AI Rate Professor

Computer Information Systems

Soheil Partoviamin

IS15 · INFS210 · CS101 · INFORIS15 · 5 lifetime ratings

AI rating
48/100
RMP rating
2.9/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
2.6

The decision

Consider him only if you are comfortable with limited evidence and mixed student reactions.

Best fit · Beginner FriendlyPolarizing ReviewsEnjoyable EnvironmentLimited EvidenceMixed Teaching Quality
  • Reviews are too few and uneven to form a highly reliable profile.
  • Positive comments describe an engaging, enjoyable teacher who makes the subject more interesting.
  • Negative comments are brief but severe, including one very low-quality review with high difficulty.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

55/100

The only reported A+ conflicts with a very high difficulty rating, so the evidence does not support an effortless A.

All evidence comes from in-person reviews, with .

Is the course easy?

Beginner

62/100

Most difficulty ratings are low to moderate, but the small sample and one very difficult review keep confidence limited.

Only in-person evidence exists, and it is too thin to compare formats.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

Reviews .

No online evidence exists, and .

Is this professor recommended?

Depends

52/100

Recommendation is uncertain because enthusiastic praise is balanced by sparse, vague, and sharply negative reviews.

All recommendation .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

52/100

Grade evidence is minimal, so harsh.

Format shift

Only one in-person review reports a grade, and .

Workload

Moderate

55/100

The reviews do not provide enough workload detail, so a moderate score is the safest reading.

Format shift

, and there are no online reviews.

Teaching experience

Average

53/100

Teaching comments are polarized, with strong praise for personality and learning environment but also severe negative ratings.

Format shift

All .

Assessment method

Balanced

50/100

Reviews .

Format shift

No format-specific assessment .

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

5 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Beginner Friendly

and polarized, ranging from exceptional and enjoyable to bluntly negative.

Main concern

The small review set makes the true experience uncertain.

What students said

“Professor Partovi is an exceptional teacher!”
IS15
“Great Teacher”
INFORIS15
“PARTOV!!SUCKS”
INFS210

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 pattern.

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

format, proctoring rules, or open-book policy.

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Professor Partovi is an exceptional teacher!”

Voice snapshots generated from 5 reviews, highlighting limited but polarized evidence on teaching quality. Credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Quality

53/100

“Professor Partovi is an exceptional teacher!”

👍 Recommendation Signal

52/100

“Great Teacher”

⚠️ Mixed Experience

32/100

“PARTOV!!SUCKS”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Great Teacher
  • Professor Partovi is an exceptional teacher!
  • He is able to create a productive, studious, and enjoyable learing enviornment that sparks interest and aids students in ongoing learning.

Theme 2

⚠️ About Mixed Reviews

  • PARTOV!!SUCKS
  • No Comments
  • No Comments

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

5

Recent reviews read by the AI

5

Lifetime ratings

32/100

Evidence confidence

Credibility is low because only five reviews exist, two have no comments, and the usable evidence is old and inconsistent.

Inside 5 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

IS152 reviews
CS1011 review
INFORIS151 review
INFS2101 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