AI Rate Professor

Agriculture

Ann Northrup

LH11 · 3 lifetime ratings

AI rating
86/100
RMP rating
4.5/5
Take again
100%
Difficulty
3.3

The decision

if you want deep practical plant pathology knowledge and can handle a paper-heavy, content-dense course.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerCaringRespectedKnowledgeablePractical FocusPaper Heavy
  • Highly knowledgeable plant pathology instructor who teaches for real understanding
  • Students praise clear communication and passion for the subject
  • Class is useful but dense with material and

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

58/100

No grade data and moderate difficulty with .

All evidence is from in-person LH11 reviews.

Is the course easy?

Standard

52/100

Content is substantial and time-crunched, but students say it is manageable when they engage with the practical approach.

All evidence is from in-person LH11 reviews.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

30/100

as mandatory; others do not contradict a structured in-person class.

.

Is this professor recommended?

MustTake

90/100

and comments call the class great, useful, and well taught.

All .

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

55/100

No grade outcomes are reported, so .

Format shift

Based only on in-person comments.

Workload

Heavy

35/100

Tags and comments flag many papers plus a lot of material in limited time.

Format shift

Based only on in-person comments.

Teaching experience

Excellent

88/100

Students , and passionate about teaching practical diagnosis.

Format shift

Based only on in-person comments.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

30/100

SO MANY PAPERS and paper-heavy comments point to assignment-driven assessment over exams.

Format shift

Based only on in-person comments.

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

Medium confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

In-person LH11 students describe Ann as knowledgeable, caring, and skilled at building diagnostic thinking from practical disease conditions.

Main concern

and a lot of material packed into limited time.

What students said

“Ann knows her stuff and communicates well. She really wants to get students to the their own.”
LH11
“So much material to cover, so little time.”
LH11
“Ann is a very good instructor. She is VERY knowledgeable and goes the .”
LH11

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 .

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

or proctoring rules.

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Ann knows her stuff and communicates well. She really wants to get students to the their own. A great and useful class.”

Voice snapshots generated from 3 in-person reviews spanning 2013-2018, highlighting teaching quality and workload. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

88/100

“Ann is a very good instructor. She is VERY knowledgeable and goes the .”

📚

35/100

“SO MANY PAPERS”

🌱 Practical Learning Focus

85/100

“Teacher has extensive practical experience in plant patholgy and teaches from the angle that if you understand the conditions for disease, diagnosis comes more easily.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Ann knows her stuff and communicates well
  • goes the
  • teaches from the angle that if you understand the conditions for disease, diagnosis comes more easily

Theme 2

📈 About Workload & Pace

  • SO MANY PAPERS
  • So much material to cover, so little time
  • A great and useful class

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

3

Recent reviews read by the AI

3

Lifetime ratings

55/100

Evidence confidence

Three detailed but older in-person reviews (2013-2018) are consistent and positive, yet the sample is small and lacks grade data.

Inside 3 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

LH113 reviews

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