AI Rate Professor

Art History

Alice Clements

ART15 · 2 lifetime ratings

AI rating
32/100
RMP rating
2.5/5
Take again
0%
Difficulty
3.0

The decision

Proceed cautiously; sparse conflicting reviews make this a gamble unless you need the section and .

Best fit · Effort For RewardTough graderExtra creditParticipation mattersFeedback concernsDSPS mixed
  • Only two reviews exist and they strongly disagree on accommodations and .
  • One student earned an A with and DSP understanding; the other reports harsh negative feedback and a .
  • and creative freedom is limited toward still-life copying.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

52/100

One student got an A with , but the other describes her way or .

All evidence is in person; no online reviews exist.

Is the course easy?

Standard

50/100

Difficulty ratings sit mid-range; the class feels like structured still-life work rather than a free creative studio.

Only in-person art15 comments are available.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

20/100

Both reviews mark attendance mandatory for the studio-style class.

.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

28/100

Would-take-again is effectively zero and the negative and student attrition.

again.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

30/100

and her-way grading clash with one report of usable .

Format shift

In-person only; reviews conflict on fairness.

Workload

Heavy

35/100

Lots of homework appears as a tag, and .

Format shift

In-person studio workload only; no online comparison.

Teaching experience

Average

42/100

One student rates her solid and caring on DSP; and unhelpful.

Format shift

.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

25/100

Studio artworks, participation, and .

Format shift

.

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

2 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

Both reviews are in-person art15: one moderately positive on DSP and , , and accommodations.

Main concern

Harsh or and possible poor DSPS handling for some students.

What students said

“8/10 Clements understood my DSP requirements well, and there was a good amount of .”
art15
“Was , and was usually negative.”
art15

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 clearly describe exams; assessment appears project and participation based.

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

; comments focus on artwork feedback, participation, and .

Project basedParticipationExtra credit
“there was a good amount of .”
art15
“Her way or .”
art15

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Was , and was usually negative.”

Voice snapshots generated from 2 reviews, highlighting conflicting feedback and studio experience. Credibility rating: Low.

📝

30/100

“ .”

♿ Accommodations mixed

45/100

“Clements understood my DSP requirements well”

📉 Class attrition

25/100

“The class went from 30 students to maybe 12 by the .”

Theme 1

🎨 About Studio Style

  • it felt like a still life class with messy materials
  • I would have liked to have seen more personal creative style than a copy of what we were seeing in front of us

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • there was a good amount of .
  • Her way or .

Theme 3

🗣️

  • Was , and was usually negative.
  • Did not leave students who wanted to .

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

2

Recent reviews read by the AI

2

Lifetime ratings

28/100

Evidence confidence

Only two reviews years apart with opposite tones and little shared detail make any conclusion fragile.

Inside 2 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

art152 reviews

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

2 reported outcomes

A range

1

A 1

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

1

Rather not say 1