Computer Science · 20 reviews
- Quality
- 4.8/5
- Difficulty
- 3.3/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- 4.28
- Adjusted difficulty
- 3.22
- Alpha
- 0.58
- Rating spread (SD)
- 0.44
Math & CS
Computer Science
Reviews317
Professors27
Quality3.49
Difficulty3.50
Difficulty rank#1
Quality rank#26
All-time supplied department values. Ranks compare the 27 supplied departments. The professor controls below apply to professor data only.
Within the department
Department rating summaries
Highest ratedBarry Lawson ↗4.28
Highest reported difficultyDouglas Szajda ↗3.99
Lowest reported difficultyBarry Lawson ↗3.22
Highest rating relative to expectationsBarry Lawson ↗0.58
Most disagreement in ratingsDouglas Szajda ↗1.84
Department standouts are subsets of eligible professor scores, not additional official awards. Quality and difficulty use Bayesian scores. Alpha is custom: positive means higher ratings than expected for difficulty, department, and year.
Explore professors
Higher ratings · lower difficulty
Higher ratings · higher difficulty
Lower ratings · lower difficulty
Lower ratings · higher difficulty
One dot = one professor · Size = review countDashed lines = Richmond review averages
Both scales run from 1 to 5. Tap or click a dot for details. You can also find names in the professor list.
Professor ratings
Computer Science · 22 reviews
- Quality
- 3.5/5
- Difficulty
- 3.9/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- 3.65
- Adjusted difficulty
- 3.54
- Alpha
- 0.11
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.41
Computer Science · 46 reviews
- Quality
- 3.1/5
- Difficulty
- 3.7/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- 3.34
- Adjusted difficulty
- 3.51
- Alpha
- -0.18
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.63
Computer Science · 26 reviews
- Quality
- 3.0/5
- Difficulty
- 4.6/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- 3.33
- Adjusted difficulty
- 3.99
- Alpha
- 0.02
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.84
Computer Science · 27 reviews
- Quality
- 2.1/5
- Difficulty
- 3.7/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- 2.81
- Adjusted difficulty
- 3.50
- Alpha
- -0.61
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.11
Computer Science · 13 reviews
- Quality
- 3.3/5
- Difficulty
- 2.6/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.25
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 9 reviews
- Quality
- 3.8/5
- Difficulty
- 3.6/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.48
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 3 reviews
- Quality
- 3.3/5
- Difficulty
- 4.0/5
Small sample. Read the reviews before deciding.
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 2.08
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 4 reviews
- Quality
- 4.5/5
- Difficulty
- 1.8/5
Small sample. Read the reviews before deciding.
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 0.58
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 3 reviews
- Quality
- 3.0/5
- Difficulty
- 3.0/5
Small sample. Read the reviews before deciding.
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 2.00
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 6 reviews
- Quality
- 4.3/5
- Difficulty
- 2.8/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.21
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 6 reviews
- Quality
- 2.8/5
- Difficulty
- 3.5/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.17
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 16 reviews
- Quality
- 2.1/5
- Difficulty
- 3.6/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.06
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 12 reviews
- Quality
- 4.8/5
- Difficulty
- 3.9/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 0.39
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 11 reviews
- Quality
- 4.2/5
- Difficulty
- 3.9/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.25
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 7 reviews
- Quality
- 4.3/5
- Difficulty
- 2.6/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.11
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 1 review
- Quality
- 2.0/5
- Difficulty
- 3.0/5
Small sample. Read the reviews before deciding.
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- —
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 7 reviews
- Quality
- 3.4/5
- Difficulty
- 2.7/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 0.98
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 1 review
- Quality
- 4.0/5
- Difficulty
- 3.0/5
Small sample. Read the reviews before deciding.
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- —
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 19 reviews
- Quality
- 4.6/5
- Difficulty
- 3.6/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 0.96
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 4 reviews
- Quality
- 3.0/5
- Difficulty
- 4.3/5
Small sample. Read the reviews before deciding.
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.41
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 15 reviews
- Quality
- 3.7/5
- Difficulty
- 2.3/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.50
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 14 reviews
- Quality
- 4.9/5
- Difficulty
- 3.0/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 0.36
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 14 reviews
- Quality
- 2.5/5
- Difficulty
- 3.7/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.40
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 2 reviews
- Quality
- 5.0/5
- Difficulty
- 1.0/5
Small sample. Read the reviews before deciding.
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 0.00
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
Computer Science · 7 reviews
- Quality
- 3.6/5
- Difficulty
- 3.6/5
More numbers
- Adjusted quality
- —
- Adjusted difficulty
- —
- Rating spread (SD)
- 1.51
No eligible adjusted score in this period. The original ratings are still here.
| Professor | Quality | Difficulty | Reviews | Adjusted quality | Adjusted difficulty | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barry LawsonComputer Science | 3.25 | 20 | 4.28 | 3.22 | ||
| Kelly ShawComputer Science | 3.86 | 22 | 3.65 | 3.54 | ||
| Arthur CharlesworthComputer Science | 3.65 | 46 | 3.34 | 3.51 | ||
| Douglas SzajdaComputer Science | 4.62 | 26 | 3.33 | 3.99 | ||
| Gary GreenfieldComputer Science | 3.74 | 27 | 2.81 | 3.50 | ||
| Anita HubbardComputer Science | 2.62 | 13 | — | — | ||
| Catherine Finegan-DollakComputer Science | 3.56 | 9 | — | — | ||
| Chris FaigleComputer Science | 4.00 | 3 | — | — | ||
| David BalashComputer Science | 1.75 | 4 | — | — | ||
| Debra O'BrienComputer Science | 3.00 | 3 | — | — | ||
| Dr. M CharityComputer Science | 2.83 | 6 | — | — | ||
| Jim DeverickComputer Science | 3.50 | 6 | — | — | ||
| John HubbardComputer Science | 3.56 | 16 | — | — | ||
| Jon ParkComputer Science | 3.92 | 12 | — | — | ||
| Jory DennyComputer Science | 3.91 | 11 | — | — | ||
| Lewis BarnettComputer Science | 2.57 | 7 | — | — | ||
| McDonald DavisComputer Science | 3.00 | 1 | — | — | ||
| Mmachi ObiorahComputer Science | 2.71 | 7 | — | — | ||
| Patrick MartinComputer Science | 3.00 | 1 | — | — | ||
| Prateek BhaktaComputer Science | 3.58 | 19 | — | — | ||
| Sara KrehbielComputer Science | 4.25 | 4 | — | — | ||
| Shaun GaoComputer Science | 2.27 | 15 | — | — | ||
| Shirley MitteldorferComputer Science | 3.00 | 14 | — | — | ||
| Shweta WareComputer Science | 3.71 | 14 | — | — | ||
| William PriorComputer Science | 1.00 | 2 | — | — | ||
| Yucong JiangComputer Science | 3.57 | 7 | — | — |
Quality and difficulty sorts use scores adjusted for review count. Missing adjusted scores appear last. How ratings work ↗