Teaching
Instructor
Principles of Microeconomics
Fordham University
Fall 2023, Fall 2024, Spring 2025
Mathematics of Competitive Behavior
CTY Johns Hopkins University
Summer 2023
Introductory Microeconomics & Macroeconomics
University of Delhi
Fall 2018, Spring 2019
Teaching Assistant
Math Methods in Economics II (PhD Level)
Fordham University
Fall 2022
Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Econometrics & Statistics
Fordham University (Tutor)
Fall 2021, Spring 2022, Spring 2023
Managerial Economics
Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore
2019–2021
Summary of Student Evaluations (Average and Median Scores, Scale 1-9)
| Evaluation Item |
Fall 2023 |
Fall 2024 |
Spring 2025 |
| Class materials were well prepared and carefully explained |
A: 7.6
M: 8 |
A: 8.0
M: 9 |
A: 8.26
M: 8.9 |
| Instructor gave presentations that facilitated taking notes |
A: 7.7
M: 8 |
A: 8.5
M: 9 |
A: 8.26
M: 8.9 |
| Instructors made students feel welcome in seeking help/advice in or outside of class |
A: 7.0
M: 7 |
A: 7.6
M: 8 |
A: 8.25
M: 8.9 |
| Methods of evaluating student work were fair and appropriate |
A: 7.7
M: 8 |
A: 8.1
M: 9 |
A: 8.54
M: 8.9 |
| Examinations/graded materials tested class content as emphasized by the instructor |
A: 7.8
M: 8 |
A: 8.4
M: 9 |
A: 8.54
M: 8.9 |
| Students were encouraged to participate in class discussions |
A: 7.1
M: 7 |
A: 8.4
M: 9 |
A: 8.65
M: 8.9 |
| Overall, how does this instructor compare with other instructors at Fordham University? |
A: 7.2
M: 7 |
A: 7.8
M: 8 |
A: 8.45
M: 8.9 |
| Number of respondents |
33 |
33 |
33 |
| Number of students enrolled |
35 |
34 |
34 |
Notes: A denotes the average and M denotes the median. Fall 2023 and Fall 2024 evaluations used Fordham University's former SEEQ instrument and a 1–9 scale. In Spring 2025, Fordham adopted the revised SES instrument, which uses a 1–5 scale and modified the language of the evaluation items. Spring 2025 statistics are approximate SEEQ-equivalent scores on a 1–9 scale, calculated using Fordham University's conversion guidance. Evaluation items are matched across instruments according to the corresponding pedagogical dimensions identified in that guidance.
Student's Anonymous Feedback
“I really liked her use of the whiteboard. It made the lectures engaging and her content on quizzes and tests coming directly from class notes really made note-taking a necessity. I found that the class went by fairly quick, but I took in a lot of information in that time and didn't walk away from a lecture feeling drowsy or bored.”
— Fall 2024
“I think the professor was extremely passionate and worked very well with questions from the class. I also think the lectures were engaging and the use of the whiteboard made difficult concepts easy to understand.”
— Fall 2024
“Professor Aakriti was a fantastic professor. Always made classes engaging and easy to digest.”
— Spring 2025
“The aspects of this course that were most beneficial to my learning were the opportunity to attempt questions that would appear on homework assignments and quizzes/exams in class so that the whole class could learn the process and find common mistakes to prevent future ones.”
— Spring 2025
“Everything on the tests, quizzes, and homework was all thoroughly explained in class and on the class notes. I was never left confused or needing to look elsewhere to explain a topic.”
— Fall 2024
“I really enjoyed the group participation assignments; it was beneficial because I was able to learn from others.”
— Spring 2025
“You can tell that she really wants to make sure each and every one of her students understands the lesson, and she is so welcoming to questions if anyone has any sort of confusion.”
— Fall 2024
“I really appreciated her review sessions and her extra credit questions where we needed to go up to the board. Even though I never went up on the board, she made the class comfortable enough to know that it is okay if you got it wrong, but at least you tried.”
— Fall 2024