AI Rate Professor

Engineering

Claudio Howard

ENGRV02 · 1 lifetime ratings

AI rating
20/100
RMP rating
1.5/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
2.0

The decision

Avoid if you need strong teaching; content is easy but instruction and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProInexperiencedIneffective methodsEasy contentPoor gradingIndustry not teaching
  • This was the instructor's first teaching experience and methods felt poorly executed.
  • Subject matter itself was easy to understand.
  • Students say instructions and .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

55/100

Content was easy but , and the reported grade was a B not an automatic A.

Evidence .

Is the course easy?

Beginner

74/100

Student said the subject matter was easy to comprehend and difficulty was only 2.

Evidence .

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

.

Evidence .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

18/100

First-time teaching performance fell short of expectations with ineffective methods.

Evidence .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

28/100

Student said grading sucked despite easy content, pointing to harsh or .

Format shift

Evidence .

Workload

Light

68/100

No heavy workload complaints; main issues were teaching quality and grading.

Format shift

Evidence .

Teaching experience

Poor

22/100

First teaching experience with ineffective methods and poor instructions.

Format shift

Evidence .

Assessment method

Balanced

50/100

Reviews .

Format shift

Evidence .

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

1 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

but weak teaching methods, instructions, and grading.

Main concern

Ineffective teaching and .

What students said

“his teaching methods were often ineffective and poorly executed.”
ENGRV02
“Subject matter was easy to comprehend but instructions, and .”
ENGRV02

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 .

Assessment risk

Varies

45/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

No explicit exam policy .

“instructions, and .”
ENGRV02

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Subject matter was easy to comprehend but instructions, and .”

Voice snapshots generated from 1 in-person review, highlighting weak first-time teaching and easy content. Credibility rating: Low.

📉 Teaching Quality

22/100

“his teaching methods were often ineffective and poorly executed.”

⚖️ Grading

28/100

“instructions, and .”

📘 Content Ease

74/100

“Subject matter was easy to comprehend”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Experience

  • the instructors 1st experience as a teacher
  • teaching methods were often ineffective and poorly executed

Theme 2

📈 About Content & Grades

  • Subject matter was easy to comprehend
  • instructions, and .

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

1

Recent reviews read by the AI

1

Lifetime ratings

20/100

Evidence confidence

Only one 2014 review from a first-time teaching semester limits reliability.

Inside 1 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

ENGRV021 review

Reported outcomes

B range results lead the reported letter grades.

1 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

B range

1

B 1

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