AI Rate Professor

Design

Achin Kundu

INTDESIGN102 · 1 lifetime ratings

AI rating
18/100
RMP rating
1.0/5
Take again
0%
Difficulty
5.0

The decision

Avoid this professor; students report , and a failing outcome.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerTime-Consuming ProjectsPoor Basics TeachingMandatory AttendanceHard GraderNot Recommended
  • Only one very negative review with quality 1 and an F.
  • while basics of design are poorly taught.
  • and .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

MissionImpossible

15/100

Student earned an high grade.

Evidence .

Is the course easy?

BrainBurner

10/100

Rated difficulty 5 with and weak coverage of design basics.

Evidence .

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

15/100

.

Evidence .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

10/100

and rated quality at the bottom.

Evidence .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

18/100

Reported grade was F with no signs of leniency.

Format shift

Based only on the single in-person review.

Workload

Heavy

25/100

Projects are described as .

Format shift

Based only on the single in-person review.

Teaching experience

Awful

15/100

Student says the professor is not good at teaching design basics.

Format shift

Based only on the single in-person review.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

25/100

Assessment centers on time-consuming projects with .

Format shift

Based only on the single in-person review.

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 Hardcore Learner

Single , and weak teaching of design basics ending in an F.

Main concern

Poor instruction .

What students said

“ . No HW. Not good at teaching basics of design.”
INTDESIGN102

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 HW. Not good at teaching basics of design.”
INTDESIGN102

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ . No HW. Not good at teaching basics of design.”

Voice snapshots generated from 1 review, highlighting teaching and project issues. Credibility rating: Low.

📉 Teaching Quality

15/100

“Not good at teaching basics of design.”

🚫 Recommendation

10/100

“No”

📚 Workload

25/100

“ . No HW.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Not good at teaching basics of design.
  • . No HW.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • Course DIFFICULTY rating: 5
  • F

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

1

Recent reviews read by the AI

1

Lifetime ratings

22/100

Evidence confidence

Only one old 2016 review with limited detail, so confidence is low.

Inside 1 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

INTDESIGN1021 review

Reported outcomes

F 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

1

F 1

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values