AI Rate Professor

Philosophy

Scott Sevier

PHIL76 · PHIL120 · PHIL001 · 6 lifetime ratings

AI rating
61/100
RMP rating
3.5/5
Take again
50%
Difficulty
3.0

The decision

if you are comfortable asking questions and can handle uneven lecture quality.

Best fit · Effort For RewardFair when organizedMixed teaching clarityHelpful by contactHumorous lectures
  • Students describe him as fair and helpful when the class is structured clearly.
  • Teaching clarity is inconsistent, with some students needing outside resources.
  • In-person evidence is mixed but leans better for engaged students who ask questions.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

64/100

An A seems realistic when students follow lectures and ask for help, but there is no strong evidence of an effortless A.

All evidence comes from in-person reviews, with .

Is the course easy?

Beginner

66/100

Several students found the philosophy courses manageable, though .

All .

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

Reviews do not clearly .

Only in-person reviews exist, and they do not give a .

Is this professor recommended?

Depends

58/100

and responsive, but others strongly criticize his delivery.

Recommendation and is sharply mixed.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

60/100

material, but one review reports no makeup or .

Format shift

.

Workload

Moderate

52/100

Workload evidence is limited, with one strong complaint about many papers and test-heavy structure.

Format shift

All .

Teaching experience

Average

60/100

Students praise his fairness, humor, and help, but .

Format shift

Only in-person reviews exist, and they are inconsistent.

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

76/100

Comments emphasize exams and tests more than assignments, though one review also mentions many papers.

Format shift

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

6 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

teaching and complaints about confusing delivery.

Main concern

Some and had to rely on outside help.

What students said

“He gave lectures that if you followed you would get 100% on exams.”
PHIL120
“you'll need YouTube to comprehend”
PHIL001
“the class was not very hard.”
PHIL76

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 mention exams and test-heavy structure, but do not clearly prove open-book, closed-book, or proctoring policies.

Test HeavyLecture-Based Exams

Assessment risk

Standard

55/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

and , but do not clearly prove the exact exam format.

Test HeavyLecture-Based Exams
“He gave lectures that if you followed you would get 100% on exams.”
PHIL120
“TEST HEAVY”
PHIL001

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“He gave lectures that if you followed you would get 100% on exams.”

Voice snapshots generated from 6 reviews, highlighting key themes in teaching and grading. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

60/100

“great subject horrible deliverer, you'll need YouTube to comprehend”

⚖️

60/100

“I felt this professor was extremely fair!”

👍 Recommendation Level

58/100

“ !”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • He was straight and to the point
  • you'll need YouTube to comprehend
  • he does not know how to teach

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • the class was not very hard.
  • He gave lectures that if you followed you would get 100% on exams.

Theme 3

❤️ About Personality

  • He was always willing to help!
  • He makes you laugh

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

6

Recent reviews read by the AI

6

Lifetime ratings

58/100

Evidence confidence

Six reviews span many years and give mixed but usable evidence, though several are old and brief.

Inside 6 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 53
4 out of 51
3 out of 50
2 out of 51
1 out of 51

Course coverage

PHIL0012 reviews
PHIL1202 reviews
PHIL762 reviews

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

2 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

1

F 1

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values