AI Rate Professor

Culinary Arts

Justin Cardella

FN1 · FSM35 · ECON238 · FSM144 · 8 lifetime ratings

AI rating
58/100
RMP rating
3.3/5
Take again
42.86%
Difficulty
3.0

The decision

if and want exams that match lectures, but be cautious online.

Best fit · Effort For RewardMixed Teaching QualityClear Exam AlignmentHeavy HomeworkCaring In PersonWeak Online Support
  • In-person reviews are split but include strong praise for , and .
  • Online reviews are negative because students describe little teaching, little help, and weak course structure.
  • Grades can be strong, but the experience depends heavily on format and course.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

68/100

A grades are possible when students show up and complete the work, but homework and uneven teaching keep it from being effortless.

Online evidence is weaker and , while and clearer exam alignment.

Is the course easy?

Beginner

63/100

The course content often sounds manageable, but poor support in online sections can make it feel harder.

In-person students more often call the work easy, while online students describe learning little without enough instruction.

Is attendance flexible?

Recommended

45/100

Attendance appears important for passing and understanding the course, but .

One online review says skipping class hurts performance, while .

Is this professor recommended?

Depends

50/100

and aligned with exams, but several strongly negative reviews criticize poor learning outcomes.

In-person recommendation is mixed, while online recommendation is mostly negative.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

58/100

Grades can be high and , but there is not enough evidence of .

Format shift

and easy practical work, while online reviews only show clear criteria and .

Workload

Moderate

45/100

The workload can be significant, especially with many chapters and .

Format shift

, while online workload evidence is limited.

Teaching experience

Average

55/100

He can be caring and , but online students and some FN1 students report weak teaching and little learning.

Format shift

In-person teaching is highly mixed, while online teaching is mostly criticized for lack of support.

Assessment method

Balanced

58/100

, and a , so assessment is not purely exam-based.

Format shift

, and a take-home final, while online reviews give fewer assessment details.

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

6 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

In-person reviews range from excellent to terrible, with and helpfulness.

Main concern

Teaching quality is inconsistent across classes.

What students said

“ .”
FSM144
“ .”
FSM35
“ new cooking skills disappointed in him !”
FN1

Remote format

Online

2 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

but weak instruction and limited support.

Main concern

Students may feel on their own with little lecture support.

What students said

“There was no formulas, , and no help except from the McGraw Hill Textbook”
ECON238
“he doesnt do much only cooked like once or twice”
ECON238

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

The exam setup sounds fair when described, with , and one take-home final.

Exams Match LecturesDropped Lowest ExamTake-Home FinalEasy Practical

Assessment risk

Standard

67/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

In-person reviews support lecture-aligned exams, a , and a .

Exams Match LecturesDropped Lowest ExamTake-Home FinalEasy Practical
“ .”
FSM144
“4 exams lowest is dropped.”
FSM144
“you took 4 test a .”
FSM35

Online

Online reviews do not clearly prove exam format, proctoring, webcam use, Lockdown Browser, or open-book policy.

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ .”

Voice snapshots generated from 8 reviews, highlighting key themes in , and format differences. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

55/100

“There was no formulas, , and no help except from the McGraw Hill Textbook”

👍 Recommendation Fit

50/100

“Hands down dude is great! Taking him again for a few other classes I need.”

📚 Workload Reality

45/100

“Lots of homework 11 chapters 1 is thrown out, same with exams.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • .
  • Terrible ! Just one word to describe his lessons
  • Excellent professor and chef

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • .
  • I practical which is easy to get an A on.
  • Lots of homework 11 chapters 1 is thrown out, same with exams.

Theme 3

💻 About Online Experience

  • you are basically on your own.
  • I learned close to nothing.
  • he doesnt do much only cooked like once or twice

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

8

Recent reviews read by the AI

8

Lifetime ratings

70/100

Evidence confidence

Eight reviews across several years give useful but inconsistent evidence, with strong format differences and mixed course experiences.

Inside 8 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 53
4 out of 51
3 out of 51
2 out of 51
1 out of 52

Course coverage

FN14 reviews
ECON2382 reviews
FSM1441 review
FSM351 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

7 reported outcomes

A range

3

A+ 2 · A 1

B range

3

B+ 2 · B 1

C range

0

No reported values

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

1

Not sure yet 1