AI Rate Professor

Philosophy

Steven Ahmed

LOGIC010 · SOCIOSECT · SOC5 · PHILO10 · PHIL010 · SOC1 · PHIL10 · SOC01 · PHIL02 · PHIL3109 · LOGICSECT · LOGIC001 · LOGIC · 19 lifetime ratings

AI rating
28/100
RMP rating
2.4/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
2.7

The decision

unless you already love the subject and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProPolarizing lecturerTest errors commonRants off-topicNot an easy AAvoid if possible
  • , and off-topic with rants instead of real teaching.
  • , and grades are hard to fix.
  • A minority praise deep content or easy As if you attend and .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

35/100

A few students got As by attending and , but many say he is not an easy A and and mismatched.

.

Is the course easy?

Standard

48/100

Content ranges from easy quiz-from-text logic to hard philosophy material that as too difficult.

.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

; one SOC5 review implies attending every minute helps, but most reviews omit policy details.

.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

28/100

Most reviews urge finding another professor, citing poor teaching, test errors, and little learning.

.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

32/100

Students report , and grades that feel unfair.

Format shift

.

Workload

Moderate

55/100

Workload is not described as heavy; main pain is test quality and lecture mismatch rather than volume of homework.

Format shift

.

Teaching experience

Poor

30/100

Many call lectures dry rants or ; a minority find him inspiring and organized.

Format shift

.

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

72/100

Comments center on quizzes, midterms, and .

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

19 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person reviews are mixed but lean negative: many , and little learning, with a few glowing take-again stories.

Main concern

and the textbook, so grades can feel unfair.

What students said

“seriously! He uses class to rant about stuff that he believes in.”
SOC1
“He's not even an easy A.”
SOC01
“he shows favoritism and ”
LOGICSECT

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.

with grading errors, which frustrates students.

Lecture-based tests when notes matchTest bank errorsAnswer keys disputedPractice tests sometimes given

Assessment risk

Strict

35/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

as error-prone, poorly returned, or disconnected from lecture rants.

Test mistakesNo clear curvePractice tests in some courses
“the ! ”
LOGIC010
“ them”
LOGICSECT

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“A very poor instructor. Lectures had little to do with the subject matter. He basically went on 1 hour rants and then dismissed class.”

Voice snapshots generated from 19 in-person reviews spanning 2005-2013, highlighting teaching rants, exam errors, and split opinions. Credibility rating: Medium.

📉 Teaching Quality

30/100

“didn't teach much! talked about!”

🚫 Recommendation Level

28/100

“ . Find another professor.”

⚖️

32/100

“he makes tons of and doesnt give them back to you until you beg for them”

📚 Course Challenge

48/100

“The content isn't easy, but .”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • He uses class to rant about stuff that he believes in.
  • it's hard to stay awake
  • the .

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • He's not even an easy A.
  • .
  • Overall, it's an easy "A" class.

Theme 3

⚠️ About Reliability

  • Cancelled class several times during the summer session
  • and he won't fix them
  • STAY AWAY!!

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

19

Recent reviews read by the AI

19

Lifetime ratings

58/100

Evidence confidence

Nineteen mostly older in-person reviews with consistent negative themes but some strong positives and sparse grade data.

Inside 19 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 54
4 out of 52
3 out of 51
2 out of 56
1 out of 56

Course coverage

PHIL103 reviews
LOGIC0012 reviews
LOGIC0102 reviews
SOC12 reviews
SOC52 reviews
Show 8 more courses
LOGIC1 review
LOGICSECT1 review
PHIL0101 review
PHIL021 review
PHIL31091 review
PHILO101 review
SOC011 review
SOCIOSECT1 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