AI Rate Professor

Mathematics

Nilda Crisostomo

MATH167 · MATH159 · MATH103 · MATH101C · MATH101B · MATH101A · 32 lifetime ratings

AI rating
24/100
RMP rating
2.1/5
Take again
18.52%
Difficulty
4.0

The decision

if you need clear lectures; online sections look better but and heavy self-study.

Best fit · Self Taught ProSelf-Study RequiredTest HeavyPowerPoint ReaderTough GraderOnline Summer Better
  • In-person students widely say you must teach yourself because lectures are slide-heavy and error-prone
  • and often described as tough with limited quiz weight
  • Online summer reviews are far more positive, praising care, speed of response, and

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

32/100

exists, but tough test-heavy grading and and luck.

Online reviews report more grade recovery via ; .

Is the course easy?

Challenging

28/100

Students call content hard and say lectures add confusion rather than reduce it, especially in calculus and stats.

Both formats call content hard; online comments still rate difficulty around 4.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

30/100

Most reviews mark attendance mandatory or warn that skipping hurts, though a few sections list it as optional.

Online and ; a minority of in-person sections say no.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

22/100

Overall take-again near 19% and online summer reviews.

Online summer 2020 reviews are mostly positive; .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

28/100

Students repeatedly call her a and little quiz impact.

Format shift

Online students note fairer feedback and ; .

Workload

Heavy

32/100

Quizzes, frequent homework, and is optional paid EC.

Format shift

Online comments also report lots of work; and .

Teaching experience

Poor

26/100

Dominant theme is reading PowerPoints, making mistakes, and .

Format shift

Online summer reviews rate teaching much higher than the large in-person sample.

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

78/100

Grades hinge on chapter tests and finals; and quizzes weigh little.

Format shift

Both formats are test heavy; online adds more structured .

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

27 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person students repeatedly describe slide reading, frequent mistakes, and the .

Main concern

Weak lectures plus tough, test-heavy grading make the class a .

What students said

“ if possible!”
MATH101B
“self-studying would be so much more productive.”
MATH101B
“ !!!”
MATH159

Remote format

Online

5 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

Online MATH101C , and real care despite hard content and heavy testing.

Main concern

Content stays difficult and .

What students said

“She truly cares about her students and wants them to learn the material.”
MATH101C
“The content was very difficult, but .”
MATH101C
“A LOT of work”
MATH101C

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

and are described as hard and tricky; reviews do not clearly prove Lockdown Browser or webcam proctoring.

Test heavyHard timed testsExtra credit on testsOptional paid online homework

Assessment risk

Strict

34/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

as tough, time-pressured, and poorly aligned with .

Test heavyTimed chapter testsTricky questionsOptional paid homework EC
“Her test are ridiculous, she gives 30 min to take them and they are very vague.”
MATH159
“ and tests but .”
MATH101B

Online

and fast grading, without clear proctoring software details.

Test heavyExtra credit opportunitiesHarder-than-average tests
“ but she provides to help balance.”
MATH101C
“Does not round but gives plenty of opportunities to raise your raise.”
MATH101C

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ if possible!”

Voice snapshots generated from 32 reviews (5 online, 27 in , and . Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

26/100

“Nice but not a very good teacher. Be prepared to self study.”

💻 Online Exception

78/100

“The reviews were completely unrepresentative of her.”

📉

34/100

“Her test are ridiculous, she gives 30 min to take them and they are very vague.”

👎 Recommendation

22/100

“ . It was a nightmare.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Everything she did in class was word to word from her PowerPoint
  • Half the time she teaches concepts wrong and the class corrects her mistakes
  • Her back faces you more than her face.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • The amount of work and HW due almost everyday
  • and tests
  • Gives many opportunities to raise grade

Theme 3

💻 Online vs In Person

  • She truly cares about her students and wants them to learn the material
  • self-studying would be so much more productive
  • !!!

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

32

Recent reviews read by the AI

32

Lifetime ratings

82/100

Evidence confidence

Thirty-two reviews with and consistent negative in-person themes give strong confidence overall.

Inside 32 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 55
4 out of 53
3 out of 52
2 out of 55
1 out of 517

Course coverage

MATH101B15 reviews
MATH101C6 reviews
MATH1596 reviews
MATH1032 reviews
MATH1672 reviews
Show 1 more courses
MATH101A1 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

18 reported outcomes

A range

7

A 7

B range

3

B+ 2 · B 1

C range

2

C+ 1 · C- 1

D range

0

No reported values

F

1

F 1

No letter grade reported

5

Drop/Withdrawal 1 · Not sure yet 4