AI Rate Professor

Health Technology

Myriam Martinez

HTEC76 · HTEC076 · HTEC72 · HTEC101 · HTEC076A · 9 lifetime ratings

AI rating
8/100
RMP rating
2.0/5
Take again
40%
Difficulty
4.2

The decision

Avoid Myriam Martinez unless you can self-teach difficult coding material and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProDisorganized LecturesSelf-Teaching RequiredHeavy HomeworkFast And UnclearPoor Question Support
  • and say they had to teach themselves.
  • The workload is repeatedly described as heavy, with long assignments and .
  • A few comments say she can help committed students pass certification, but negative evidence dominates.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

MissionImpossible

20/100

Getting an A appears difficult because students report , and poor support.

Only in-person evidence exists, and and low guidance.

Is the course easy?

BrainBurner

18/100

The coding content becomes much harder because lectures are fast, unclear, skipped, or .

.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

5/100

Every review with as mandatory.

Only in-person evidence exists, and as mandatory.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

25/100

Most students warn against taking her because they found the , and unsupported.

Only in-person reviews exist, and negative recommendations dominate.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

30/100

The reviews do , but the high difficulty and poor support make good grades costly.

Format shift

Only in-person evidence exists, and .

Workload

Overwhelming

15/100

Students repeatedly mention a ton of , and skipped preparation.

Format shift

Only in-person reviews mention workload, and the theme is consistently heavy.

Teaching experience

Awful

18/100

Most comments describe fast, unclear, disorganized teaching with and poor question support.

Format shift

Only in-person reviews exist, and negative teaching evidence is strong.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

25/100

Reviews mainly discuss homework assignments and coding practice, while .

Format shift

Only in-person reviews exist, and .

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

9 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

All reviews are in person, and , and weak support for questions.

Main concern

Students repeatedly say they had to teach themselves because .

What students said

“ .”
HTEC72
“Felt like I had to .”
HTEC076
“She assigns excessive amount of .”
HTEC76

Remote format

Online

0 reviews

Low confidence

No stored summary is available for this format.

Main concern

No main concern is stored for this format.

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Reviews do not clearly prove exam format, proctoring, open-book rules, .

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

policy or .

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Felt like I had to .”

Voice snapshots generated from 9 in-person reviews, highlighting repeated themes in teaching clarity, workload, and recommendation risk; credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

18/100

“ .”

📚 Workload Pressure

15/100

“She assigns excessive amount of .”

👍 Recommendation Rate

25/100

“ .”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • She talks too fast and unclear.
  • slides.
  • So disorganized. Seems to make things up as she goes along.

Theme 2

📚 About Workload And Support

  • Yeah, there may be a ton of HW assignments, but thats bc she wants us to be prepared.
  • but breezes through them in 5 minutes.
  • Felt like I had to .

Theme 3

⚠️ About Recommendation Risk

  • .
  • .
  • Do NOT reconmmend her.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

9

Recent reviews read by the AI

9

Lifetime ratings

68/100

Evidence confidence

Nine reviews provide consistent negative themes, but the sample is modest and limited to 2016-2017.

Inside 9 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 51
4 out of 51
3 out of 50
2 out of 52
1 out of 55

Course coverage

HTEC763 reviews
HTEC0762 reviews
HTEC722 reviews
HTEC076A1 review
HTEC1011 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

2 reported outcomes

A range

1

A 1

B range

0

No reported values

C range

0

No reported values

D range

1

D 1

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values