AI Rate Professor

Computer Science

Sandra Feder

CISP360 · CISC305 · CISW300 · MATH27 · CISW410 · CISW320 · CIS13A · CIS23 · COMPSCI · CISC310 · BEGINNINGWEB · CIS306 · CISC306 · WEBDESIGN · CS · CISCSPRI · CISA305 · CISC320 · CISW325 · CIS2 · 44 lifetime ratings

AI rating
24/100
RMP rating
1.9/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
3.4

The decision

Avoid Feder if you want clear CS instruction; only consider her if and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProUnclear lecturesCopy-the-code styleDisorganizedHeavy-handed gradingSelf-teach required
  • Most students say lectures are unhelpful and amount to watching her type code to copy.
  • Courses often force self-teaching via Google, labs, or books while .
  • A minority report easy A paths with note cards or revisions, but overall recommendation is strongly negative.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

54/100

Some courses offer note cards, , or , but many students still report heavy-handed, late, or picky grading.

Online review emphasizes harsh grading; if you do the work.

Is the course easy?

Standard

48/100

Content difficulty varies by course, but and busywork often make the class feel harder than the material itself.

; in-person difficulty ranges from easy quizzes to long assignments.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

30/100

Multiple reviews say attendance is mandatory even when lectures are considered useless, and some .

Online review notes lab time demands; .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

22/100

The dominant student if you want to actually learn programming or web development.

Both the online review and the .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

34/100

Students often call grading heavy-handed, picky, late, or unclear, though a few note revisions or note-card help.

Format shift

Online review ; in-person results are mixed but lean strict.

Workload

Heavy

32/100

Even 1-unit classes are repeatedly called work-heavy, tedious, and full of long research or programming tasks.

Format shift

Both formats report substantial time sinks and .

Teaching experience

Poor

28/100

Lectures are widely described as boring, outdated, error-filled, or pure code-copying with .

Format shift

Online and in-person comments both emphasize weak instruction and poor communication.

Assessment method

Balanced

55/100

, and projects, with programming assignments often carrying large weight.

Format shift

In-person reviews give the most assessment detail; the online .

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

43 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person CS and web courses are widely described as disorganized and low-instruction, with students copying code and learning on their own.

Main concern

, and mandatory attendance without useful lectures.

What students said

“If you want to .”
360
“I would recommend taking this course from another instructor/school.”
CISW410
“pretty easy class. you use a huge note card for exams”
CISP360

Remote format

Online

1 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

The single online review says she ignores email, grades harshly without feedback, and .

Main concern

Poor communication and .

What students said

“She did .”
CISW320
“Does not tell u where ur mistakes r just grades with a heavy hand n she does not care”
CISW320

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

cards to long open-book or write-a-program finals, with uneven clarity.

Huge note card allowedQuizzes match testsLong open-book examsProgramming final from scratch

Assessment risk

Standard

48/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

and tests to long open-book midterms and write-from-scratch programming finals.

Huge note cardQuizzes mirror testsFour-hour open book examWrite program from scratch
“she lets you use a huge note card for exams”
CISP360
“She tells you what's on the ”
CISP360
“gives a ”
CISCSPRI

Online

The online review does not clearly describe proctoring tools or .

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“If you want to .”

Voice snapshots generated from 44 reviews (1 online, 43 in-person), highlighting weak instruction and mixed grade ease. Credibility rating: High.

⚠️ Teaching Quality

28/100

“Lecture consists for watching her write code on the project and copying it down.”

🚫 Recommendation

22/100

“I would recommend taking this course from another instructor/school.”

📚

30/100

“You will do most of the learning on your own.”

⚖️

34/100

“just grades with a heavy hand n she does not care”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Her lectures are boring and not very useful imo.
  • on what codes do or how to apply them.
  • She has no idea how to use a computer.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • Easy A
  • VERY EASY CLASS IF YOU DO ALL THE WORK & TURN THEM IN ON TIME.
  • she grades very hard and unreasonable for a 1unit class.

Theme 3

🧩 About Organization

  • .
  • , and riddled with errors.
  • She won't grade anything until the end of the course.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

44

Recent reviews read by the AI

44

Lifetime ratings

88/100

Evidence confidence

Forty-four reviews over many years show a large sample with strong consistency on poor teaching and self-teach requirements, despite some course-to-course grade variation.

Inside 44 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 53
4 out of 52
3 out of 58
2 out of 512
1 out of 519

Course coverage

CISC3059 reviews
CISW4108 reviews
CISW3204 reviews
CISC3103 reviews
CISP3602 reviews
Show 16 more courses
CISW3002 reviews
CISW3252 reviews
3601 review
BEGINNINGWEB1 review
CIS13A1 review
CIS21 review
CIS231 review
CIS3061 review
CISA3051 review
CISC3061 review
CISC3201 review
CISCSPRI1 review
COMPSCI1 review
CS1 review
MATH271 review
WEBDESIGN1 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

2 reported outcomes

A range

2

A 2

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