AI Rate Professor

Computer Information Systems

Cal Schrotenboer

CIS019W · CIS68E01W · CPERL · CIS019 · CIS19W · CIS52B · CIS68E · 11 lifetime ratings

AI rating
34/100
RMP rating
2.6/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
2.8

The decision

if you are independent, already comfortable with the material, and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProInconsistent teachingMinimal feedbackFlexible deadlinesStrong value for somePoor grading support
  • Student experiences are sharply divided, with some praising value and expertise while many describe poor support.
  • Several reviews , and grades slowly or harshly.
  • Deadlines may be flexible in at least one class, but and instructor presence are major concerns.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

38/100

Flexible deadlines may help, but poor feedback, harsh grading claims, and .

All authoritative format evidence is in person; there are no online reviews in the supplied counts.

Is the course easy?

Standard

42/100

Some students found the courses valuable and not too hard, but hard texts and weak guidance raise the challenge.

All authoritative format evidence is in person; there are no online reviews in the supplied counts.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

68/100

One review says deadlines are flexible, but reviews do not clearly establish a .

All authoritative format evidence is in person; there are no online reviews in the supplied counts.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

35/100

The negative reviews focus , and questionable fairness despite a few strong positives.

All authoritative format evidence is in person; there are no online reviews in the supplied counts.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

28/100

Several students complain about , and testing on material not covered.

Format shift

All authoritative format evidence is in person; there are no online reviews in the supplied counts.

Workload

Moderate

50/100

The workload itself is not consistently described as heavy, but and .

Format shift

All authoritative format evidence is in person; there are no online reviews in the supplied counts.

Teaching experience

Poor

32/100

Positive comments mention expertise and value, but many reviews describe him as absent, unhelpful, or .

Format shift

All authoritative format evidence is in person; there are no online reviews in the supplied counts.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

35/100

Comments focus more on labs, homework, assignments, forums, and .

Format shift

All authoritative format evidence is in person; there are no online reviews in the supplied counts.

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

11 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

All reviews are counted as in person by the supplied data, though several comments discuss online coursework and describe highly mixed support.

Main concern

Students often report , and unclear assessment.

What students said

“don't sweat he deadlines. Get things done when you're ready.”
CIS019
“Cal was basically a no show.”
CIS019W
“Not very helpfull, and grades poorly”
CIS68E

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.

and mixed, with one review reporting uncovered test material while and feedback.

Material not coveredAssignment-heavy evidenceExam policy unclear

Assessment risk

Varies

45/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

rules, or exam format, but one review reports testing on material never covered.

Material not coveredExam policy unclear
“TESTED ON MATERIAL NEVER COVERED”
CIS52B
“ .”
CIS019W
“For the online work, don't sweat he deadlines.”
CIS019

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“I never received a . I never received a single answer for my questions, I feel I would have learned more on my own.”

Voice snapshots generated from 11 reviews, highlighting key themes in teaching and grading. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

32/100

“Cal was basically a no show.”

⚖️

28/100

“Not very helpfull, and grades poorly”

💰 Course Value

35/100

“Compared to other places, it was an awesome deal”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • He does not provide examples.
  • .
  • Excellent intructor, knows his stuff, up to date on the trends, etc.

Theme 2

📈

  • He takes a .
  • I never received a .
  • Picky for no apparent reason.

Theme 3

🧭 About Independence

  • Get things done when you're ready.
  • I feel I would have learned more on my own.
  • Contribute to the forums.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

11

Recent reviews read by the AI

11

Lifetime ratings

78/100

Evidence confidence

There are 11 reviews across several years with , and instructor presence.

Inside 11 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 53
4 out of 51
3 out of 50
2 out of 53
1 out of 54

Course coverage

CIS019W3 reviews
CIS0192 reviews
CIS68E2 reviews
CIS19W1 review
CIS52B1 review
Show 2 more courses
CIS68E01W1 review
CPERL1 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

0 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

B range

0

No reported values

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