AI Rate Professor

English

Pamela Richmond

ENGWR101 · ENGWR51 · ENGWR302 · ENGWR100 · 1A · ENG300 · ENGWR301 · ENGWR202 · ENG100 · ENGWR300 · 86 lifetime ratings

AI rating
33/100
RMP rating
3.0/5
Take again
19.05%
Difficulty
4.0

The decision

Avoid unless you want intense political writing practice and can handle a tough, high-volume workload.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerTough graderSo many papersUnclear instructionsPolitical lecturesSlow email replies
  • and
  • Many students report , and
  • some say she improves writers; most warn of stress and

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

32/100

Tough grading and , not light effort.

Both online and ; online adds ignored help requests that can sink grades.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

28/100

, and fast-paced political topics make content demanding even in lower-level writing courses.

In-person and ; online adds disorganization that raises difficulty further.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

22/100

and skipping hurts; online has no live attendance but still rigid deadlines.

In-person evidence is mostly mandatory; but communication is still weak.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

28/100

Low take-again rate and repeated warnings about rudeness, politics overload, and reviews.

Online reviews are almost uniformly against taking her; in-person is mixed but still leans negative overall.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

28/100

and many mid/low reported grades show harsh paper standards with limited second chances.

Format shift

Online students often get zeros or ; .

Workload

Heavy

22/100

So , and frequent long essays dominate the workload across courses.

Format shift

Both formats report heavy essay loads; .

Teaching experience

Poor

40/100

some find her passionate and helpful after class, but many describe disorganization, rudeness, and little real instruction.

Format shift

In-person has more positive outliers; online skews strongly negative on communication.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

28/100

Assessment centers on frequent essays, journals, reading responses, and .

Format shift

Evidence is mostly in-person essays and quizzes; .

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

45 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

and politics-heavy content, mandatory attendance for many, with some praising tough love and writing growth.

Main concern

, and lectures that feel more political than instructional.

What students said

“Unclear instructions, blames students for her miscommunication, lots of reading and writing”
ENGWR300
“she doesn't really teach she ”
ENGWR300
“She is so tough and rude... Lots of homework and ”
ENG300

Remote format

Online

5 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

Online sections draw strong complaints about disappearing mid-semester, ignored emails, late feedback, and .

Main concern

Slow or no communication and .

What students said

“she disappeared out of ”
ENGWR300
“ essay was due”
ENGWR300
“I wrote an and I never got a response back”
ENGWR300

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Courses rely more on essays and , but standards feel strict.

Pop quizzesEssay-based assessmentIn-class essaysPolitical paper topics

Assessment risk

Standard

48/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

In-person sections mention pop quizzes, midterms or in-class essays, and .

Pop quizzesIn-class essaysLots of papers
“She so be ready for those”
ENGWR101
“Midterms and !!”
ENGWR100

Online

Online reviews emphasize papers and homework, not webcam proctoring; .

Essay heavyLate gradingUnclear prompts
“ ”
ENGWR300
“ , but never heard from her”
ENGWR302

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“I !!! !!! Above all she is rude and inconsiderate.”

Voice snapshots generated from 50 reviews spanning 2008-2025, highlighting workload, communication, and . Credibility rating: High.

📚

22/100

“6 page essays almost every other week”

📧 Poor Communication

30/100

“Dont expect an ”

⚖️

28/100

“ . never taking her again”

👍 Minority Praise

70/100

“She does grade work hard but it made me a better writer!”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • There is very little instruction or learning in class
  • classes don't even consist of teaching
  • She just does not know how to teach

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • NOT the class to take if you want an easy A
  • I should have received an F but she gave me a C

Theme 3

📢 About Politics & Tone

  • She gets SUPER political which made me, and the rest of my class uncomfortable
  • talked about too much politics
  • constantly talks about politics and garbage/recycling

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

50

Recent reviews read by the AI

86

Lifetime ratings

86/100

Evidence confidence

Fifty reviews spanning many years with detailed, consistent themes on workload, politics, and .

Inside 50 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 526
4 out of 515
3 out of 511
2 out of 512
1 out of 522

Course coverage

ENGWR30014 reviews
ENGWR10010 reviews
ENG3008 reviews
ENGWR1017 reviews
ENG1003 reviews
Show 6 more courses
ENGWR3023 reviews
1001 review
1A1 review
ENGWR2021 review
ENGWR3011 review
ENGWR511 review

Reported outcomes

B range results lead the reported letter grades.

19 reported outcomes

A range

2

A 1 · A- 1

B range

6

B+ 1 · B 3 · B- 2

C range

6

C+ 2 · C 4

D range

1

D- 1

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

4

Not sure yet 3 · Rather not say 1