AI Rate Professor

Mathematics

Vladimir Cherkassky

MATH236 · MATH292 · 3 lifetime ratings

AI rating
22/100
RMP rating
2.7/5
Take again
33.33%
Difficulty
3.7

The decision

Avoid unless you are comfortable learning the material mostly on your own.

Best fit · Self Taught ProSelf-teaching requiredLecture mismatchStrict classroom toneMixed impressions
  • Most detailed reviews describe and a need to teach yourself.
  • because students mention shaming late arrivals or early exits.
  • One brief positive review praises his character, but it is outweighed by stronger negative detail.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

28/100

Getting an A looks difficult because students report self-teaching, lots of homework, and high difficulty.

; there are no online reviews.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

25/100

The course feels hard because lectures are described as disconnected or .

All course .

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

15/100

because students mention being shamed for arriving late or leaving early.

.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

22/100

Most because the class feels confusing and unpleasant.

Recommendation .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

30/100

, but the B grade, high difficulty, and self-teaching comments suggest a strict experience.

Format shift

Only in-person reviews provide evidence.

Workload

Heavy

25/100

Workload appears heavy because one detailed review tags lots of homework and says students must self-teach.

Format shift

Only in-person reviews mention workload.

Teaching experience

Poor

28/100

Teaching quality is low because the most detailed comments describe irrelevant lectures and poor clarity.

Format shift

All .

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

25/100

Assessment evidence is sparse, but .

Format shift

, and exams are not clearly described.

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

3 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

confusing lectures and poor approachability.

Main concern

and handle an unfriendly lecture environment.

What students said

“You basically gotta teach yourself all the material”
MATH236
“Nothing he lectured on related to the content we were covering.”
MATH292

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 the .

Exam policy not clearly proven

Assessment risk

Varies

45/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

format or rules.

Exam policy not clearly proven

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“You basically gotta teach yourself all the material”

Voice snapshots generated from 3 reviews, highlighting key themes in teaching and classroom climate. Credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Quality

28/100

“Nothing he lectured on related to the content we were covering.”

⚠️ Student Experience

22/100

“Class was super miserable, & I could not imagine having him as my prof.”

📚 Difficulty & Effort

28/100

“You basically gotta teach yourself all the material”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Nothing he lectured on related to the content we were covering.
  • You basically gotta teach yourself all the material

Theme 2

🚪 About Classroom Climate

  • Didn't feel friendly/approachable & got mad when people started leaving.
  • hes gonna shame you for coming in late or leaving early

Theme 3

👍 Positive Note

  • Kind and Respctful

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

3

Recent reviews read by the AI

3

Lifetime ratings

38/100

Evidence confidence

, and one is a one-day substitute experience while another is very brief.

Inside 3 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

MATH2922 reviews
MATH2361 review

Reported outcomes

B range results lead the reported letter grades.

1 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

B range

1

B 1

C range

0

No reported values

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values