AI Rate Professor

Mathematics

Michael Staff

ENGR · 1 lifetime ratings

AI rating
72/100
RMP rating
4.0/5
Take again
100%
Difficulty
3.0

The decision

He seems like a reasonable choice, but the evidence is too thin for a strong recommendation.

Best fit · Effort For RewardRespectfulAccessibleParticipation matters
  • The only review is positive but very brief.
  • The and earned an A-.
  • There is not .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

62/100

The A- grade and moderate difficulty suggest a fair path to a strong grade, but there is no evidence of an easy A.

Evidence .

Is the course easy?

Standard

55/100

The review gives a middle difficulty rating and no detail showing the course was especially easy or hard.

Evidence .

Is attendance flexible?

Recommended

45/100

Participation matters is tagged, but the review does .

Evidence .

Is this professor recommended?

WorthIt

78/100

The and had a positive experience, but the comment is too brief for a higher score.

Evidence .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

58/100

The student earned an A- with moderate difficulty, but there is .

Format shift

Only one in-person review exists, so .

Workload

Moderate

55/100

The review does not mention heavy or light workload, so the moderate difficulty rating is the main signal.

Format shift

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

Teaching experience

Good

75/100

The student describes him as good to work with and would take the class again.

Format shift

Only one in-person review exists, so teaching confidence is limited.

Assessment method

Balanced

50/100

The review does .

Format shift

Only one in-person review exists, with no assessment-detail evidence.

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 Effort For Reward

The single in-person review says he was good to work with and .

Main concern

Evidence is too limited to know the real workload or .

What students said

“He's a good guy, wasn't bad to work with, .”
ENGR

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

The , proctoring, midterms, finals, or quiz policies.

Exam policy unclear

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“He's a good guy, wasn't bad to work with, .”

Voice snapshots generated from 1 review, highlighting the . Credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Quality

75/100

“He's a good guy, wasn't bad to work with, .”

👍 Recommendation Rate

78/100

“ .”

📌 Evidence Limit

28/100

“He's a good guy, wasn't bad to work with, .”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • He's a good guy, wasn't bad to work with, .

Theme 2

👍 About Recommendation

  • .
  • wasn't bad to work with

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

1

Recent reviews read by the AI

1

Lifetime ratings

28/100

Evidence confidence

Only , so the evidence is too sparse for high-confidence conclusions.

Inside 1 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

ENGR1 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

1 reported outcomes

A range

1

A- 1

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