AI Rate Professor

Cabrillo College · Construction

Jim Heaney

CEM167 · CEM169 · CEM164 · 3 lifetime ratings

AI rating
94/100
RMP rating
4.5/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
3.3

The decision

if you want a strong instructor who makes demanding construction code material clearer and more practical.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerExcellent InstructorHelpful ClarifierReal World ExamplesDry Code Material
  • Students strongly praise his teaching and say he makes construction code easier to apply.
  • , and .
  • The subject matter itself can be dry and moderately difficult.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

55/100

No grades are reported, and the moderate difficulty ratings suggest students should expect fair but real effort.

All evidence comes from in-person reviews, with no online grade evidence.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

38/100

Construction code is described as dry material, so the course content is intellectually demanding even with strong teaching.

Only in-person evidence exists, and .

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

.

, and there are no online reviews.

Is this professor recommended?

MustTake

92/100

Students strongly recommend him because , and makes difficult code material practical.

Recommendation .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

55/100

There is , so but not clearly lenient.

Format shift

Only in-person reviews exist, and .

Workload

Moderate

50/100

Reviews , but the code material itself requires attention.

Format shift

All workload evidence is indirect from in-person comments about course content.

Teaching experience

Excellent

92/100

Students describe him as , and worth taking again even when not required.

Format shift

Teaching and is consistently strong.

Assessment method

Balanced

50/100

Reviews do .

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

3 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

In-person reviews describe him as one of the to real situations.

Main concern

The course material can still be dry and somewhat difficult.

What students said

“One of the ”
CEM164
“Always willing to take time to clarify anything you didn't understand”
CEM164
“wished taught all of the code classes”
CEM167

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.

Reviews .

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Assessment risk

Standard

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

The format or rules.

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“One of the i didn't even need just to see him again.”

Voice snapshots generated from 3 reviews, highlighting teaching strength and construction code difficulty. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

92/100

“One of the i didn't even need just to see him again.”

👍 Recommendation Level

92/100

“wished taught all of the code classes”

📚 Course Challenge

38/100

“ dry reading material) to the real world.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • One of the i didn't even need just to see him again.
  • Always willing to take time to clarify anything you didn't understand
  • Enjoys what he does, and it shows.

Theme 2

🏗️ About Course Material

  • dry reading material) to the real world.
  • wished taught all of the code classes
  • Goofy.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

3

Recent reviews read by the AI

3

Lifetime ratings

55/100

Evidence confidence

Credibility is medium-low because the three reviews are consistent and specific but old and limited in number.

Inside 3 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

CEM1641 review
CEM1671 review
CEM1691 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