AI Rate Professor

Computer Science

Ali Fazelpour

CSV40 · CSV11 · CSV30 · CSV13 · 30 lifetime ratings

AI rating
18/100
RMP rating
1.5/5
Take again
9.68%
Difficulty
4.1

The decision

Avoid Ali Fazelpour if any alternative exists; and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProGroup project nightmareExpensive broken softwareDisorganized lecturesSelf-study requiredAvoid if possible
  • Lectures are painful, repetitive, and poorly structured so most students teach themselves.
  • Grades hinge heavily on group projects where inactive teammates force you to do everyone else's work.
  • Required Cengage/MindTap textbooks are expensive and often broken, with little return.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

38/100

As and Bs appear, but , and tough grading that marks down unspecified criteria.

Both online and in-person students report and carrying group work.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

32/100

Content is introductory CS, but messy rubrics, broken tools, and weak teaching make the material feel harder than it should.

Online students cite MindTap failures; in-person students cite redundant lectures and .

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

28/100

, though a few note it is low weight so missing class is still common.

; several online reviews report optional attendance.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

12/100

Nearly all students say take anyone else because lectures, tools, and .

and in-person reviews.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

28/100

, and points are docked for things never clearly specified.

Format shift

Online and ; online also cites group-project penalties.

Workload

Heavy

28/100

, and broken paid software create steady high effort.

Format shift

Online reviews emphasize hidden assignments and MindTap waits; in-person emphasize endless group work.

Teaching experience

Awful

22/100

Students describe painful, repetitive, book-reading lectures that leave them unable to code without self-teaching.

Format shift

Negative teaching comments dominate both formats with only rare outliers.

Assessment method

Balanced

55/100

, and exams, with group work often deciding the outcome.

Format shift

and study guides more; and projects.

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

22 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person classes are lecture-heavy and , and attendance often marked mandatory.

Main concern

You are graded as a group even when teammates vanish, and lectures rarely teach usable coding skills.

What students said

“ !”
CSV13
“No student comes out of his classes knowing how to code.”
CSV13
“I basically taught myself for the entire semester.”
CS-V11

Remote format

Online

9 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

Online sections suffer from missing Canvas to-dos, unclear group instructions, broken MindTap, and .

Main concern

, and paid software fails while .

What students said

“ .”
CS-V11
“I did not come away knowing how to code.”
CS-V11
“The list so I ended up missing a few assignments.”
CS-V11

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Exams exist and often track study guides, but and .

Study guide aligned examsTest heavyQuiz and homework mix

Assessment risk

Standard

48/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

In-person reviews describe test-heavy courses and proctoring software details.

Study guide examsTest heavy
“ .”
CSV13
“He uses very specific wording on the exams, so if he's repeating something make sure you understand what he is saying.”
CSV13

Online

Online reviews mention weekly quizzes and webcam or Lockdown evidence.

Weekly quizzesHomework heavy
“You and .”
CS-V11

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ .”

Voice snapshots generated from 31 reviews spanning online and , and teaching failure. Credibility rating: High.

💥 Teaching Quality

22/100

“He is a smart guy with no idea how to teach or structure a class.”

👎 Recommendation Rate

12/100

“ if you can, im sure the rating speaks for itself.”

👥

20/100

“some girl in the class was forced to do the work for 4 people.”

💸 Costly Broken Tools

25/100

“Expect group projects, very little communication, and an use that doesn't work.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Painful & poorly structured lectures.
  • This dude literally projects the textbook on the board and .
  • His lectures are incredibly unhelpful.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • It's possible to get an A: self study where needed.
  • Quiz and HW are relatively .
  • No student comes out of his classes knowing how to code.

Theme 3

💸 About Cost & Tools

  • costly textbook (Which costs more than $100)
  • we're hit with the $92 textbook to connect with Cengage
  • We were required to buy a $100 term subscription service to even do the work.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

31

Recent reviews read by the AI

30

Lifetime ratings

86/100

Evidence confidence

31 detailed reviews from 2021-2026 show , and weak teaching across formats.

Inside 31 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 51
4 out of 51
3 out of 53
2 out of 53
1 out of 523

Course coverage

CS-V1115 reviews
CSV1312 reviews
CSV303 reviews
CSV401 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

30 reported outcomes

A range

13

A+ 2 · A 10 · A- 1

B range

9

B+ 1 · B 8

C range

1

C- 1

D range

1

D+ 1

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

6

Drop/Withdrawal 2 · Incomplete 1 · Not sure yet 1 · Rather not say 2