AI Rate Professor

Accounting

Paul Siebert

G111 · ACCTG111 · ACCTG115 · 3 lifetime ratings

AI rating
38/100
RMP rating
2.3/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
2.7

The decision

if you can learn independently from the book and tolerate a boring lecture style.

Best fit · Self Taught ProKnowledgeable But BoringReads SlidesLow Attendance NeedPoor Online Support
  • Students say he knows tax material well but .
  • The in-person class sounds easy and if .
  • One review reports serious online course management failures and a successful grievance.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

66/100

The class is described as easy with low participation, but there is not enough grade evidence to call it a free A.

All authoritative format counts place the evidence in class.

Is the course easy?

Beginner

70/100

Students describe the class as easy if they read the book and work through problems independently.

.

Is attendance flexible?

Optional

88/100

Students explicitly say most classes are not necessary if .

Attendance .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

35/100

His knowledge helps, but boring delivery and one severe support failure make the recommendation weak.

and a serious negative experience.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

50/100

Reviews .

Format shift

Only in-person-counted reviews exist, and .

Workload

Light

76/100

The course sounds light for self-directed students because participation and .

Format shift

.

Teaching experience

Poor

44/100

He is knowledgeable, but students repeatedly describe the teaching as boring, passive, and sometimes unsupported.

Format shift

In-person-counted reviews are consistently weak on delivery quality.

Assessment method

Balanced

45/100

Reviews mention reading, book problems, and old online tests but do not establish a .

Format shift

.

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

3 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

but boring lectures and one serious complaint about a course described in the comment as online.

Main concern

Teaching may feel passive, boring, or poorly supported.

What students said

“His class is easy and doesn't require much participation.”
G111
“Knowledgeable guy, just boring and useless.”
ACCTG111
“ ”
ACCTG115

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 old IRS SEE online tests but do not .

Exam Policy Not Clearly ProvenOld Online Tests Mentioned

Assessment risk

Varies

45/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

In-person-counted reviews , though one comment mentions old IRS SEE online tests and .

Old Online Tests MentionedExam Policy Not Clearly Proven
“Inst used old IRS SEE online tests w/ official ”
ACCTG115

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Knowledgeable guy, just boring and useless.”

Voice snapshots generated from 3 reviews, highlighting key themes in teaching style, flexibility, and support problems. Credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Quality

44/100

“He reads the and then reads the chapter from the book for the remainder of the class.”

👍 Recommendation Rate

35/100

“Knowledgeable guy, just boring and useless.”

🧭 Course Flexibility

88/100

“Not necessary to attend most classes.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Prof. Siebert is a tax and the IRS.
  • Knowledgeable guy, just boring and useless.
  • He reads the pages verbatim and there is no need to attend if you read the book and answer the problems with a .

Theme 2

⚠️ About Course Support

  • Inst stopped sending out 47% of

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

3

Recent reviews read by the AI

3

Lifetime ratings

42/100

Evidence confidence

Only three old reviews exist, and one comment conflicts with the authoritative online count, limiting confidence.

Inside 3 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

ACCTG1111 review
ACCTG1151 review
G1111 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

0 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

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