AI Rate Professor

English

Michael Angelone

WRITING100 · WRIT302 · ENGWR302 · ENG300 · ENGWR102 · ENGWR303 · EGL100 · ENGWR300 · 16 lifetime ratings

AI rating
86/100
RMP rating
4.4/5
Take again
50%
Difficulty
2.4

The decision

if and politics; skip if you want a minimal gen-ed workload online.

Best fit · Effort For RewardEngaging DiscussionsLots of WritingCurrent Events FocusLiberal GradingFunny and Approachable
  • Most students love his humor, media ties, and flexible writing prompts
  • Writing load is real, but if you do the work
  • Recent online gen-ed review is sharply negative compared with older in-person praise

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

EasyA

76/100

, and no strict word minimums make strong grades reachable if you complete the writing.

Online gen-ed feels trickier; in-person comments more often call him easy with .

Is the course easy?

Beginner

64/100

, though volume of reading and essays keeps it from being trivial.

; one online review finds creative tasks annoying for gen ed.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

48/100

; one online review says mandatory while most older reviews do not emphasize it.

; online ENGWR300 noted mandatory attendance.

Is this professor recommended?

WorthIt

74/100

Long-run praise is strong for writers who engage, though a recent online critique and 50 percent take-again rate keep it from a must-take.

; the newest online gen-ed review is strongly negative.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Lenient

78/100

Students note , and help getting the grade you want when work is submitted.

Format shift

Online recent review disputes fairness with trick assignments.

Workload

Moderate

46/100

Expect lots of , and course but not light.

Format shift

Both formats mention substantial writing and reading load.

Teaching experience

Good

84/100

, and strong at structure and critical thinking; a recent online review is an outlier.

Format shift

In-person quality is consistently high; online quality is mixed.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

22/100

, and discussions rather than traditional exams.

Format shift

True across online and in-person writing sections.

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

14 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

as funny, flexible, discussion-rich, and easier than expected when you complete the writing.

Main concern

Lots of writing and heavy focus on politics or current events may not fit every student.

What students said

“yeah theres alot of writing but it is a writing class so come on”
ENGWR300
“ , and the prompts left room for individual flexibility.”
EGL100
“he's easy going about due dates and he'll help you get the grade you want in the class.”
WRITING100

Remote format

Online

2 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

one critical-theory student loved effort-based learning and feedback, while a recent ENGWR300 gen-ed student called assignments tricky and a waste of time.

Main concern

and creative tasks that .

What students said

“Professor sets up trick assignments and marks down if you don't read his mind.”
ENGWR300
“He is very understanding but really expects you to put forth the ”
ENGWR303

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Assessment is writing-centered with flexible prompts and little mention of strict proctored exams.

Essay BasedFlexible PromptsDiscussion Heavy

Assessment risk

StudentFriendly

70/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

In-person assessment focuses on essays, organization, discussions, and .

Essay WritingOpen DiscussionFlexible Prompts
“ , and the prompts left room for individual flexibility.”
EGL100
“Make sure you work more on .e.--must have intro, 2 bodies, and a conclusion”
ENGWR302

Online

Online work includes chapter reading, reflections, creative tasks, and AI chatbot conversations rather than classic proctored tests.

Reading ReflectionsCreative AssignmentsDiscussion Work
“ who can't draw or not a writer), convos with AI chatbots(so stupid, waste of time).”
ENGWR300

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ ! yeah theres alot of writing but it is a writing class so come on but other than that just be yourself with him”

Voice snapshots generated from 16 reviews (2 online, 14 in person), highlighting writing freedom versus workload. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

84/100

“I was terrified of taking an English class. Mr. Angelone makes writing soooo much easier than I ever thought.”

📝

78/100

“ , and the prompts left room for individual flexibility.”

📚 Writing Workload

46/100

“Really awesome professor, lots of writing, but what do you expect its a writing class.”

⚠️ Online Caution

30/100

“Waste of time class.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • He is funny and likes to tie in Media with a lot of his teaching
  • , and non-sterile
  • Tells good stories and has a good sense of humor

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty and Grades

  • I found it easy to pass his class
  • he's easy going about due dates
  • Professor Angelone is fairly easy

Theme 3

🗣️ About Class Culture

  • he likes to have class discussions relating to the topics at hand
  • Angelone is objective
  • just be yourself with him he dont care what you tink

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

16

Recent reviews read by the AI

16

Lifetime ratings

68/100

Evidence confidence

Sixteen reviews with rich detail support the pattern, but most are older and the two online reviews disagree, so confidence is medium.

Inside 16 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 512
4 out of 53
3 out of 50
2 out of 50
1 out of 51

Course coverage

ENG3005 reviews
ENGWR3003 reviews
ENGWR1022 reviews
ENGWR3022 reviews
EGL1001 review
Show 3 more courses
ENGWR3031 review
WRIT3021 review
WRITING1001 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

2 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

0

No reported values