AI Rate Professor

Veterinary Sciences

Angela Colagross-Schouten

VT131 · 2 lifetime ratings

AI rating
33/100
RMP rating
3.0/5
Take again
50%
Difficulty
4.0

The decision

if you can handle a demanding class and are comfortable with inconsistent teaching experiences.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerPolarizing instructorHard work requiredTough graderRushed lab styleMixed helpfulness
  • Reviews are sharply split between one very positive and one very negative experience.
  • and tough grading.
  • The negative review , and practical relevance.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

35/100

Both students earned B grades, and the comments emphasize hard work and .

All grade-effort evidence comes from two in-person VT131 reviews.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

28/100

The course appears demanding, especially in lab, and one review says the focus was rushed and impractical.

Only in-person reviews exist, and both suggest notable difficulty.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

The .

No online or .

Is this professor recommended?

Depends

42/100

Recommendation is split because one student found her helpful while .

The recommendation and is evenly divided.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

30/100

, and the reported grades are B despite strong effort.

Format shift

, and they lean strict.

Workload

Heavy

30/100

The positive review still says students need to work hard, and the course difficulty ratings are high.

Format shift

Workload evidence .

Teaching experience

Poor

45/100

Teaching quality is too inconsistent, with rude and rushed lab instruction.

Format shift

Both reviews are in person, and they directly conflict.

Assessment method

Balanced

50/100

Reviews do not clearly identify whether .

Format shift

and group projects tags but do not prove the full assessment structure.

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 Hardcore Learner

In-person reviews are highly mixed, with one student finding her helpful and another finding her rushed and condescending.

Main concern

The small review set shows a high risk of harsh or unapproachable instruction.

What students said

“Great and helpful! Need to work hard but it is all necessary good work!”
VT131
“In lab she was rushed, rude, unapproachable, condescending, & didn't know what she was talking about.”
VT131

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 exam format, proctoring, open-book rules, or .

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, proctoring, open-book rules, or .

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“In lab she was rushed, rude, unapproachable, condescending, & didn't know what she was talking about.”

Voice snapshots generated from 2 reviews, highlighting the split between helpfulness and lab-teaching concerns. Credibility rating: Low.

⚖️ Mixed Teaching Quality

45/100

“Great and helpful! Need to work hard but it is all necessary good work!”

📉 Lab Concern

30/100

“In lab she was rushed, rude, unapproachable, condescending, & didn't know what she was talking about.”

📚 Work Required

35/100

“Need to work hard but it is all necessary good work!”

Theme 1

👩‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Great and helpful!
  • In lab she was rushed, rude, unapproachable, condescending, & didn't know what she was talking about.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty And Grades

  • Need to work hard but it is all necessary good work!
  • She focuses too much on things that are not practical for real life application.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

2

Recent reviews read by the AI

2

Lifetime ratings

35/100

Evidence confidence

Only two in-person reviews with opposite opinions make the profile useful but not stable.

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

VT1312 reviews

Reported outcomes

B range results lead the reported letter grades.

2 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

B range

2

B 2

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