AI Rate Professor

Economics

Susan Nowakhtar

ECO4 · ECON8 · ECO8 · ECON7 · ECO7 · 12 lifetime ratings

AI rating
38/100
RMP rating
3.0/5
Take again
58.33%
Difficulty
2.5

The decision

if you want an easy, low-contact online economics shell and are comfortable .

Best fit · Self Taught ProSelf-teach requiredYouTube lecturesInvasive proctoringEasy pointsInconsistent engagement
  • Many online sections rely on Khan Academy or YouTube instead of original teaching.
  • Coursework can be an easy pass if you complete simple HW and quizzes.
  • Proctoring software and limited instructor interaction are major complaints.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

EasyA

78/100

Multiple students say only lazy students fail because , and .

Online reviews most strongly describe easy As; in person still passable with attendance and presentations.

Is the course easy?

Beginner

64/100

Content volume can be fast-paced weekly, but intellectual demand is modest when material is pre-made videos and short checks.

Online paced by many chapters per week; in person difficulty feels moderate.

Is attendance flexible?

Optional

72/100

Online attendance is largely not required beyond occasional Zoom ; in person values showing up more.

Online is flexible; or presentations.

Is this professor recommended?

Depends

48/100

Split between easy caring online supporters and and proctoring.

; recent online reviews are harsher on quality.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

62/100

Work is often low-stakes and recoverable, though a few call her a .

Format shift

Online easy-pass narrative dominates; .

Workload

Light

70/100

Typically short videos, simple HW questions, quizzes, and limited graded items rather than heavy projects.

Format shift

Both formats describe light graded load; online short-term sections can feel rushed.

Teaching experience

Poor

34/100

Persistent theme that she outsources teaching to free videos and provides little original instruction or help.

Format shift

In-person humor helps some students; .

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

62/100

Quizzes, tests, and proctored assessments outweigh deep projects, with sparse graded items overall.

Format shift

Online emphasizes proctored tests; in person adds presentations and class video credits.

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

5 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

Older in-person reviews are more mixed-to-positive on humor and real-life examples, but some and that .

Main concern

Uneven teaching depth and reports of rude emails or .

What students said

“This professor was really funny and made econ much easier to understand. ”
ECON8
“Easy going but fails to teach and help in . Be ready to teach yourself.”
ECON7
“She's personable and made class interesting. Grade is made up of 3 assignments, 3 quizzes, 3 tests, a solo presentation”
ECO4

Remote format

Online

7 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

easy assignments and , but frequent criticism of lazy curation, YouTube-only content, and invasive proctoring.

Main concern

Little original instruction and required anti-cheating software with weak student interaction.

What students said

“She offers none of her own original lecture videos, ALL YouTube links, and long powerpoints.”
ECO4
“Tests and .”
ECO8
“It's extremely easy to pass her classes. You just have to watch Khan Academy videos and answer 1 or 2 questions”
ECO8

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Online exams often require invasive proctoring software, which students find strict even when content itself is easy.

Invasive proctoringProctorio or similarChrome anti-cheat extensionLecture-aligned tests

Assessment risk

Strict

32/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

as fair if you attend and read; one pandemic-era note mentions creepy proctoring browser use with remote materials.

Fair testsPresentation requiredAttendance-linked video credits
“ but- participate, and read.”
ECON8
“you have to download a browser called Protocio which is very creepy.”
ECON7

Online

Multiple online reviews explicitly cite invasive proctoring, Proctorio-like tools, or .

Invasive online proctoringAnti-cheat extensionYouTube/Khan based prep
“Tests and .”
ECO8
“You have to install a .”
ECO7

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“This is the laziest professor ever! if you want to teach yourself the material.”

Voice snapshots generated from 12 reviews, weighting repeated self-teach and . Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

34/100

“She fails to teach. We are learning off of 3, 10 minute, kahn academy vids every 2 weeks and a very simple powerpoint.”

🅰️ Easy Pass

78/100

“Only the laziest people would fail this class.”

🔒 Proctoring Risk

32/100

“Tests and .”

👍 Recommendation Split

48/100

“ my favorite professors I've ever had.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • ALL YouTube links, and long powerpoints
  • she sends us videos off of youtube to watch
  • Her lecture is very fun, with lots of daily examples

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • It's extremely easy to pass her classes
  • The
  • the class is an easy A but you learn nothing

Theme 3

⚠️ About Support & Tone

  • Pretty much no interaction with the students
  • She has publicly been very rude to students
  • She actually cares about students.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

12

Recent reviews read by the AI

12

Lifetime ratings

55/100

Evidence confidence

Twelve reviews show a and proctoring pattern, but the small sample and pre/post-pandemic split keep confidence moderate.

Inside 12 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 52
4 out of 54
3 out of 51
2 out of 52
1 out of 53

Course coverage

ECO84 reviews
ECO43 reviews
ECON73 reviews
ECO71 review
ECON81 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

9 reported outcomes

A range

4

A+ 2 · A 1 · A- 1

B range

1

B 1

C range

2

C 1 · C- 1

D range

1

D 1

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

1

Incomplete 1