My professor-to-be is a feminist Biblical critic that works at a German university (sadly stuck in a distance learning course since the original professor went on a sabbatical), so I think that tells you what her response would be if I asked to use the RSV instead...
You should try anyway, because the NRSV loses all of the poetry and soul that the RSV had. The RSV tried to keep the phrasing and familiarity of the KJV as a fundamental cultural text for English-speaking peoples, respect toward God with the formal Thees and Thous, etc. Some of the commentary could be pretty cold and calculated, but the translation itself was really an ecumenical landmark, as the original goal of the RSV included being a translation that took into account Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Evangelical, etc. perspectives and aimed at something that was repectful toward and useful to everyone.
The NRSV epitomizes everything that frustrates me about lagging American textual critical school that is still stuck in Germany two hundred years ago. They're still getting over their American puritanical "Biblical inerrancy" fundamentalism using post-Lutheran liberal textual approaches that are extremely dated in terms of actually interesting and fresh ideas.
Try making a case with your professor why you think that the NRSV is garbage. Talk about how it betrays the cadence and tone of these ancient texts and makes them read like cardboard. These texts are originally beautifully written, but after these butchers are done with them you'd think they were written by a liberal arts graduate student. I think that there are actually more distortions of the text in seeking a theologically neutral translation than in what was done before with the RSV. It's too self conscious now and sounds so awkward, like a teenage boy asking out a hot cheerleader on a date. I stand by the Oxford RSV as an achievement worthy of a great deal of attention, while the NRSV is polluting and burying its significance in tepid mediocrity. I really can't beleive that Metzger had a strong hand in the NRSV. He was masterful in many ways with the RSV, so I wonder if they just tacked his name on the revisions of the 1991 revision. The version from the 70's with the 'Apocrypha' is the best. I'm sure most of the commentary is the same.
To hell with it, just order the real thing. Your stupid femenist professor probably doesn't know the difference anyway, so if you don't mention it, she won't notice.http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Apocrypha-Standard-Expanded-Hardcover/dp/0195283481
They have used copies for under $10.00, or you can just spring for a new one. This one is still in print because everyone knows how much better it is. No inclusive language, no replacing words like firmament with 'water dome', etc. The NRSV assumes that you're an idiot and that you're easily offended. It also assumes you've never read poetry and won't notice when songs/psalms have no life in them. End of rant. At least for now.