AI Rate Professor

Child Development

Ade Hernandez

CHILDDEV · CHDEV11 · CHDEV62 · CHDEV002 · CDCD39 · 8 lifetime ratings

AI rating
22/100
RMP rating
2.4/5
Take again
20%
Difficulty
3.1

The decision

Avoid if ; recent reviews show unresponsive support and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProVague SyllabusUnresponsiveGroup Project HeavyTough GraderRead the Syllabus Only
  • Recent CHDEV002 reviews slam unclear instructions and zero helpful clarification.
  • Students report and failing or near-failing marks.
  • Older in-person comments are mixed, with some praise for knowledge and food, but .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

28/100

Recent students report D and and delayed grading that tanks previously high marks.

Online reviews emphasize failing grades and confusion; classes.

Is the course easy?

Standard

42/100

Content is not described as advanced, but unclear instructions and should.

Online students emphasize confusion over content depth; .

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

45/100

while others say it is not required, with no clear single policy across reviews.

Online and the course offering.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

22/100

and look elsewhere, outweighing a few older positive notes.

Online ; in-person is split between older praise and recent complaints.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

22/100

from A to D appear in recent reviews.

Format shift

and in-person CHDEV002 comments.

Workload

Heavy

32/100

, and weekly tests stack up without clear guidance.

Format shift

Online reviews stress homework and tests; .

Teaching experience

Poor

28/100

, and missing lectures dominate the recent student picture.

Format shift

Online experience is worse; a and passionate.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

30/100

Assessment leans on projects, group work, and .

Format shift

Online mentions weekly tests; in-person centers group and individual presentations.

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

5 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

In-person experiences range from knowledgeable and and heavy group work.

Main concern

Group projects can force strong students to carry freeloaders, and recent in-person CHDEV002 mirrors the syllabus chaos.

What students said

“Instructions for response "read the syllabus."”
CHDEV002
“Easy class, and lots of food provided on every class meeting.”
CHDEV11
“The and work that needs to be completed.”
CHDEV62

Remote format

Online

3 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

Online CHDEV002 reviews are strongly negative about vague syllabi, , and unreachable help.

Main concern

No real clarification beyond read the and weekly tests.

What students said

“Instructions were so unclear and every time anyone try to reach her, she would not answer or just say to reread the syllabus.”
CHDEV002
“ . No discussions. Weekly tests.”
CHDEV002

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Reviews mention weekly tests and but do not clearly prove proctoring tools or .

Weekly TestsProject HeavyUnclear Rubrics

Assessment risk

Standard

48/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

and presentations more than detailed exam formats.

Group ProjectsPresentations
“ and some individual presentations are required.”
CDCD39

Online

Online students mention weekly tests and .

Weekly TestsNo LecturesSyllabus Only Guidance
“ . No discussions. Weekly tests.”
CHDEV002
“The and everytime I or my classmates would reachout for clarrification, none was given.”
CHDEV002

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“AVOID this professor! Instructions for response "read the syllabus."”

Voice snapshots generated from 8 reviews (3 online, 5 in person), highlighting syllabus chaos and mixed older experiences. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

28/100

“Unfortunately, she was not a great professor.”

📉

22/100

“once she did my grade dropped from an A to a D!”

👎 Recommendation

22/100

“Look for a different Professor, even if at a different campus.”

Theme 1

📘 About Clarity & Support

  • read the syllabus." The syllabus didn't provide details
  • she would not answer or just say to reread the syllabus
  • Cannot get in touch with

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • my grade dropped from an A to a D
  • Students are now complaining to the school
  • DO NOT reccomend this class

Theme 3

👥 About Group Work

  • Beware of Group Projects!
  • You are assigned a group who you will be working with for the entire semester

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

8

Recent reviews read by the AI

8

Lifetime ratings

58/100

Evidence confidence

Only 8 reviews, but recent detailed negatives are consistent while older positives create some time-based split.

Inside 8 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 51
4 out of 52
3 out of 50
2 out of 52
1 out of 53

Course coverage

CHDEV0024 reviews
CDCD391 review
CHDEV111 review
CHDEV621 review
CHILDDEV1 review

Reported outcomes

F results lead the reported letter grades.

5 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

B range

0

No reported values

C range

1

C 1

D range

1

D 1

F

2

F 2

No letter grade reported

1

Not_Sure_Yet 1