AI Rate Professor

Mathematics

Joyce Mi

STATS130 · MATH062 · MATH130 · 5 lifetime ratings

AI rating
22/100
RMP rating
2.2/5
Take again
20%
Difficulty
3.2

The decision

Avoid unless you are ready to teach yourself stats with little lecture support.

Best fit · Self Taught ProBoring lecturesHard to understandRushes materialSelf-teach requiredAttendance mandatory
  • Most students report and a hard-to-follow accent.
  • , yet many .
  • One outlier praises and cheat sheets, but overall tone is strongly negative.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

48/100

because lectures skip depth, but and a C- show an A is not free.

.

Is the course easy?

Standard

42/100

Content is standard stats/math difficulty, made harder by rushed and .

.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

15/100

and tags say skipping means you will not pass.

.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

22/100

Only one of ; most call lectures ineffective and recommend another teacher.

.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

42/100

and , but Tough Grader and weak reported grades pull leniency down.

Format shift

.

Workload

Heavy

32/100

LOTS OF HOMEWORK and .

Format shift

.

Teaching experience

Poor

28/100

Most students describe boring, rushed, hard-to-follow lectures with repeated mistakes and .

Format shift

.

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

68/100

TEST HEAVY tags and exam-focused comments outweigh homework mentions.

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

5 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person stats and math sections feel rushed and unclear; students often self-study while still required to attend.

Main concern

and inconsistent grading signals.

What students said

“Boring lectures, boring teacher, difficult to understand because of bad accent... prepare to teach yourself.”
MATH130
“ . just rushes to the .”
MATH130
“ but no real teaching method.”
MATH062

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.

Exams are central; one student got full-page cheat sheets and , but overall style is standard not especially friendly.

Cheat sheets allowedMakeup exam pointsTest heavy

Assessment risk

Standard

52/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

In-person exams can include cheat sheets and .

Cheat sheets allowedMakeup exam pointsTest heavy
“full page (front and back) cheat sheets, even gave us an opportunity !”
MATH130
“Because .”
MATH130

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Boring lectures, boring teacher, difficult to understand because of bad accent... prepare to teach yourself.”

Voice snapshots generated from 5 in-person reviews, highlighting teaching clarity, workload, and recommendation themes. Credibility rating: Medium.

📉 Teaching Quality

28/100

“Ineffective teaching methods, rushes lecture.”

👎 Recommendation Rate

22/100

“If you are .”

📚 Self-Teaching Load

30/100

“prepare to teach yourself.”

📝 Workload Pressure

32/100

“There's no doubt she knows statistics but to teach it is something totally different.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Boring lectures, boring teacher, difficult to understand because of bad accent
  • . just rushes to the
  • When asked to explain a problem she just repeats things over again

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • she makes the
  • Going over class notes she constantly makes mistakes

Theme 3

❤️ About Character

  • but no real teaching method
  • She corrects herself and apologizes
  • Caring

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

5

Recent reviews read by the AI

5

Lifetime ratings

55/100

Evidence confidence

Five detailed in-person reviews from 2018 with mostly consistent criticism, limited by small sample and no recent data.

Inside 5 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

MATH1303 reviews
MATH0621 review
STATS1301 review

Reported outcomes

C range results lead the reported letter grades.

2 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

B range

0

No reported values

C range

1

C- 1

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

1

Not sure yet 1