AI Rate Professor

Health Information Science

Shirley Jordan-Seay

CIM201 · CIM225 · 2 lifetime ratings

AI rating
22/100
RMP rating
1.0/5
Take again
0%
Difficulty
4.0

The decision

Avoid if you have any choice; expect self-study and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProPoor communicationDisorganizedSlow gradingTough graderHeavy reading
  • Students say she does not effectively teach or communicate
  • and
  • She is often the only CIM option, which traps students

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

35/100

One A+ exists, but , and poor teaching make an A unreliable without heavy self-study.

All evidence is from online CIM reviews.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

28/100

, and weak instruction raise the real content and navigation burden.

All evidence is from online CIM reviews.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

20/100

as mandatory.

All evidence is from online CIM reviews.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

12/100

Students explicitly prefer another professor and criticize communication, organization, and teaching.

All evidence is from online CIM reviews.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

22/100

Tough grader tag, delayed grades, and .

Format shift

Grading complaints come from online CIM201 and CIM225.

Workload

Heavy

30/100

Get ready to read and high difficulty point to a reading-heavy, high-effort online load.

Format shift

Workload comments are online-only.

Teaching experience

Awful

15/100

Students say she does not instruct effectively, communicates poorly, and .

Format shift

Both online reviews rate quality at 1.

Assessment method

FocusOnExams

72/100

Exams are highlighted as high-stakes and error-prone, with students needing tutors before major tests.

Format shift

Exam complaints appear in online CIM201.

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

0 reviews

Low confidence

No stored summary is available for this format.

Main concern

No main concern is stored for this format.

Remote format

Online

2 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

, and weakly supported, with tough grading and late feedback.

Main concern

Weak instruction plus slow grading .

What students said

“This instructor does not really instruct. She is not a good communicator.”
CIM201
“the thing I .”
CIM225

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Online exams are treated as serious gatekeepers, with reported incorrect answers and weak instructional support.

Online examsWrong answers reportedHigh stakes

Assessment risk

Strict

30/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

Online

Online exams are high-pressure; students report wrong answers and feel unprepared without outside tutoring.

Online examsWrong answers reportedSelf-study required
“ .. I will have to get a .”
CIM201

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“This instructor does not really instruct. She is not a good communicator.”

Voice snapshots generated from 2 online reviews, highlighting communication gaps and . Credibility rating: Medium.

🚨 Teaching Quality

15/100

“This instructor does not effectively teach the material.”

👎 Recommendation Rate

12/100

“If there was a choice, I would pick another professor.”

⏱️

20/100

“She does not grade timely.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • She is not a good communicator.
  • She does not effectively teach the material.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • Get ready to read

Theme 3

🆘 About Support

  • and is not helpful when students have questions.
  • I will have to get a .

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

2

Recent reviews read by the AI

2

Lifetime ratings

48/100

Evidence confidence

Two detailed online reviews across two courses align on poor teaching, but the sample remains small.

Inside 2 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

CIM2011 review
CIM2251 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

2 reported outcomes

A range

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

0

No reported values