and exams, but do not clearly prove open-book rules or .

TestsQuizzesExamsFew Graded Items
“Focus on the module and .”
001
“ and some quizzes.”
001

Online

The single online review does not clearly prove webcam, Lockdown Browser, .

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Even if you follow every direction, the professor manages to STILL dock you off for no logical reason.”

Voice snapshots generated from 6 reviews, highlighting teaching, grading, workload, and assessment themes; credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Quality

34/100

“ .”

⚖️

18/100

“ and gives extremely vague, stupid reasons as to why.”

👍 Recommendation Rate

35/100

“Everyone will have their own personal experiences but .”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • , but I found her .
  • Lectures were more class discussions, so I don't feel I learned much from them not rlly knowing about phil prior, more from the reading.
  • she is a good and caring teacher.

Theme 2

⚖️

  • Only 4 HWs but your grade is affected heavily if you miss even just one.
  • The class average on most assignments is a 6/10.
  • Even if you follow every direction, the professor manages to STILL dock you off for no logical reason.

Theme 3

🧪

  • Focus on the module and .
  • and some quizzes.
  • If you understand basic phil concepts & do the .

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

6

Recent reviews read by the AI

6

Lifetime ratings

48/100

Evidence confidence

Only 6 reviews are available, and the tone is split between recent positive in-person reviews and .

Inside 6 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 50
4 out of 52
3 out of 50
2 out of 51
1 out of 53

Course coverage

0016 reviews

Reported outcomes

B range results lead the reported letter grades.

6 reported outcomes

A range

2

A 2

B range

3

B 2 · B- 1

C range

1

C+ 1

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values