AI Rate Professor

English As A Second Language

Trang Abeid

ENGWR301 · ENGRD310 · ESLW40 · ENGWR300 · 11 lifetime ratings

AI rating
20/100
RMP rating
1.9/5
Take again
16.67%
Difficulty
3.8

The decision

Avoid unless you can , and unclear course organization.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerTough graderHeavy workloadDisorganized courseCaring but unclearReading and papers
  • Most reviews , and .
  • A few students found her caring, funny, and helpful, but that praise is outweighed by complaints about organization.
  • Getting an A is possible, but students report a high time cost and .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

28/100

A grades appear possible, but comments repeatedly , and .

Online and A, with online comments stressing rigorous grading and in-person comments stressing workload and disorganization.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

32/100

The course content itself may be introductory, but the , and .

Online reviews emphasize excessive work for an intro course, while and many papers.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

18/100

because at least one review says students need class for quiz and test answers.

The attendance evidence comes from in-person reviews, while online reviews .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

18/100

Most students do not recommend her because of , and .

Both formats include negative recommendations, though one online review strongly praises her support and care.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

18/100

Students repeatedly call her a and say perfection feels expected.

Format shift

Online and strongest complaints appearing in both formats.

Workload

Overwhelming

15/100

Many reviews describe lots of , and an excessive time commitment.

Format shift

Online reviews call the workload excessive, and and papers.

Teaching experience

Poor

32/100

Students often describe her as caring, but , and weak feedback dominate the experience.

Format shift

Online reviews are mixed because one is very positive, while .

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

25/100

Reviews focus , and assignments rather than major exams.

Format shift

Both formats emphasize assignment-heavy work, with 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

9 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

, poor organization, and delayed or limited feedback.

Main concern

Students and .

What students said

“lots of work, grades everyone as if we're an english ”
ENGWR301
“She overwhelms students with assignments and .”
ENGWR300

Remote format

Online

3 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

Online reviews are split, but the stronger pattern , and disorganization.

Main concern

Heavy workload and .

What students said

“The amount of work assigned felt excessive for an introductory course, and the .”
ENGWR300
“She is an and .”
ENGRD310

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Reviews mention quizzes, tests, and pop quizzes, but they do not clearly prove exam format, proctoring, open-book rules, or .

Quizzes MentionedTests MentionedPop Quizzes MentionedPolicy Not Clearly Proven

Assessment risk

Varies

45/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, and pop quizzes, but do not clearly prove the .

Pop Quizzes MentionedQuizzes MentionedTests Mentioned
“Beware of pop quizzes”
ENGWR300
“ because she will give out answers for quizzes and tests.”
ENGRD310

Online

Online reviews do not clearly prove webcam, proctoring, open-book, quiz format, midterm format, or .

Policy Not Clearly Proven

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ . Don't recommend this professor for an intro class. She overwhelms students with assignments and .”

Voice snapshots generated from 12 reviews, highlighting key themes in , and organization. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

32/100

“poor communication and .”

⚖️

18/100

“ , and it sometimes felt like perfection was expected but never fully attainable.”

📚 Workload Pressure

15/100

“Be prepared for a significant time commitment”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • , and very inspirational.
  • and tries to help as much as she can, but the course outline is a mess.
  • Poor and . And she is always not prepared for the class.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • Probably one of the toughest graders I've ever had.
  • lots of work, grades everyone as if we're an english
  • Although the available for office hours to help develop and make progress on certain assignments.

Theme 3

🧾 About Workload

  • The amount of work assigned felt excessive for an introductory course
  • She bombard's you with no guidelines.
  • You literally have to write a diary for a grade in her class.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

12

Recent reviews read by the AI

11

Lifetime ratings

84/100

Evidence confidence

Credibility is high because 12 reviews span several years and repeatedly identify the , and organization issues.

Inside 12 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 52
4 out of 50
3 out of 50
2 out of 52
1 out of 58

Course coverage

ENGWR3006 reviews
ENGWR3013 reviews
ENGRD3102 reviews
ESLW401 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

12 reported outcomes

A range

6

A+ 2 · A 2 · A- 2

B range

2

B 1 · B- 1

C range

1

C 1

D range

1

D+ 1

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

2

Not sure yet 2