AI Rate Professor

Child Development

Andrea Knudsen

CDES118 · CDES238 · CHOD · CDES116 · 9 lifetime ratings

AI rating
55/100
RMP rating
3.1/5
Take again
37.5%
Difficulty
2.4

The decision

Take her if you can handle firm grading and attendance-heavy expectations, but avoid her if you need a .

Best fit · Effort For RewardTough graderClear grading criteriaPassionate but firmAttendance mattersMixed teaching quality
  • Online reviews are split between inaccessible course design and .
  • In-person reviews describe a firm instructor whose lectures can be valuable but and approachability vary sharply.
  • Students who attend, participate, and , but the experience is inconsistent.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

58/100

An A is possible, especially online, but comments , and doing the work carefully.

Online evidence includes easy passing, while in-person evidence stresses class attendance, books, participation, and .

Is the course easy?

Standard

56/100

The content is usually manageable, but and lecture-heavy delivery can make it feel harder than the raw difficulty suggests.

Online reviews call some modules simple, while and required in-class information.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

25/100

In-person comments say students need to attend because assignment information and participation matter.

; online reviews do not clearly discuss attendance.

Is this professor recommended?

Depends

48/100

and passionate, but many warn about toughness, approachability, and .

Online recommendations are mixed, while and frustrating experiences.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

35/100

Several students call her a , though and easy passing.

Format shift

Online grading is mixed, while .

Workload

Moderate

55/100

Workload is usually manageable, but some in-person reviews mention lots of , and group projects.

Format shift

Online workload appears lighter, while , and projects.

Teaching experience

Average

55/100

Teaching quality is sharply mixed, with passionate and and approachability concerns.

Format shift

Online teaching ranges from caring and , while .

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

25/100

Reviews emphasize journals, papers, projects, homework, participation, field trips, and group work rather than exams.

Format shift

Both formats point mainly to assignment-based assessment, with .

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

7 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

In-person reviews describe useful content and hands-on learning, but , and limited approachability.

Main concern

Students may struggle if they miss class or .

What students said

“ and monotone”
CDES118
“You definitely need the books and need to go to class”
CDES118
“Andrea actually inspired me to become an art teacher with her amazing* reggio class.”
CDES116

Remote format

Online

3 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

Online reviews range from an materials and easy passing.

Main concern

Canvas organization and .

What students said

“ , and she is an .”
CDES116
“A .”
CDES238
“ and its a sure pass!”
CDES118

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Reviews do not clearly prove a specific exam format, proctoring policy, open-book policy, midterm format, or .

Exam policy not clearly provenAssignment-focused assessment

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, and projects, but do not clearly prove exam format.

Exam policy not clearly provenPapersParticipationGroup projects
“I got low grades on papers where she did not agree with my perspective”
CDES118
“You also get to work in group projects as well.”
CDES116

Online

Online reviews mention journals, a PowerPoint project, lectures, and modules, but .

Exam policy not clearly provenWeekly journalsPowerPoint project
“Weekly journals and .”
CDES238

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“You definitely need the books and need to go to class, she gives out a lot of information for assignments during class.”

Voice snapshots generated from 10 reviews, highlighting key themes in , and format differences. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

55/100

“Andrea actually inspired me to become an art teacher with her amazing* reggio class.”

⚖️

35/100

“ , and she is an .”

📌

25/100

“You definitely need the books and need to go to class”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • and monotone
  • She does give you good lectures and material.
  • She's passionate about art and children

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • A .
  • and its a sure pass!
  • I got low grades on papers where she did not agree with my perspective

Theme 3

❤️ About Character

  • and is somewhat condesending.
  • she seemed very caring and .
  • .

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

10

Recent reviews read by the AI

9

Lifetime ratings

82/100

Evidence confidence

Ten reviews span many years and both formats, with enough detailed comments to show consistent themes despite polarized opinions.

Inside 10 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 52
4 out of 53
3 out of 50
2 out of 52
1 out of 53

Course coverage

CDES1184 reviews
CDES1163 reviews
CDES2382 reviews
CHOD1 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

6 reported outcomes

A range

3

A 3

B range

1

B+ 1

C range

1

C+ 1

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

1

Not sure yet 1