AI Rate Professor

Mathematics

Hai Ngo

STATS227 · MATH115 · NGO20545 · MATH227 · MATH125 · 12 lifetime ratings

AI rating
14/100
RMP rating
1.7/5
Take again
0%
Difficulty
4.1

The decision

Avoid if you have any other option; you will likely need to teach yourself the material.

Best fit · Self Taught ProConfusing lecturesMakes students feel dumbTough graderSelf-taught requiredTests mismatch study material
  • Most students say lectures are book-copying with .
  • He is widely called a .
  • Attendance and , yet many still report failing or hating the class.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

22/100

, and mismatch between taught material and .

; no online reviews.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

28/100

High difficulty ratings and complaints about pace, StatCrunch, and .

; no online reviews.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

28/100

and note you will not pass if .

; no online reviews.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

8/100

and repeated warnings to choose any other professor.

; no online reviews.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

18/100

Tags and comments repeatedly call him a .

Format shift

.

Workload

Heavy

28/100

Students report , and .

Format shift

.

Teaching experience

Awful

16/100

, and needing to self-teach.

Format shift

.

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

72/100

Test-heavy tags and comments about finals covering untaught material dominate.

Format shift

.

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

12 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person students report poor explanations, , and feeling belittled when asking questions.

Main concern

You may leave class more confused and .

What students said

“ . All he did was solve the problem and made one feel dumb if we asked questions”
MATH227
“ !!!He is horrible you have better luck at going to tutoring andteaching yourself”
STATS227
“meaning you need ”
MATH227

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.

Exams are high-stakes and .

Test heavyTests differ from study questionsIn-person exams

Assessment risk

Strict

28/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

as tough, different from study sets, and sometimes covering untaught material.

Test heavyMismatch with study questionsIn-person final
“The even learn.”
MATH125
“Gives you questions to study that are different than the test itself.”
STATS227

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ !!!He is horrible you have better luck at going to tutoring andteaching yourself Yes its that bad”

Voice snapshots generated from 12 in-person reviews spanning 2010-2019, highlighting teaching clarity, grading, and . Credibility rating: Medium.

📉 Teaching Quality

16/100

“The format of the "lecture" consists of writing definitions, formulas, and examples from the book on the whiteboard, with .”

🚫 Recommendation

8/100

“if you have other options take them otherwise be ready to put work.”

📝

22/100

“when the .”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • All he did was solve the problem and made one feel dumb if we asked questions
  • everything is from the book with a super
  • You cant understand him! really thick asian accent.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • TEST HEAVY
  • I'm upset that I took his class because I wasted my time and ended up failing.

Theme 3

⚠️ About Student Treatment

  • he makes you feel useless and STUPID
  • he would embarrass you if you don't understand a question
  • gets mad when you ask a question

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

12

Recent reviews read by the AI

12

Lifetime ratings

62/100

Evidence confidence

Twelve reviews span many years with consistent negative themes, though a few older positive outliers and limited grade detail lower precision.

Inside 12 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 51
4 out of 51
3 out of 50
2 out of 51
1 out of 59

Course coverage

MATH1255 reviews
MATH2273 reviews
STATS2272 reviews
MATH1151 review
NGO205451 review

Reported outcomes

No letter grade reported results lead the reported letter grades.

3 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

1

F 1

No letter grade reported

2

Not sure yet 2