AI Rate Professor

Educational Development

Ruth Delgado

GUID101 · COUN101 · COUN1 · 3 lifetime ratings

AI rating
29/100
RMP rating
2.2/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
3.7

The decision

Avoid relying on Ruth Delgado unless you are prepared to double-check all advising details yourself.

Best fit · Self Taught ProNegative energyHit or miss supportPlanning mistakesCounseling concerns
  • Two of three reviews describe strongly negative counseling experiences.
  • The main complaint is poor support and mistakes in educational planning, not course content.
  • All evidence is in person and the sample is very small.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

35/100

The reviews are about counseling rather than grades, so there is .

and does not clearly address grades.

Is the course easy?

Standard

50/100

Course difficulty cannot be judged clearly because comments focus on advising quality rather than academic content.

Only in-person reviews exist, and they do not give enough course-content evidence.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

Reviews mention appointments but do not clearly describe an .

.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

28/100

because they describe negative energy, weak support, and costly planning mistakes.

The recommendation .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

50/100

There is , so leniency cannot be meaningfully inferred.

Format shift

Only in-person reviews exist and they focus on counseling.

Workload

Moderate

50/100

Reviews .

Format shift

Only in-person reviews exist and they do not support a workload judgment.

Teaching experience

Poor

32/100

The advising experience is mostly described as draining and error-prone, with one improved interaction.

Format shift

All teaching and .

Assessment method

Balanced

50/100

, so assessment balance cannot be proven.

Format shift

Only in-person reviews exist and provide no assessment details.

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

positive review still noting an education-plan mistake.

Main concern

Students report negative support and mistakes that cost time or .

What students said

“Professor Delgado provides students with NEGATIVE ENERGY.”
COUN1
“she was completely different, very sweet.”
GUID101
“She also made numerous mistakes on my educational plan, which cost me money and time.”
COUN101

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 prove any .

Assessment risk

Standard

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

or quiz policy.

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“She also made numerous mistakes on my educational plan, which cost me money and time.”

Voice snapshots generated from 3 reviews, highlighting key themes in support style and advising accuracy; credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Support Quality

32/100

“It's very draining to be around her.”

👍 Recommendation Rate

28/100

“ if you need to drive to the Rancho campus.”

⚠️ Planning Accuracy

30/100

“She also made numerous mistakes on my educational plan, which cost me money and time.”

Theme 1

❤️ About Support Style

  • Professor Delgado provides students with NEGATIVE ENERGY.
  • she was completely different, very sweet.
  • It's very draining to be around her.

Theme 2

📋 About Advising Accuracy

  • she did make a mistake on my ed plan but I got it and she fixed it.
  • She also made numerous mistakes on my educational plan, which cost me money and time.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

3

Recent reviews read by the AI

3

Lifetime ratings

34/100

Evidence confidence

Credibility is low because there are only 3 reviews, though the negative support theme appears more than once.

Inside 3 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

COUN11 review
COUN1011 review
GUID1011 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

0 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

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