AI Rate Professor

Political Science

Phillip Grant

POLSV03 · POLMO3 · M01A · POLMO1 · POLSM03 · POLS101 · POLM03 · 8 lifetime ratings

AI rating
18/100
RMP rating
1.4/5
Take again
0%
Difficulty
3.3

The decision

unless you have no other option and and the book.

Best fit · Self Taught ProAvoid at all costsUnclear lecturesBoring and rudeHarsh attendance penaltiesConfusing grading
  • Nearly every review calls him the and .
  • Lectures are described as , and empty of real learning.
  • Attendance penalties and not hard.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

35/100

A few students passed with little effort, but , and no .

; no online reviews.

Is the course easy?

Standard

45/100

Content itself is not always deep, but unclear teaching and .

; no online reviews.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

15/100

after a few absences, and some report being kicked out for minor issues.

; no online reviews.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

12/100

because he does not teach clearly and ruins the class experience.

; no online reviews.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

25/100

as unclear and punitive, with marks off for outside sources and hard finals many fail.

Format shift

; no online reviews.

Workload

Moderate

45/100

Online quizzes and video assignments can be light, but and .

Format shift

; no online reviews.

Teaching experience

Awful

18/100

Students say he contradicts himself, circles random board words, wastes class time, and teaches nothing.

Format shift

; no online reviews.

Assessment method

Balanced

55/100

Work mixes online quizzes, written assignments from lectures, and a .

Format shift

; no online reviews.

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

8 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

as confusing, boring, and hostile, with little real teaching.

Main concern

, and failure-prone finals.

What students said

“He is the !”
POLSV03
“Even if you have to wait a .”
POLM03
“if you don't show up more than 3 times... you lose 600 points.”
M01A

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.

Quizzes often come straight from the text, while and are described as failure-prone.

Quizzes from textbookLecture-only sources requiredHard finalNo extra credit

Assessment risk

Strict

30/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

and a difficult memorization-heavy final with little support.

Quizzes from textbookHard finalNo extra creditLecture-only written sources
“ and all of the .”
POLMO3
“you pretty much need to memorize the book for the !”
POLSM03

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ .”

Voice snapshots generated from 8 in-person , and punitive policies. Credibility rating: High.

🚫 Recommendation Disaster

12/100

“Even if you have to wait a .”

📉 Teaching Quality

18/100

“all he does is write certain words on the board and circles them like ten time ,but and often contradicts himself”

⚠️

15/100

“if you don't show up more than 3 times... you lose 600 points.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • He doesn't teach and makes no sense.
  • Boring as hell and you don't learn anything
  • makes up definitions for words and if you try and correct him he gets mad

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • I didn't put any effort in & got a B.
  • you pretty much need to memorize the book for the !
  • .

Theme 3

💔 About Character

  • He is rude and .
  • kicks you out of class for anything and everything
  • he will ruin your life.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

8

Recent reviews read by the AI

8

Lifetime ratings

72/100

Evidence confidence

Eight consistently negative in-person reviews across 2009-2016 with specific examples of poor teaching and harsh policies.

Inside 8 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 50
4 out of 51
3 out of 50
2 out of 51
1 out of 56

Course coverage

POLM032 reviews
M01A1 review
POLMO11 review
POLMO31 review
POLS1011 review
Show 2 more courses
POLSM031 review
POLSV031 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

3 reported outcomes

A range

1

A 1

B range

1

B 1

C range

0

No reported values

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

1

Rather_Not_Say 1