AI Rate Professor

Philosophy

Melvin Sanchez

PHILO109 · CNSL144 · PHIL110 · PHIL106 · 4 lifetime ratings

AI rating
28/100
RMP rating
2.4/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
3.0

The decision

unless and are ready to self-manage an uneven teaching experience.

Best fit · Effort For RewardBoring lecturesInconsistent gradingStrong opinionsDo not takeUnclear teaching
  • Most students say , and weak learning outcomes.
  • Grading and quizzes and lost assignments.
  • One student found the discussion topics interesting and earned an A with effort, but that is the minority view.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

55/100

A good grade is possible with attendance and study, but students say it is not an easy A and .

.

Is the course easy?

Standard

48/100

Content difficulty is middling, with biweekly quizzes and mixed reports of easy versus demanding work.

.

Is attendance flexible?

Recommended

45/100

One review says a good grade is easy if you attend and .

.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

28/100

Three of four reviews and little learning.

.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

35/100

high-stakes, and assignments were reportedly lost.

Format shift

Based only on in-person reviews.

Workload

Moderate

50/100

Biweekly quizzes and textbooks create a moderate workload rather than a light one.

Format shift

Based only on in-person reviews.

Teaching experience

Poor

30/100

and little learning despite subject knowledge.

Format shift

Based only on in-person reviews.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

35/100

Quizzes every other week and .

Format shift

Based only on in-person reviews.

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

Medium confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

Four in-person reviews mostly warn against taking him, citing boring lectures, unclear teaching, and .

Main concern

, and inconsistent or .

What students said

“This is the .”
CNSL144
“ . Got nothing out of his class and he made lecture boring.”
PHIL106
“It's not an easy A but I got an A because I put in the effort.”
PHIL110

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.

Assessment centers on frequent quizzes .

Biweekly quizzesHigh-point quizzes

Assessment risk

Standard

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

heavy point weight per question.

Biweekly quizzes5 questions worth 20 points each
“Quizzes every other week on 1 textbook chapter and the notes from the past 2 weeks but are easy if you study.”
PHIL110
“He gives quizes every other week that are excessive in points (5 questions/each question worth 20 points).”
PHILO109

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“This is the . I learned very little from his class and would dread going into class every day.”

Voice snapshots generated from 4 reviews, highlighting key themes in teaching and grading. Credibility rating: Medium.

👎 Recommendation Warning

28/100

“ . Got nothing out of his class and he made lecture boring.”

📚 Teaching Clarity

30/100

“He seems to know his subject but lacks the ability to teach it with clarity.”

⚖️

35/100

“ and unhelpful.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • made lecture boring
  • lacks the ability to teach it with clarity
  • spends more time expressing his extreme opinions than teaching

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • It's not an easy A but I got an A because I put in the effort.
  • It's easy to get a good grade if you attend class and pay attention.
  • quizes every other week that are excessive in points

Theme 3

🚫 About Taking This Class

  • .
  • Do not take Professor Melvin Sanchez!!
  • This is the .

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

4

Recent reviews read by the AI

4

Lifetime ratings

62/100

Evidence confidence

Four reviews from 2012 are fairly detailed and mostly aligned on negatives, with .

Inside 4 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 50
4 out of 51
3 out of 50
2 out of 53
1 out of 50

Course coverage

CNSL1441 review
PHIL1061 review
PHIL1101 review
PHILO1091 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

0 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

0

No reported values