AI Rate Professor

Mathematics

Mohammadreza Sabzezevary

MATH140 · 1 lifetime ratings

AI rating
10/100
RMP rating
1.0/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
5.0

The decision

unless you can teach yourself from the textbook and tolerate poor classroom communication.

Best fit · Self Taught ProAvoidConfusing LecturesIllegible HandwritingCondescendingVery Difficult
  • The only review is strongly negative about teaching clarity and classroom tone.
  • The course felt extremely difficult because instruction relied on copying from the textbook.
  • flexible attendance.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

MissionImpossible

15/100

There is no grade evidence, and the lone review describes a very difficult and frustrating learning experience.

All evidence comes from one in-person review, with no online evidence.

Is the course easy?

BrainBurner

18/100

The math content became much harder because , and hard to read.

All evidence comes from one in-person review, with no online comparison.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

The review does .

Only one in-person review exists, and .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

5/100

The student directly because the teaching experience was miserable.

The recommendation evidence .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

25/100

, but the extreme difficulty rating and negative tone suggest little grade comfort.

Format shift

, and it does not directly describe grading.

Workload

Heavy

30/100

Workload is not described directly, but the course felt demanding because students had to rely on the book.

Format shift

Only one in-person review exists, with no online workload evidence.

Teaching experience

Awful

10/100

The review describes textbook copying, quiet speech, illegible handwriting, and a condescending attitude.

Format shift

Teaching evidence comes only from the in-person class.

Assessment method

Balanced

50/100

The review does not clearly identify whether .

Format shift

No format-specific assessment evidence is provided beyond one in-person review.

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

1 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

The , illegible handwriting, and a condescending tone.

Main concern

because lectures were described as copied from the book with .

What students said

“He taught our class by copying the text straight out of the book word for word and he barely talked at all.”
MATH140
“Also his handwriting is illegible.”
MATH140

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 .

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

The format, proctoring, or .

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ ! He is a living hell.”

Voice snapshots generated from 1 review, highlighting key themes in teaching and classroom experience. Credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Quality

10/100

“He taught our class by copying the text straight out of the book word for word and he barely talked at all.”

⚠️ Course Experience

5/100

“ but he has made me resent it.”

✍️ Classroom Clarity

18/100

“Also his handwriting is illegible.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • He taught our class by copying the text straight out of the book word for word and he barely talked at all.
  • But when he does speak it is super quiet.
  • Also his handwriting is illegible.

Theme 2

⚠️ About Student Experience

  • !
  • He is a living hell.
  • but he has made me resent it.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

1

Recent reviews read by the AI

1

Lifetime ratings

25/100

Evidence confidence

Credibility is low because there is only one older review, though it is detailed and internally consistent.

Inside 1 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

MATH1401 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