AI Rate Professor

Mathematics

Lori Lewis

MATH1A · MATH27 · MATH1C · MATH101 · MATH2 · MATH15 · MATH156 · MATH1B · MATH5 · 43 lifetime ratings

AI rating
29/100
RMP rating
2.7/5
Take again
38.64%
Difficulty
3.4

The decision

Avoid unless you can learn primarily from the textbook and treat lectures as optional.

Best fit · Self Taught ProLecture mistakesTest heavyLots of homeworkCondescending tonePolarized reviews
  • Many students report frequent lecture errors, slow pacing, and demeaning class interactions.
  • ; some get As via self-study despite weak lectures.
  • A minority praise accessibility, care, and , so experiences split sharply by term and course.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

52/100

Many students still earn As by grinding homework and self-study, but and .

Nearly all grade evidence is in person; the .

Is the course easy?

Standard

48/100

Content is standard college math or stats, but lecture confusion and fast or uneven pacing make it feel harder than the material alone.

Difficulty comments are almost entirely from in-person sections across MATH1A-1C, 2, 5, 15, and 27.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

48/100

while others do not; participation is often pushed hard in class.

Evidence is almost all in person; the single .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

34/100

and recent comments heavily urge students to dodge her for competence and tone issues.

; the lone online review would take her again.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

42/100

Clear criteria and appear for some, but tough-grader tags and .

Format shift

.

Workload

Heavy

28/100

Lots of homework, lecture-heavy classes, and and comments.

Format shift

Workload complaints .

Teaching experience

Poor

32/100

Repeated reports of lecture mistakes, weak problem-solving, and demeaning interactions outweigh pockets of caring praise.

Format shift

In-person reviews are sharply split; the one online review is glowing.

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

72/100

as practice that mirrors tests.

Format shift

Assessment and calculus sequences.

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

43 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

frequent complaints about mistakes, ego, and demoralizing office hours versus some praise for care, accessibility, and .

Main concern

Lecture errors and harsh interpersonal tone can tank learning even when grades are salvageable.

What students said

“By far the . She attempts to teach at an agonizing pace and makes frequent mistakes in her notes and exams.”
MATH1C
“I got an overall >99% yet still think she's the .”
MATH2
“Highly reccomend and .”
MATH15

Remote format

Online

1 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Beginner Friendly

Single online review is strongly positive, calling her the and easy if .

Main concern

Sample is one review only and may not represent typical online delivery.

What students said

“she is the best math teacher at the Jc. if you do the the class.”
MATH1A

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

and , but wording and fairness complaints lower friendliness.

Test heavyCheat sheets sometimes allowedHomework-similar problemsUnclear exam wording

Assessment risk

Standard

48/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, and students report unclear wording versus lecture.

Test heavyCheat sheetsHomework-similar problemsUnclear wording
“ and would not match what she taught us in class (which is unfortunate because exams are 50% of the grade).”
MATH15
“The grade but you get cheat sheets.”
MATH15

Online

.

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“I got an overall >99% yet still think she's the .”

Voice snapshots generated from 44 reviews with high , and polarized tone.

📉 Teaching Competence

32/100

“She fails to communicate and is often condescending and irritable towards students.”

📚

52/100

“Class time and doing it yourself.”

⚠️ Recommendation Risk

34/100

“ . L of a prof and just hates her job.”

❤️ Minority Care Praise

70/100

“She genuinely cares for student growth and success.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Would make mistakes and take 40 mins to realize she made a mistake
  • She constantly made mistakes in her examples, she barely knows the subject herself
  • Her lectures and class

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty and Grades

  • though, only class where the
  • Top grade for the class on exam 2 was 48/100
  • and monotonous but it is extremely similar to the exams

Theme 3

💬 About Classroom Tone

  • Would speak with an ego towards the students
  • Office hours and class interactions are demoralizing and discouraging
  • Rude to students for asking questions

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

44

Recent reviews read by the AI

43

Lifetime ratings

86/100

Evidence confidence

44 detailed reviews spanning multiple years and courses with consistent polarized themes support strong confidence.

Inside 44 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 514
4 out of 52
3 out of 53
2 out of 55
1 out of 520

Course coverage

MATH1513 reviews
MATH1A8 reviews
MATH1C8 reviews
MATH1014 reviews
MATH24 reviews
Show 4 more courses
MATH274 reviews
MATH1561 review
Math1B1 review
MATH51 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

42 reported outcomes

A range

15

A+ 2 · A 13

B range

10

B+ 2 · B 7 · B- 1

C range

7

C+ 1 · C 6

D range

1

D+ 1

F

1

F 1

No letter grade reported

8

Drop/Withdrawal 2 · Incomplete 2 · Not sure yet 1 · Rather not say 3