AI Rate Professor

Chemistry

Nadia Biglari

CHEM210 · 71 lifetime ratings

AI rating
18/100
RMP rating
1.9/5
Take again
21.13%
Difficulty
4.2

The decision

if ; many students call it a waste of time and money.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerWorst chem teachingExams mismatch lecturesExtremely late gradingTough and inconsistentSelf-study required
  • Students , and mismatched to exams.
  • , and harsh, with little curve despite low class averages.
  • Success usually requires teaching yourself from the textbook or YouTube, not lectures.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

MissionImpossible

14/100

Students report D-range averages, , and only rare As .

; the two online reviews do not overturn the hard-A pattern.

Is the course easy?

BrainBurner

16/100

Chemistry is made harder by crammed units, unreadable notes, and .

In-person comments dominate the brain-burner picture; online sample is too small to change it.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

48/100

while many others say no, with survival depending more on self-study than seat time.

; and lecture presence still matter practically.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

16/100

warnings across dozens of recent reviews.

; online has one glowing review against one critical one.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

12/100

, and late grade-book reveals leave little safety net.

Format shift

; online evidence is thin.

Workload

Overwhelming

18/100

, and constant catch-up make the load feel crushing.

Format shift

In-person and the limited online and labs.

Teaching experience

Awful

16/100

Students say , and leave them teaching themselves.

Format shift

; online praise is an outlier.

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

78/100

and labs secondary and often returned late.

Format shift

Both formats that mention assessment emphasize tests and .

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

48 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person CHEM is flooded with warnings , and needing to self-teach.

Main concern

and error-prone, and support during lab or lecture feels weak.

What students said

“She is SO BAD!!!, if I could give her a zero I would.”
CHEM210
“lectures and we had to do our own learning outside of class.”
CHEM210
“If you have weak skills in Chem, find another professor.”
CHEM210

Remote format

Online

2 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

Only two online reviews, split between strong praise and complaints about inconsistency and .

Main concern

Tiny sample and mixed claims make online outcomes hard to trust.

What students said

“Professor Biglari has a remarkable talent for making daunting topics like stoichiometry and thermodynamics feel manageable.”
CHEM210
“The thing that I really don't like about her is that she's not consistent”
CHEM210

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

, and are graded harshly with little forgiveness.

Test heavyNo curveCheat sheet limitedSig fig strictExam content beyond lecture

Assessment risk

Strict

22/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

as harder than lectures, sometimes with limited cheat sheets and .

No curveLong examsUnrelated homework before examsCheat sheet one sideStrict sig figs
“ , and not reflective of the material covered in class.”
CHEM210
“We were given one side of a page for our cheat sheet.”
CHEM210
“ ”
CHEM210

Online

and but do not clearly prove proctoring tools.

Test heavyHeavy lab workInconsistent policies
“About the workload, it's a .”
CHEM210

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“If you had to listen to one rmp rating, let it be hers. She is the and for a subject like chemistry, it's not ideal.”

Voice snapshots generated from 50 reviews, centering the dominant negative CHEM experience. Credibility rating: High.

🚫

16/100

“ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

🧪

22/100

“lectures and we had to do our own learning outside of class.”

⏳

20/100

“doenst grade until the very very last minute. exam 2s were graded 1 hour before withdrawal date.”

📚

18/100

“The only source of actual learning is directly from the textbook.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Quality

  • She somehow can make the simplest topics so confusing.
  • Her lectures SUCK. She doesnt prepare us at all for .
  • she teaches like you already know the topic and speeds through.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • Only 2 out of the 50 enrolled students ended up with an A
  • Be aware of sig fig in exams

Theme 3

⚠️ About Trust & Consistency

  • Didn't keep her word on anything
  • she's not consistent; the thing she said after few days it'd become different.
  • positive ratings all made by professor herself.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

50

Recent reviews read by the AI

71

Lifetime ratings

86/100

Evidence confidence

Fifty mostly recent reviews are highly consistent on poor teaching and harsh testing, despite a few contested positive posts.

Inside 50 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 512
4 out of 52
3 out of 51
2 out of 57
1 out of 549

Course coverage

CHEM21050 reviews

Reported outcomes

No letter grade reported results lead the reported letter grades.

49 reported outcomes

A range

10

A+ 2 · A 7 · A- 1

B range

6

B+ 3 · B 3

C range

5

C+ 1 · C 4

D range

1

D 1

F

1

F 1

No letter grade reported

26

Drop/Withdrawal 5 · Not sure yet 8 · Rather not say 13