AI Rate Professor

Child Development

Mary O'Neal

CHILDDEV · CHDV115 · C125 · CHDV125 · CHDVC125 · 13 lifetime ratings

AI rating
24/100
RMP rating
3.0/5
Take again
25%
Difficulty
3.8

The decision

Only take this professor if you can , and limited guidance.

Best fit · Self Taught ProHarsh gradingUnclear expectationsLow interaction onlineHeavy readingMixed reviews
  • Online reviews frequently criticize unclear , and weak instructor interaction.
  • A few students found her helpful or reasonable, but negative comments are intense and repeated.
  • Grades and recommendations appear risky because students report high workload, no late work, and .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

32/100

An A looks difficult because students describe harsh , and no late work despite one review calling the class easy.

Online evidence leans harsh and workload-heavy, while but .

Is the course easy?

Challenging

35/100

The content and assignments are not consistently hard conceptually, but and .

Online reviews emphasize missing lectures and self-teaching, while confusing.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

18/100

Tags and comments indicate participation matters, skipping hurts, and .

Online reviews stress required discussions and participation, while .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

28/100

Most detailed recent reviews advise against taking her because of , and weak support.

Online recommendation is especially poor, while and serious complaints.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

22/100

Students repeatedly describe , and opinion-based expectations.

Format shift

Online , while in-person comments add strict no-late-work policies and .

Workload

Heavy

26/100

Reviews mention lots of , and heavy classwork.

Format shift

Online workload appears heavier due to lengthy discussions and reading, while .

Teaching experience

Poor

36/100

, but many detailed reviews report poor clarity, little lecture, and weak interaction.

Format shift

Online teaching is rated poorly in detailed comments, while and horrible.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

20/100

Comments emphasize discussions, forums, reading, participation, and classwork, with one review saying there were no tests.

Format shift

Online evidence clearly centers on discussions and classwork, while .

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

7 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

In-person reviews are polarized, with several very positive older comments but also serious complaints about strictness and .

Main concern

Students may face strict expectations, no late work, and uneven communication.

What students said

“She is very particular in what she wants and does not accept late work.”
CHDV115
“ and expectations and laid out everything for the course very clearly.”
CHDV125
“She is so unlcear about what she wants from you... ...”
CHDV115

Remote format

Online

6 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

Online reviews are mostly negative, citing , limited participation from the professor, harsh grading, and .

Main concern

Students report , and .

What students said

“However, there were absolutely zero lectures.”
CHDVC125
“ .”
CHDV125
“Teacher comments to our responses were not specific with suggestions for improvement but .”
C125

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

The only explicit exam evidence says there were no tests, but reviews do .

No Tests Clearly ReportedDiscussion-Based Assessment

Assessment risk

StudentFriendly

82/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, proctoring, open-book policy, midterm format, or .

Online

Online reviews explicitly report no tests in one class, but do not .

No Tests
“ ”
CHDVC125

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ .”

Voice snapshots generated from 13 reviews, highlighting key themes in , and recommendation risk. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

36/100

“She barely participated at all.”

⚖️

22/100

“Teacher comments to our responses were not specific with suggestions for improvement but .”

👍 Recommendation Rate

28/100

“ if possible.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • There were absolutely zero lectures.
  • She barely participated at all.
  • and expectations and laid out everything for the course very clearly.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • She is very particular in what she wants and does not accept late work.
  • Difficult class with lots of work.
  • .

Theme 3

💬 About Communication

  • Dont even bother trying to contact her during office hours.
  • and graded solely based upon her own opinions.
  • She interacts with the class on a , and requires the class to participate with each other every week.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

13

Recent reviews read by the AI

13

Lifetime ratings

88/100

Evidence confidence

Thirteen reviews across many years provide rich evidence, with credibility reduced slightly by polarized opinions and older comments.

Inside 13 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 56
4 out of 50
3 out of 50
2 out of 52
1 out of 55

Course coverage

CHDVC1254 reviews
CHDV1153 reviews
CHDV1253 reviews
C1252 reviews
CHILDDEV1 review

Reported outcomes

B range results lead the reported letter grades.

3 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

B range

2

B+ 1 · B 1

C range

0

No reported values

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

1

Drop/Withdrawal 1