AI Rate Professor

Nursing

Brenda Harrell

WOMENADN · TREND31 · 3 lifetime ratings

AI rating
28/100
RMP rating
2.2/5
Take again
0%
Difficulty
2.0

The decision

Avoid if ; expect printouts and limited tech support.

Best fit · Self Taught ProNot tech savvyPrint-heavy clinicalInconsistent toneSparse feedbackLow enthusiasm
  • Very few detailed reviews and .
  • Main concrete complaint is outdated tech habits and heavy printing in clinical.
  • Older notes call her fair but sometimes grumpy, with little teaching depth.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

50/100

One recent clinical student reported an A+ but comments do not show an easy free grade path.

All evidence is in-person; grade detail is thin.

Is the course easy?

Standard

55/100

Difficulty ratings are moderate and comments do not describe heavy academic challenge.

.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

25/100

as mandatory in the only review that addresses it.

In-person clinical only; no online comparison.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

18/100

and lukewarm-to-negative sparse comments give no reason to seek her out.

.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

50/100

One student calls her fair and another earned an A+, but evidence is too thin for strong claims.

Format shift

.

Workload

Moderate

50/100

Main workload friction is printing paperwork rather than described study volume.

Format shift

In-person clinical notes only.

Teaching experience

Poor

32/100

Low quality ratings and complaints about tech and tone outweigh the mild fair-but-grumpy note.

Format shift

In-person only; one review is empty of content.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

40/100

Clinical paperwork and case studies dominate the only concrete assessment comments.

Format shift

In-person clinical paperwork focus; .

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

Low confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

Sparse in-person notes describe a not-tech-savvy clinical instructor who wants printed paperwork and can .

Main concern

Printing everything and weak tech fluency add friction with little upside described.

What students said

“NOT TECH SAVY. be prepared to print everything.”
WOMENADN
“fair teacher, gets grumpy sometimes, but understanding”
WOMENADN

Remote format

Online

0 reviews

Low confidence

No stored summary is available for this format.

Main concern

No main concern is stored for this format.

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Reviews do not clearly describe exams; assessment talk centers on printed clinical documents.

Clinical paperworkPrinted case studies

Assessment risk

Varies

45/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

; students mention case studies and printed paperwork for clinical.

Printed paperworkCase studies
“she would request everything to be printed out, case studies, any paperwork regardless if the .”
WOMENADN

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“NOT TECH SAVY. be prepared to print everything.”

Voice snapshots generated from 3 sparse in-person nursing reviews with limited detail. Credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Quality

32/100

“fair teacher, gets grumpy sometimes, but understanding”

👎 Recommendation Rate

18/100

“NOT TECH SAVY. be prepared to print everything.”

🖨️ Clinical Friction

40/100

“she would request everything to be printed out, case studies, any paperwork”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • fair teacher, gets grumpy sometimes, but understanding
  • NOT TECH SAVY

Theme 2

📈 About Course Logistics

  • be prepared to print everything.
  • request everything to be printed out, case studies, any paperwork

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

3

Recent reviews read by the AI

3

Lifetime ratings

28/100

Evidence confidence

Only three reviews, one empty, and a wide outdated span make conclusions fragile.

Inside 3 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

WOMENADN2 reviews
TREND311 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

1 reported outcomes

A range

1

A+ 1

B range

0

No reported values

C range

0

No reported values

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values