AI Rate Professor

Engineering

Robert Ayer

M04 · ENGR4MATH7 · ENGRM16 · ENGR16 · ENGM04 · ENGRMO4 · ENGRM04 · ENGENG · M16 · 12 lifetime ratings

AI rating
22/100
RMP rating
1.9/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
2.4

The decision

Avoid unless you only need a free credit and .

Best fit · Easy A HunterUnprepared LecturesAutomatic A RiskAnecdote HeavyMissed ClassesLearn Nothing
  • Many students call him unprepared, absent, or unable to teach despite subject knowledge.
  • Some courses feel like an automatic A with little learning or structure.
  • Lectures often wander into stories, pizza, sports, or job anecdotes instead of skills.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

EasyA

84/100

Multiple reviews describe automatic As, no real tests, and easy passing with almost no learning required.

; no online reviews.

Is the course easy?

Introductory

82/100

Students say they learned almost nothing and spent class on off-topic talk instead of hard engineering content.

; no online reviews.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

45/100

Professor often cancelled or missed class, but .

; no online reviews.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

18/100

Overwhelming consensus calls him useless or the .

; no online reviews.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Generous

88/100

Several classes are described as automatic A with little assessment rigor.

Format shift

.

Workload

Featherlight

86/100

Minimal real work, cancelled classes, and projects that sometimes never happen.

Format shift

.

Teaching experience

Awful

18/100

Unprepared lectures, missed classes, and off-topic stories dominate the student experience.

Format shift

.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

35/100

Assessment is sparse and project-based when present, with little serious testing described.

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

12 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Easy A Hunter

and low-value, with missed sessions, weak labs, and easy grades for little learning.

Main concern

Very poor teaching quality and wasted class time despite occasional easy grades.

What students said

“The class is an automatic A, but it is a challenge to sit through.”
M04
“The . The class was a joke.”
ENGRM04
“He knows what he's doing but he doesn't know how to teach it.”
ENGRM16

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.

Several reviews say there were no real tests and only a .

Few or no testsFinal project onlyAutomatic A

Assessment risk

StudentFriendly

80/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

and relied on a loose project or automatic A.

No testsFinal projectAutomatic A
“ . we did have a ”
M04
“The class is an automatic A, but it is a challenge to sit through.”
M04

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“I still believe this prof to be the . He hardly showed for class and when he did it was pointless having him there.”

Voice snapshots generated from 12 in-person reviews, highlighting poor teaching, easy grades, and wasted time. Credibility rating: High.

🚫 Teaching Quality

18/100

“he is still by far the most useless teacher I have ever had.”

🍕 Easy but Empty

84/100

“The class is an automatic A, but it is a challenge to sit through.”

📉 Recommendation

18/100

“He should never teach again.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • never prepared to lecture
  • cancelled class multiple times
  • spend most of class time on worthless problems

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty and Grades

  • we all got A's
  • learnt nothing. nothing at all
  • automatic A

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

12

Recent reviews read by the AI

12

Lifetime ratings

78/100

Evidence confidence

Twelve largely consistent negative in-person reviews across years make the poor teaching pattern reliable despite older dates.

Inside 12 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 51
4 out of 50
3 out of 52
2 out of 54
1 out of 55

Course coverage

ENGR4MATH72 reviews
ENGRM042 reviews
M042 reviews
ENGENG1 review
ENGM041 review
Show 4 more courses
ENGR161 review
ENGRM161 review
ENGRMO41 review
M161 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