AI Rate Professor

Mathematics

Dean Pietromonaco

MATH51 · MATH20 · MATH14312 · 4 lifetime ratings

AI rating
47/100
RMP rating
2.9/5
Take again
100%
Difficulty
3.0

The decision

Consider him only if and a fast material load with limited review evidence.

Best fit · Self Taught ProMath homeworkHybrid cautionMixed reviewsLimited evidenceSome humor
  • The only detailed recent review says he understands math and is funny, but the and material.
  • Older reviews are sparse and mixed, including one strongly negative comment with little detail.
  • The small and uneven review set makes the rating less reliable.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

50/100

There is not enough grade evidence to call it easy, and the and a lot of material.

All .

Is the course easy?

Standard

45/100

The math content appears standard to somewhat demanding because one review mentions a lot of material and .

All course .

Is attendance flexible?

Recommended

55/100

Reviews do not clearly prove an , but participation matters appears in the one detailed review.

Only in-person reviews exist, and .

Is this professor recommended?

Depends

45/100

The evidence is too mixed and thin to strongly recommend him despite one positive recent review.

Recommendation .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

50/100

, so grading appears unproven rather than clearly lenient or harsh.

Format shift

, but it is weak.

Workload

Heavy

35/100

The only detailed review explicitly flags lots of homework and a lot of material.

Format shift

All .

Teaching experience

Average

55/100

Teaching evidence is mixed, with one recent positive review and older sparse negative or unhelpful comments.

Format shift

All .

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

30/100

The only detailed assessment evidence emphasizes homework, while .

Format shift

All and is limited.

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

4 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

and mixed, with one useful review noting math knowledge, humor, lots of homework, and too much material for a hybrid format.

Main concern

Homework and pace may be heavy, especially in a hybrid section.

What students said

“ around the homework.”
MATH14312
“ full two hours, a lot of material.”
MATH14312
“I won't bother since anything libelous will be deleted but you get the drift.”
MATH51

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 do not clearly prove exam format, proctoring, open-book rules, midterm structure, or .

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, proctoring, open-book rules, midterm structure, or final structure.

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Personally for me, I wouldn't take the hybird class I would take the full two hours, a lot of material.”

Voice snapshots generated from 4 reviews, highlighting sparse themes in teaching and workload; credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Quality

55/100

“Has a . Funny guy.”

📚 Workload

35/100

“ around the homework.”

⚠️ Review Reliability

28/100

“No Comments”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Has a . Funny guy.
  • No Comments

Theme 2

📈 About Workload and Pace

  • around the homework.
  • full two hours, a lot of material.

Theme 3

⚠️ About Limited Evidence

  • I won't bother since anything libelous will be deleted but you get the drift.
  • Actually teaches at Folsom Lake College Campus - a satellite of Cosumnes.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

4

Recent reviews read by the AI

4

Lifetime ratings

28/100

Evidence confidence

Credibility is low because there are only four reviews, most are old, and only one contains useful course details.

Inside 4 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

MATH512 reviews
MATH143121 review
MATH201 review

Reported outcomes

No letter grade reported results lead the reported letter grades.

1 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

1

Audit/No Grade 1