AI Rate Professor

Construction Technology

Don Godfrey

CSTR36 · CSTR41 · 3 lifetime ratings

AI rating
8/100
RMP rating
1.3/5
Take again
0%
Difficulty
1.7

The decision

Avoid unless you can teach yourself and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProHarsh participation gradingLow teaching effortReads from bookHard to understandNot recommended
  • Students report .
  • Teaching is described as passive, with lectures read directly from the code book.
  • Comments give little evidence of useful guidance or engagement.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

MissionImpossible

12/100

Getting an A looks very difficult because students report losing major grade credit for participation disputes.

All evidence comes from in-person reviews, with .

Is the course easy?

Standard

45/100

The course content itself is not described as deeply difficult, but .

Only in-person reviews discuss course difficulty.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

5/100

Participation appears to and participation effectively mandatory.

.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

5/100

because of and weak classroom teaching.

All .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

5/100

as harsh and possibly inconsistent because participation penalties exceeded the syllabus weight.

Format shift

.

Workload

Moderate

50/100

Reviews , so workload cannot be judged as especially light or heavy.

Format shift

, and and lectures.

Teaching experience

Awful

15/100

Students describe lectures as or useful explanation.

Format shift

.

Assessment method

Balanced

45/100

and do not clearly prove whether exams or assignments dominate.

Format shift

.

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

In-person reviews are strongly negative, citing unfair participation penalties and weak lectures.

Main concern

and low instructional value are the main concerns.

What students said

“guy failed me because he took 20% off my grade for participation when there was only 10% participation points possible.”
CSTR36
“Instructor simply read to us directly from the code book and not much else.”
CSTR41

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 unclear

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, proctoring, or whether exams are open or closed book.

Exam policy unclear

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Instructor simply read to us directly from the code book and not much else.”

Voice snapshots generated from 3 reviews, highlighting key themes in teaching and grading. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

15/100

“Instructor simply read to us directly from the code book and not much else.”

⚖️

5/100

“took 20% of my grade away for class participation when on the syllabus it states that participation is worth 10%”

👍 Recommendation Risk

5/100

“He clearly had no interest in being there or sharing his extensive practical knowledge.”

Theme 1

⚖️

  • guy failed me because he took 20% off my grade for participation when there was only 10% participation points possible.
  • took 20% of my grade away for class participation when on the syllabus it states that participation is worth 10%

Theme 2

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Instructor simply read to us directly from the code book and not much else.
  • can be hard to understand as each sentence he reads sort of trails of into a mumble.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

3

Recent reviews read by the AI

3

Lifetime ratings

55/100

Evidence confidence

Only 3 older reviews are available, but they .

Inside 3 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 50
4 out of 50
3 out of 50
2 out of 51
1 out of 52

Course coverage

CSTR412 reviews
CSTR361 review

Reported outcomes

C range results lead the reported letter grades.

2 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

B range

0

No reported values

C range

2

C- 2

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values