Reved Journal of Applied Learning

Vol. 1, No. 1 · September 2026

Original research · Open access · Not peer reviewed, because we could not find peers

On the Overwhelming Superiority of the Reved Method

A five-year study of 1,063 ratings from ten cohorts, with a paired comparison against school, university, other courses and corporate training

Chaitanya Sharma ¹ and the 68 students who filled in the forms ²

¹ Reved Academy, Mumbai. Department of Getting to the Point.

² Formerly of various schools, universities, other courses and corporate trainings. See Table 2.

Abstract

Background. Most education is delivered by people who have never been rated by the people they teach, and it shows.

Methods. Between October 2021 and March 2026 we ran ten cohorts of Reved Exclusive and asked every student to rate every class, every module and the whole cohort on a 0 to 10 scale. We collected 1,063 answers across 200 forms. In the first module, 55 students also rated their own school, university, another course or a corporate training on the same scales, in the same week.

Results. Overall class experience averaged 9.74 out of 10, and 97% of ratings were a 9 or a 10. Quality of information averaged 9.77 and practical usefulness 9.77. All 727 answers said the class was explained clearly. The same students rated the place they came from between 5.3 and 7.3 on identical questions.

Conclusion. The Reved method is superior to everything the participants had previously experienced, by 2.4 to 4.3 points on a 10-point scale. We recommend that the rest of the field read Table 2.

Keywords: superiority; methodology; professors; student ratings; n = 1,063; Mumbai.

1. Introduction

The education sector has produced a large literature on itself. Most of it is written by professors, about professors, for other professors, and is cited by the same professors [1]. Students appear in this literature as a variable. They are rarely asked what they thought.

We asked. After every class. For five years.

This paper reports what they said. It is short because the answer is short.

2. Method

2.1 Participants

Ten cohorts of Reved Exclusive between October 2021 and March 2026, named Legacy, Nova, Trinity, Quadra, Cinque, Hexa, Spectra, Octave, Enea and Decem. Cohorts had 4 to 12 students. Nobody was paid to fill in a form. Nobody was excused from filling one in either.

2.2 Instrument

Tally forms after every class asked for content volume, quality of information, practical usefulness and overall class experience, plus four yes or no checks. Forms after every module asked for aesthetics and presentation, interactiveness, personalisation, quality of information, practical application and whether the module met expectations. An end-of-cohort survey asked about teaching style and likelihood to recommend. Every scale runs from 0 to 10. We listed 288 forms, pulled the 202 with submissions in full, and found ratings on 200 of them.

2.3 Comparator

In the Module 1 review each student rated Reved and then rated a place they had previously learned at: school, university, another course or a corporate training. Same person, same week, same five questions. This is the fairest comparison in the paper. It is also the least kind.

2.4 Analysis

Means are simple averages. “Top” is the share of answers that were a 9 or a 10. Cohorts were assigned by submission date, not form title, because forms were copied between cohorts with stale names. No statistical test was run, because none was needed. The reader is invited to look at Figure 2 and form their own p-value.

3. Results

3.1 Headline figures

9.74

Overall class experience, mean of 721 ratings

97%

of those 721 ratings were a 9 or a 10

100%

of 727 answers said the class was explained clearly

9.9

Teaching style, end-of-cohort survey, 52 answers

Every scale we measured sits between 9.6 and 9.9 out of 10. Figure 1 shows where the 721 overall ratings actually landed.

Rated 10

563

Rated 9

134

Rated 8

Rated 7

Rated 6

Rated 5

Rated 4

Rated 3

Rated 2

Rated 1

Rated 0

Figure 1. Distribution of 721 overall class ratings, 0 to 10. Scores 0 to 5 are shown for completeness. They are empty.

3.2 Consistency across cohorts

Table 1 lists the mean per cohort. Nine of ten cohorts average above 9.5 on overall class experience. Trinity, in mid-2022, is the weakest cohort in the dataset at 9.38. The authors have made peace with this.

Cohort

Overall

Info

Practical

Legacy ’21

132

9.62

9.70

Nova ’22

9.75

9.74

9.88

Trinity ’22

104

9.38

9.36

9.38

Quadra ’22

9.78

9.86

9.78

Cinque ’22

9.79

9.92

9.79

Hexa ’23

147

9.77

9.76

9.84

Spectra ’23

251

9.83

9.88

9.84

Octave ’23

9.92

9.95

Enea ’24

9.96

9.98

9.97

Decem ’26

9.55

9.58

9.38

All cohorts

1,063

9.74

9.77

Table 1. Mean rating by cohort on overall class experience, quality of information and practical usefulness. n is the number of answers in that cohort across all forms.

3.3 Paired comparison

Fifty-five students rated Reved and a comparator on the same four scales. Figure 2 shows the result. The gap is smallest on quality of information, at 2.4 points, and largest on personalisation, at 4.3 points. School and university perform worst. Other courses come closest and still lose by 1.4 to 2.9 points (Table 2).

Quality of information

Reved

9.7

Where they learned before

7.3

Practical application

Reved

9.8

Where they learned before

7.0

Aesthetics and design

Reved

9.7

Where they learned before

6.2

Personalisation

Reved

9.6

Where they learned before

5.3

Figure 2. Same student, same week, same question, n = 55. Gold is Reved. Grey is the school, university, course or corporate training the student chose to compare it with.

Compared with

Teaching

Info

Practical

Personal

School (9)

5.9

6.1

5.0

3.4

University (18)

5.6

6.1

5.8

4.2

Another course (24)

8.7

8.4

8.5

6.6

Corporate training (4)

8.0

8.2

7.0

Reved, same 55 students

— †

9.7

9.8

9.6

Table 2. What the same 55 students gave the place they learned at before, by type of place. † Quality of teaching was never asked about Reved. The nearest question, teaching style in the end-of-cohort survey, averaged 9.9 across 52 answers.

3.4 Trajectory within a cohort

Ratings rise as the cohort goes on (Figure 3). Initiation averages 9.49. By Module 5 the mean is 9.86 and by Module 6 it is 9.93. In most programmes attention drops with time. Here the opposite happened. We attribute this to the method and not to fatigue-induced generosity, though we did not check.

Initiation · 61 answers

9.49

Module 1 · 173 answers

9.63

Module 2 · 133 answers

9.78

Module 3 · 115 answers

9.77

Module 4 · 110 answers

9.80

Module 5 · 88 answers

9.86

Module 6 · 29 answers

9.93

Module 7 · 12 answers

9.92

Figure 3. Mean overall class rating by module, all cohorts pooled. The axis begins at 9 because nothing happened below it. Later modules have fewer answers because not every cohort ran that long.

3.5 Yes or no

Some questions did not need a scale. Table 3 lists the share of students who answered yes.

Question

Yes

Was the class explained clearly?

100%

727

Did you enjoy the class?

100%

717

Was the class appropriately paced?

98%

721

Did you understand everything?

98%

721

Was it insightful about yourself?

99%

130

Are you enjoying the Reved experience?

99%

Was it powerful and life-transforming?

95%

Is this the best learning experience you have had?

94%

Table 3. Yes or no checks across class forms and surveys. Of 327 module reviews, 87% said the module was better than expected, 12% said as expected and 1% said below. The 1% is three answers. We think about them more than we think about the other 324.

4. Discussion

4.1 What the numbers mean

Every scale we measured sits between 9.6 and 9.9 out of 10, across five years, ten cohorts and three kinds of form. The comparator scales, from the same students, sit between 5.3 and 7.3. A programme is not usually able to publish this table. We are publishing it.

4.2 Threats to validity

Students rated the teacher during the course, which inflates in-course ratings everywhere. We accept this. It also inflated their school’s rating, and their school still scored 5.9.

Cohorts are small, 4 to 12 students, so one low answer moves a mean a lot. Decem’s aesthetics score of 7.75 rests on four answers, one of which was a 4. We have kept it in.

The comparator was chosen by the student. They may have picked the worst place they ever studied. They may also have picked the best. We did not ask.

The authors are the subject of the ratings. See Conflicts of interest.

4.3 Comparison with the literature

We searched for a programme that publishes its per-class student ratings with sample sizes. We did not find one [2]. We searched for a professor who does. We stopped searching [3].

5. Conclusion

The Reved method produced the highest sustained student ratings we have seen reported anywhere, partly because nobody else reports them. The students who compared it with their school, university, other courses and corporate training rated those between 2.4 and 4.3 points lower on identical questions.

We conclude that the method is superior. The data is the argument. The paper is the footnote.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the 68 students who filled in 1,063 forms without being asked twice. Most were asked twice.

Conflicts of interest

Total. The first author designed the method, taught every class, wrote the forms, read the answers and wrote this paper. The reader should weigh this accordingly, and then look at Table 2 again.

Data availability

All 1,063 answers sit in Tally forms and were exported on 22 September 2026. Names and emails were not read. Ask, and we will show you the raw sheet.

References

[1] Every professor, every conference, 1088 to present. Proceedings of one another. Unread.

[2] The authors, 22 September 2026. A search for published per-class student ratings from any comparable programme. Returned nothing.

[3] The authors, the same afternoon.

[4] Tally feedback forms, Reved Exclusive cohorts Legacy to Decem, October 2021 to March 2026. n = 1,063.

Received 22 September 2026. Accepted the same afternoon. Published 26 September 2026.

Cohort 11 opens soon. Fifteen seats.

Apply for Cohort 11

Meet the alumni