AI Rate Professor

Philosophy

Andrew Bridges

PHIL170F · PHIL170 · 4 lifetime ratings

AI rating
83/100
RMP rating
4.5/5
Take again
75%
Difficulty
3.3

The decision

if and writing for a fair, knowledgeable philosophy professor.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerPassionate about philosophyReading and writing heavyClear expectationsLenient late workLess engaging online
  • Students praise Bridges as knowledgeable, passionate, and .
  • The course is reading and writing heavy, but students say the work is manageable and fair.
  • Online evidence is less enthusiastic because recorded lectures were described as monotone.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

72/100

An A is realistic if students keep up with , and the major paper project.

Online evidence ties the A to term papers and assignments, while , and clear timelines.

Is the course easy?

Standard

55/100

The material is manageable for philosophy, but the , and participation.

In-person students find it relatively easy to follow, while the online review says the content is manageable but lectures are less engaging.

Is attendance flexible?

Recommended

55/100

Attendance and participation can affect the grade, but late work appears lenient.

In-person reviews directly mention attendance and participation, while the online review .

Is this professor recommended?

WorthIt

78/100

, and fairness, with some hesitation about online engagement.

, while the single online review is mixed despite an A outcome.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Lenient

78/100

Students mention , lenient late work, and , but writing still matters.

Format shift

, while online evidence says grades depend on doing well on the paper and assignments.

Workload

Moderate

52/100

The workload includes lots of reading, discussions, weekly writing, and a major paper, but students describe it as manageable.

Format shift

Both formats mention reading and writing, with and participation.

Teaching experience

Good

84/100

Students describe him as , and effective, though online delivery was less engaging.

Format shift

, while online teaching is described as knowledgeable but monotone.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

28/100

Assessment appears , and discussion rather than traditional exams.

Format shift

Online and and writing-based work.

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 Hardcore Learner

In-person students describe him as , and and writing.

Main concern

Reading, participation, and weekly writing are central to success.

What students said

“It's obvious he's passionate about the subject”
PHIL170
“A lot of reading.”
PHIL170F
“He knows how to teach and teaches it beautifully.”
PHIL170F

Remote format

Online

1 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

The online review says the course is manageable for an A but less engaging through recorded Zoom lectures.

Main concern

Recorded lectures may feel flat, so students need to stay self-motivated.

What students said

“Pretty mono-tone and flat-lined in terms of teaching style”
PHIL170
“you'll get by with an A if you do well on the and writing assignments”
PHIL170

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

and writing-based assessment rather than traditional exams, and they do not clearly prove proctoring, open-book rules, or .

Major Paper FinalWriting AssignmentsDiscussion PostsNo Clear Traditional Exam Evidence

Assessment risk

StudentFriendly

82/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

as the final, weekly writing, and discussions, but do not clearly prove any exam policy.

Major Paper FinalWeekly WritingDiscussions
“1 major paper project counts as final broken into 3 parts.”
PHIL170F
“Lots of reading, discussions and weekly writing”
PHIL170F

Online

The online review mentions a term paper, reading and writing assignments, and discussion posts, but does .

Term PaperWriting AssignmentsDiscussion Posts
“ and , and discussion posts”
PHIL170

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“He knows how to teach and teaches it beautifully.”

Voice snapshots generated from 4 reviews, highlighting key themes in , and format differences. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

84/100

“It's obvious he's passionate about the subject”

📚 Workload Reality

52/100

“Lots of reading, discussions and weekly writing as to be expected in a Philosophy Course.”

⚖️

78/100

“ and time line.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Great teacher, straight forward.
  • he really wants to make sure his students understand the material
  • He is actually extremely gifted and knowledgable in this subject

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • I find his class is relatively easy to stay caught up on in comparison to many.
  • Found this class to be super easy.
  • you'll get by with an A if you do well on the

Theme 3

📝

  • A lot of reading.
  • Lots of reading, discussions and weekly writing as to be expected in a Philosophy Course.
  • 1 major paper project counts as final broken into 3 parts.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

4

Recent reviews read by the AI

4

Lifetime ratings

58/100

Evidence confidence

The rating has moderate credibility because only 4 reviews are available, but they are detailed and mostly consistent.

Inside 4 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

PHIL1702 reviews
PHIL170F2 reviews

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

4 reported outcomes

A range

2

A 2

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

2

Not sure yet 2