AI Rate Professor

Philosophy

Thomas Farmer

PHIL170 · ETHS160 · PHILOSOPHY100 · PHIL100 · PHIL160F · 9 lifetime ratings

AI rating
70/100
RMP rating
3.9/5
Take again
66.67%
Difficulty
2.1

The decision

Take Thomas Farmer in person if possible, but reviews.

Best fit · Effort For RewardGreat In PersonPoor OnlineEasy Study GuidesAttendance MattersDisorganized Grading
  • In-person students often describe him as funny, passionate, interesting, and easy to pass.
  • Online students report a much worse experience with heavy workload, poor communication, and .
  • Study guides appear highly useful for exams, but attendance and participation can affect grades.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

EasyA

79/100

In person, many students call it an easy A because study guides match exams and , but online reviews describe heavy work and .

Online evidence is difficult and risky, while homework, study guides, and attendance.

Is the course easy?

Beginner

68/100

The philosophy content is usually described as easy to understand in person, though online organization makes the course feel much harder.

, while online reviews describe confusion and poor communication.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

30/100

Attendance and participation matter in several in-person reviews, including one warning about a letter-grade deduction.

and participation grades, while online reviews do not prove an .

Is this professor recommended?

WorthIt

66/100

but strongly discourage taking him online.

, while online reviews are strongly negative.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

58/100

, but online reviews report wrong marks, missing grades, and poor feedback timing.

Format shift

In-person grading appears predictable, while and frustrating.

Workload

Moderate

55/100

In-person workload is often light, but online students describe a heavy workload and a 10-page research paper.

Format shift

Online workload is heavy, while and few major tasks.

Teaching experience

Good

72/100

He is often engaging and passionate in person, but online teaching is described as disorganized and unresponsive.

Format shift

Teaching quality is high in person and poor online, creating a major format split.

Assessment method

Balanced

58/100

Reviews mention homework, papers, participation, a , and .

Format shift

Online mentions assignments and a research paper, while , and study-guide-based exams.

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

7 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Easy A Hunter

In-person reviews are mostly positive, emphasizing interesting lectures, easy homework, useful study guides, and manageable exams.

Main concern

, and grade tracking can matter more than expected.

What students said

“Study guides are EXACTLY like what's on the exam.”
PHIL100
“ as a grade as well.”
PHIL170

Remote format

Online

2 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

Online reviews are strongly negative, citing heavy workload, poor communication, delayed assignments, and .

Main concern

Students may need to manage the course with little communication or .

What students said

“So. Much. Work.”
PHIL160F
“ !!”
PHIL160F

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

In-person exams are student-friendly because multiple reviews say the study guides closely match the tests, while .

Study Guide Matches ExamMidtermFinal Exam

Assessment risk

StudentFriendly

78/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

because study guides are described as matching the exams closely.

Study Guide Matches ExamMidtermFinal Exam
“Study guides are EXACTLY the exam.”
PHILOSOPHY100
“Study guides are EXACTLY like what's on the exam.”
PHIL100

Online

Online reviews mention a midterm but do not clearly prove the .

Midterm Mentioned
“For the ”
PHIL160F

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ !!”

Voice snapshots generated from 9 reviews, highlighting key themes in format differences, teaching, workload, and exams. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

72/100

“Made lectures very interesting and funny at the same time, making me learn more and want to learn more.”

💻 Online Risk

30/100

“online he is TERRIBLE.”

📈 Easy A Potential

79/100

“ if you want an easy A.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Honestly one of and tries to relate ethical scenarios to real life.
  • Made lectures very interesting and funny at the same time
  • Professor Farmer is a good teacher, he is passionate about the subject

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty and Grades

  • Study Guide is what's on the exam so just study that and you will pass.
  • .
  • as a grade as well.

Theme 3

💻 About Online Format

  • There was little to no communication, just posted the assignments and that was it.
  • Didn't receive any grades throughout the entire semester.
  • !!

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

9

Recent reviews read by the AI

9

Lifetime ratings

82/100

Evidence confidence

Nine reviews provide enough detail and show a consistent split between poor online experiences and strong in-person experiences.

Inside 9 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

PHIL1704 reviews
PHIL160F2 reviews
ETHS1601 review
PHIL1001 review
PHILOSOPHY1001 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

9 reported outcomes

A range

4

A+ 1 · A 3

B range

4

B+ 2 · B 2

C range

0

No reported values

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

1

Rather not say 1