AI Rate Professor

Deaf Studies

Christine Nakahara

Courses not reported · 1 lifetime ratings

AI rating
28/100
RMP rating
2.0/5
Take again
0%
Difficulty
1.0

The decision

Avoid if you have another option; the single review flags favoritism and a chilly classroom climate.

Best fit · Self Taught ProPlays FavoritesMandatory AttendancePassive CriticismTrigger WarningsProgram Elective Doubt
  • Only one review rates quality low and would not paint her as a must-take.
  • Student felt the class was unnecessary for the interpreting program and reported favoritism.
  • Difficulty is low, but classroom climate concerns dominate the feedback.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

55/100

Difficulty is low and student earned a B, but no evidence of a free A or .

All .

Is the course easy?

Introductory

82/100

Difficulty rating is 1 and comments focus on climate rather than hard content.

In-person only.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

15/100

review.

In-person only.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

22/100

Quality is 2/5, take-again rate is 0%, and the student questions the course value and classroom climate.

In-person only.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

50/100

Student received a B with low difficulty, but .

Format shift

In-person only.

Workload

Light

70/100

No heavy workload is described; critique centers on classroom climate instead of assignments.

Format shift

In-person only.

Teaching experience

Poor

30/100

Review cites favoritism, passive degradation of differing views, and low overall teaching quality.

Format shift

In-person only.

Assessment method

Balanced

50/100

Reviews do not clearly detail the mix of exams versus assignments.

Format shift

In-person only; assessment structure is not described.

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

1 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

One in-person review says the course , and the instructor played favorites while passively degrading dissenting views.

Main concern

Favoritism and passive put-downs toward students with different perspectives.

What students said

“She does play favorites and will try to degrade people passively who try to show a different perspective on certain topics.”
190-01
“Personally, this did not feel necessary for the interpreting program.”
190-01

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.

No .

Assessment risk

Standard

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

Reviews do not .

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“She does play favorites and will try to degrade people passively who try to show a different perspective on certain topics.”

Voice snapshots generated from 1 in-person review, highlighting climate and value concerns. Credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Climate

30/100

“She does play favorites and will try to degrade people passively who try to show a different perspective on certain topics.”

👎 Course Value

22/100

“Personally, this did not feel necessary for the interpreting program.”

📍 Attendance

15/100

“Yes”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • She does play favorites and will try to degrade people passively who try to show a different perspective on certain topics.
  • She will mention trigger warnings in class, so I caution using language and topics for sensitive individuals.

Theme 2

📉 About Course Value

  • Personally, this did not feel necessary for the interpreting program.
  • Otherwise, you will become and outcast.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

1

Recent reviews read by the AI

1

Lifetime ratings

18/100

Evidence confidence

A single 2024 in-person review is too thin for strong conclusions despite specific climate complaints.

Inside 1 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

190-011 review

Reported outcomes

B range results lead the reported letter grades.

1 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

B range

1

B 1

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