AI Rate Professor

Philosophy

Mathew Howery

PHIL320 · PHIL310 · PHIL300 · PHIL338 · 10 lifetime ratings

AI rating
76/100
RMP rating
4.1/5
Take again
70%
Difficulty
2.5

The decision

Good pick for if you will do the reading and and fairness more than a free ride.

Best fit · Beginner FriendlySupportive and ResponsiveGenerous Late PolicyPhilosophy Nerd EnergyReading HeavyClear Online Structure
  • , and fair if you put in effort.
  • , and exams rather than busywork.
  • A , and intense quizzes.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

EasyA

74/100

Most and papers, and grades reward effort, though a and strict rubrics.

Online has both easy-effort praise and ; in-person leans easy.

Is the course easy?

Beginner

72/100

Intro philosophy with manageable assignments for .

In-person called pretty easy; .

Is attendance flexible?

Optional

78/100

Many online ; in-person still benefits from showing up.

Online evidence drives flexibility; a .

Is this professor recommended?

WorthIt

70/100

About 70% would take again for passion, support, and organization despite a vocal minority of bad experiences.

Online is split between glowing and scathing; in-person is generally positive.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Lenient

72/100

Majority report fair, effort-rewarding grading and ; minority call quizzes and posts harshly graded.

Format shift

Positive leniency is mostly online support stories; negatives also online.

Workload

Moderate

60/100

Reading-heavy with papers, discussions, and short exams, but usually not busywork-heavy.

Format shift

Online comments stress weekly reading and quizzes; .

Teaching experience

Good

78/100

and responsive help for most students, undercut by a couple of very poor reviews.

Format shift

Online savvy is a repeated strength; in-person also notes engaging lectures.

Assessment method

Balanced

50/100

Mix of discussion posts, papers, short exams, and .

Format shift

Online outlines papers plus exams and posts; .

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

Low confidence · Best fit for Beginner Friendly

In-person students call classes pretty easy and engaging if you show up and do the work.

Main concern

STEM students may feel jargon-heavy in short formats.

What students said

“Pretty easy class overall. The lectures were interesting without being too dense, and the and to the point.”
PHIL320
“One of ! He's genuinely passionate about philosophy and it makes it so much more engaging.”
PHIL310
“As a STEM major, it felt like a lot of jargon to acquaint myself with. Don't know if .”
Phil338

Remote format

Online

7 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Beginner Friendly

Online majority praise clear organization, , and fair effort-based grading.

Main concern

Two strong , and little exam feedback.

What students said

“Not to much busywork and the . Very nice and always excited to nerd out about philosophy. 10/10”
Phil338
“The pressure. and rewards effort, not just perfection.”
PHIL300
“Might be the . Every assignment is full of typos and grammatical errors. ”
PHIL310

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Assessments mix papers, discussions, and short exams; reviews do not clearly prove webcam proctoring.

Short ExamsDiscussion PostsPapersLowest Exam Dropped Sometimes

Assessment risk

Standard

65/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

In-person comments focus on simple assignments and interesting .

Simple AssignmentsLecture Based
“the and to the point. If you show up (or watch the lectures if it's online) and do the work, you'll do well.”
PHIL320

Online

Online sections use papers, discussion posts, weekly quizzes in some terms, and .

PapersDiscussion PostsShort ExamsWeekly Quizzes Sometimes
“The course includes one paper, 4 short exams (lowest grade dropped!), and discussion posts.”
PHIL300
“Weekly quizzes are very difficult and weekly discussion posts are graded so harshly. Midterm, and details from the readings.”
PHIL310

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Some reading can be hard, but professor Howery is incredibly supportive and really wants you to succeed. and willing to Zoom. The pressure.”

Voice snapshots generated from 10 reviews (7 online, 3 in person), balancing majority praise with minority critiques. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

78/100

“Great professor! and . The course was organized and easy to follow.”

👍 Recommendation Rate

70/100

“ if you want a fun and well-run class.”

📖 Reading Load

60/100

“Yes, there's a lot of reading, but it's philosophy. The lectures are really helpful an .”

⚠️

40/100

“Might be the . Every assignment is full of typos and grammatical errors. and the workload is 10x more than any other class.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • always excited to nerd out about philosophy

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • Pretty easy class overall
  • and rewards effort, not just perfection

Theme 3

❤️ About Character

  • incredibly supportive and really wants you to succeed
  • met with me several times over zoom
  • First professor to not treat me like I'm stupid

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

10

Recent reviews read by the AI

10

Lifetime ratings

58/100

Evidence confidence

Only ten reviews with polarized quality (mostly 5s plus two 1s), so patterns are useful but not rock solid.

Inside 10 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 57
4 out of 51
3 out of 50
2 out of 50
1 out of 52

Course coverage

PHIL3104 reviews
PHIL3003 reviews
Phil3382 reviews
PHIL3201 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

10 reported outcomes

A range

5

A 5

B range

4

B 3 · B- 1

C range

1

C+ 1

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values