AI Rate Professor

Nursing

Andrea Piguillem

N160 · NURS160 · 6 lifetime ratings

AI rating
22/100
RMP rating
2.2/5
Take again
16.67%
Difficulty
3.3

The decision

Avoid if you need strong live instruction in nursing pharma; if and textbooks.

Best fit · Self Taught ProReads From SlidesSelf Teach RequiredHard QuizzesLimited Office HoursInconsistent Materials
  • Students say she often reads lecture notes instead of teaching pharmacology clearly.
  • Online and difficult weekly quizzes.
  • In-person reviews report rude answers, mispronounced drug names, and pressure to complain to the dean.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

42/100

Some earn A or A- but only with and ; it is not a free grade.

Online students report hard quizzes and reading; and self-teaching.

Is the course easy?

Standard

42/100

Content is nursing-level and manageable for self-starters, but quizzes and volume keep it from feeling introductory.

Online reviews stress reading and quiz mismatch; depth.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

48/100

Online is not attendance-based, while .

Online comments say ; and you will not pass.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

18/100

Only about one in and most call instruction low quality for a key nursing course.

One positive-leaning online review exists, but both formats still mostly advise against her.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

48/100

, yet quiz difficulty and sparse teaching make grades feel unforgiving.

Format shift

Online notes clearer criteria; .

Workload

Heavy

32/100

Lots of , and .

Format shift

Online reviews especially stress weekly uploads and reading; .

Teaching experience

Poor

28/100

Across formats students say she reads notes, cannot pronounce drugs, and leaves them teaching themselves.

Format shift

; online still criticizes recycled materials and weak slides.

Assessment method

Balanced

55/100

Weekly quizzes, case studies, and alone.

Format shift

Online centers quizzes and assignments; .

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

3 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person students describe minimal teaching, reading slides, mispronounced terms, limited office hours, and a rude tone when questioned.

Main concern

Poor live instruction and .

What students said

“She read straight from lectures, and couldn't pronounce most of the drugs.”
N160
“Just reads notes instead of lecturing. Very low quality instructor for such an important class.”
N160
“Very minimal teaching. She just reads the lecture notes which I could do on my own.”
N160

Remote format

Online

3 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

Online N160/NURS160 is asynchronous with , and lots of reading; materials sometimes feel copy-pasted and .

Main concern

Vague slides and .

What students said

“you definitely need to work for a good grade in the class.”
N160
“The online quizzes barely reflected the material of that week, the ”
NURS160
“all the automatic announcements and and pasted from Professor Novak's section.”
NURS160

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Assessment centers on frequent quizzes and reading-based work; reviews do not clearly prove camera proctoring.

Weekly QuizzesReading HeavyNo Clear Proctoring Details

Assessment risk

Standard

48/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, with little useful teaching before them.

Weekly QuizzesAttendance Pressure
“ so you have to attend.”
N160
“You just teach yourself.”
N160

Online

Online weekly quizzes are difficult and often feel poorly aligned with vague slides and the book.

Weekly QuizzesAsynchronousReading Heavy
“The ”
NURS160
“ so studying is a must.”
NURS160

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ .”

Voice snapshots generated from 6 reviews (3 online, 3 in-person), highlighting self-teaching and weak instruction. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

28/100

“Just reads notes instead of lecturing. Very low quality instructor for such an important class.”

👍 Recommendation Rate

18/100

“ .”

📚 Workload Reality

32/100

“you definitely need to work for a good grade in the class.”

🖥️ Online Materials Gap

30/100

“the any useful information reflecting the weekly quizzes.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • She read straight from lectures, and couldn't pronounce most of the drugs.
  • If you asked a
  • Very minimal teaching.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • so studying is a must.
  • you definitely need to work for a good grade
  • Skip class? You won't pass.

Theme 3

💻 About Online Experience

  • all the automatic announcements and and pasted
  • The
  • she communicates well and .

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

6

Recent reviews read by the AI

6

Lifetime ratings

55/100

Evidence confidence

Six fairly recent, detailed reviews split evenly by format show consistent teaching complaints despite small sample size.

Inside 6 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 50
4 out of 51
3 out of 51
2 out of 52
1 out of 52

Course coverage

N1604 reviews
NURS1602 reviews

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

5 reported outcomes

A range

2

A 1 · A- 1

B range

1

B 1

C range

0

No reported values

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

2

Not sure yet 2