Brooklyn College Teachers Rated:
CORE

Core 1

Allen - not good
Benjamin- 5 - (very good)
Brockman - very good
Cooke - good
Eckert - good
Gutglueck - good
Harris, Ed - very bad
Harris, Elizabeth- rating pending-she formerly taught at Baruch College
Hanson - decent guy, tough grader
Keizer - decent, but difficult tests
Koenigsberg - good (Though, I'm told very boring and not nice; If you don't go over to him after class and ask questions, he'll penalize you)
McBreen - solid (whoops)
North - good
Sealy - good
Van Sickle - 5 - very good, fun class (I dunno how Thucydides can be fun)

TOP

Core 2.1

Glahn - good, very easy tests
Haggerty - very good (Gives only final[120 points]. Just study notes he hands out and do sketchbook[You could get up to 25 points *EC* on the final]it's easy to get at least 15 for effort)
Koslow - very bad
Meyardy - good
Oryshkevich - decent

TOP

Core 2.2

Blanche - 5 - very good
Cohen -very good(best)
Cox - good
Guszki - 5- very good
Hedwig - bad
Janssen - good (teaches well)
Priest -good (nice, easygoing, good marker-During the term, he makes you learn to conduct[most don't learn]and he then tests you on it)
Shelden - 5 - very good
Taylor - good
Wilson - good (strict on attendance)

TOP

Core 3

Bashist - decent
Bermazhon - good
Brown - very good, but demanding regarding reading
Charosh - boring and difficult
Condon - decent, lot of work
Currah - very good
Farber - very good - easy tests
Freeman - good
Green - 5 - Very Good (Doesn't show up to class a lot and the final was take-home)(I'm told not as good as Moody)
Jayarama - very good (very interesting and easy)
Kahan - good
Koenigsberg - very bad
Kramer - good, very interesting and gives extra credit to help grade
Kraus - very bad
Miller - bad (difficult tests)
Moody - 5 (very boring, but easy)
Narpay - good
Sandrale - 4(good)
Shortell - 1(very bad)
Squires - good
Weimer - 5(very good)
Verbit - tough but interesting

TOP

Core 4

Back - very good
Berger - good
Bridenthal - very good
Burrows - good, interesting, easy for the core
Dimitriyadu - bad
Frome - good
Hoffman-Strock - decent
Iacullo - good
Johnson - good
Johnston - bad
Katzman - bad
Killin - very good
Shaar - good and interesting
Solovyova - good and easy
Varga - very good

TOP

Core 5

Cohen - decent (very boring)
Halpern - good
Kimmel - 5 - very good
Liu - bad
Matei - good
Page - decent
Seidman - bad, 1 *SHC
Sibner - confuses himself and doesn't seem to know computers
Small - very good
Tannenbaum - good
Uckele - decent
Waraporn - bad/decent

TOP

Core 5.1 (same as CIS 1.0)

Dexter-3-decent, He answers emails within the hour.
Goldshmidt - 4.5 - only teaches what you have to know
Pacuit,Eric - might have changed since then, but was a clueless PhD student. Very easy A, very little work. You won't learn a blessed thing in his class - doesn't show up often, ends classes early, spends class time on stupidities that you don't have to know.
Yarmish-5-Very Good-Comes in with class planned out-take notes and study and you'll do very well on straightfoward midterms (Have to study labs and HW's too)
Zhou -1- very bad
Ziegler-1-Very Bad

TOP
Core 5.2
Coming soon

TOP

Core 6

See English Teachers
Lang - 3 headed monster
Deaver - very bad, and possibly anti-semitic (I'd like a second opinion)
Gelber - gave low grades

TOP

Core 7.1

Abassi - good (I get conflicting reports so I averaged it out)-she has a foreign accent so make take a week to get used toEvangelest - very good
Cohen - very good
Labianca - good
Moriber - good

TOP

Core 7.2

Bond - 5 -teaches history of atom bomb, easy. Also teaches the speed of light(some tell me one's easier while other tell me the opposite). The way you tell which class he teaches which---the one earlier in the day is the speed of light.
Chen - Gives a point on GPA for each time you show up to class---sounds good
Kelly - good
Khotyanov - very good, though a bit boring
Lion - good
Liu - good
Singh - very good

TOP

Core 8.1

Eckhardt - 5 - very good (for internet course)
Blamire - very good, though he was cold toward me. Maybe because I'm Jewish? I'm not the only that thinks this. 
Crook - 5 - very good; she was helpful for core 8.1 as well as very nice. She was the lab instructor (Eckhardt was the lecturer).

TOP

Core 8.2

Aja - very bad
Chamberlain - good
Faqua - very bad
Kramer -decent
Leveson - 5 - for internet course. (rated well on ratemyprofessors.com) He's the best professor to take for core 8.2
Penna - decent
Prince - decent
Savage - rather bad, but tests are not hard
Seideman - best

TOP

Core 9

Buncombe - very bad
Davies - bad, does not explain well, does not grade well
Hussein - bad, very boring
Lieman/Strong - good
Mbom - good
Nadal - decent, boring, but tests are multiple choice.
Oppenheim - good, but with a LOT of reading, and quizzes
Sharman - very good
Squires/Berkowitz - decent (Berkowitz is very good)
Thomas - very bad (gives bad grades)
Glasser - good
Verbit - decent to good

TOP

Core 10

Bozicevic - good
Elkholy - good, no midterm or final, but daily homework
Gluzman - good, easy
Ho - good
Kaslow - decent
Kent - very easy, but boring (won't learn anything)
Pitt - good
Repetti - very good. Misses quite a bit of class.Her midterm is short answer (multiple choice, fill in, and T or F)Her final is short answer and, as per department regulations, 25% essay.
Seely - very good - though, I think I heard he's retiring
Shottenkirk - good, she's a nice person
Vasciliou - good

TOP