AI Rate Professor

Engineering

Jose Robledo

ENG101 · TECH081 · ENGR101 · ENGINEERING · ENG100 · CSTR108 · ENGR101A · 23 lifetime ratings

AI rating
26/100
RMP rating
2.5/5
Take again
35%
Difficulty
4.0

The decision

Avoid Robledo unless , and willing to tolerate heavy work for possible long-term payoff.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerConfusing LecturesHeavy HomeworkKeeps Students LateTough GraderHelpful For Serious Learners
  • Most reviews describe , mistakes, impatience, heavy work, and poor accessibility.
  • A minority of students say he , and helps serious engineering students grow.
  • The course can reward persistent students, but many students report withdrawals, low morale, and wasted time.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

34/100

Some students earn As, but comments repeatedly say you must , and survive tough or .

The lone online review frames grades as fair for effort, while in person reviews mostly describe hard work and .

Is the course easy?

Challenging

26/100

Engineering content , and a fast expectation that students figure things out.

Online evidence is mildly positive, while in and difficult course experiences.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

10/100

Multiple in , and skipping class can mean failure.

; the online review does not clearly discuss attendance rules.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

32/100

The dominant student advice is to avoid him because of , and being kept late.

The single online review recommends him, but the much larger in person record is strongly negative.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

25/100

, and comments about unclear grading point to strict or .

Format shift

Online grading is described as effort-based, while in as tough and unclear.

Workload

Overwhelming

18/100

Students repeatedly cite lots of , and class sessions that run far past the scheduled time.

Format shift

The workload problem is mainly in in person reviews; the online review only says effort determines the grade.

Teaching experience

Poor

31/100

A few students praise his knowledge and feedback, but , and inaccessible teaching.

Format shift

Online teaching evidence is positive but minimal, while in person teaching evidence is extensive and mostly negative.

Assessment method

Balanced

55/100

Reviews mention , and participation, so assessment appears mixed.

Format shift

Online evidence does not detail assessments beyond effort, while in , and group 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

23 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

In person reviews are mostly negative, citing unclear lectures, errors, , and tough grading, with a few strong endorsements from serious students.

Main concern

In person students frequently report confusing instruction, heavy workload, and being kept late.

What students said

“Professor cannot convey engineering concepts to students”
ENGR101
“If you are serious about being an .”
ENGR101A

Remote format

Online

1 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

The only online review is strongly positive and says effort directly matched the grade.

Main concern

There is too little online evidence to generalize beyond one positive review.

What students said

“work you put in grade. simple.”
ENG101

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Reviews mention midterms and test-heavy coursework, but do .

MidtermsTest HeavyReviews do not clearly prove proctoring or open-book policy

Assessment risk

Standard

42/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

In person reviews mention midterms and test-heavy coursework, but do .

MidtermsTest HeavyReviews do not clearly prove proctoring or open-book policy
“Grade consists of .”
ENGR101
“TEST HEAVY”
ENGR101

Online

The online review does not clearly prove exam format, proctoring, open-book policy, or .

Reviews do not clearly prove exam format

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ . 0/10”

Voice snapshots generated from 24 reviews, highlighting key themes in teaching and grading. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

31/100

“Professor cannot convey engineering concepts to students and complains when you ask questions during lecture.”

📚 Workload Pressure

18/100

“Be prepared to stay very late, poor and boring lectures, lots of homework,”

👍 Recommendation Level

32/100

“ .”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Lecture heavy, monotone and
  • Lectures are very clear to understand- he provides excellent examples of the concepts covered.
  • Brags about how great he is, yet makes lots of

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Work

  • Lots of homework
  • He makes you work for hard but it pays off in the end!
  • Grade consists of .
  • He keeps you hours after class has officially finished.

Theme 3

⚠️ About Student Experience

  • . 0/10
  • If you are serious about being an .
  • Make yourself a favor, do not waste your time with him..

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

24

Recent reviews read by the AI

23

Lifetime ratings

88/100

Evidence confidence

Twenty-four reviews across many years provide consistent, detailed evidence, especially for in person courses.

Inside 24 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 56
4 out of 53
3 out of 50
2 out of 51
1 out of 514

Course coverage

ENGR1017 reviews
ENG1015 reviews
ENGR101A5 reviews
CSTR1083 reviews
TECH0812 reviews
Show 2 more courses
ENG1001 review
ENGINEERING1 review

Reported outcomes

B range results lead the reported letter grades.

19 reported outcomes

A range

5

A 5

B range

8

B+ 1 · B 5 · B- 2

C range

0

No reported values

D range

1

D 1

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

5

Drop/Withdrawal 4 · Not sure yet 1