AI Rate Professor

Graphic Communication

Dawn Pedersen

GCOM330 · ARTNM305 · 2 lifetime ratings

AI rating
42/100
RMP rating
2.8/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
3.0

The decision

Evidence is thin and split; verify the specific course and .

Best fit · Budget FirstMixed Course FitEasy GradingFast Summer PaceSoftware CostHelpful When Engaged
  • Only two reviews exist and they paint opposite course experiences.
  • Web or graphic ; history-style lectures feel boring and low-value.
  • Summer sections and expensive software are major practical risks.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

EasyA

78/100

One , though the other focuses more on engagement than grades.

; no online reviews.

Is the course easy?

Standard

52/100

Pace can be fast and summer load feels heavy, but content difficulty is described as moderate.

; no online reviews.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

Reviews do not clearly establish a .

; no online reviews.

Is this professor recommended?

Depends

48/100

graphic software help is valued, lecture-style history is not.

; no online reviews.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Lenient

78/100

One student explicitly reports easy grading in the graphic communication course.

Format shift

All evidence from in-person reviews.

Workload

Moderate

45/100

Regular term may be manageable, but summer is called too much with .

Format shift

All evidence from in-person reviews.

Teaching experience

Average

48/100

Helpful and considerate in software classes, unconfident and disengaging in lecture-heavy content.

Format shift

All evidence from in-person reviews.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

35/100

Comments emphasize assignments and .

Format shift

All evidence from in-person reviews.

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

2 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Budget First

one praises helpful graphic instruction and and low value.

Main concern

Tiny sample plus expensive required software and .

What students said

“Better at teaching web design than history; very boring.”
ARTNM305
“Helpful and considerate. Fast paced, but will slow down to help you.”
GCOM330

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 emphasize assignments and engagement more than exam format, so .

Assignment FocusLimited Exam Detail

Assessment risk

Varies

55/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

and software work more than proctored exams.

Assignment DrivenEasy Grading Mentioned
“You'll learn a lot of cool stuff. .”
GCOM330
“the .”
ARTNM305

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Better at teaching web design than history; very boring.”

Voice snapshots generated from 2 in-person reviews with conflicting course experiences. Credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Course Fit Matters

48/100

“Better at teaching web design than history; very boring.”

👍 Helpful Side

70/100

“Helpful and considerate. Fast paced, but will slow down to help you.”

💵 Budget Warning

40/100

“You'll need to buy newest acad. version software: $290.”

📝

78/100

“You'll learn a lot of cool stuff. .”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • She didn't seem confident about what she was teaching
  • Helpful and considerate.
  • Cut down a 3-hour lecture class to maybe an hour, if that.

Theme 2

📈 About Workload & Cost

  • !
  • You'll need to buy newest acad. version software: $290.
  • Half of the class was missing by the end of the semester

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

2

Recent reviews read by the AI

2

Lifetime ratings

28/100

Evidence confidence

Only two reviews from 2006 and 2015 conflict by course type, so confidence in any single conclusion is low.

Inside 2 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

ARTNM3051 review
GCOM3301 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