AI Rate Professor

Art

Jacob Fossum

ART304 · 2 lifetime ratings

AI rating
52/100
RMP rating
3.0/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
3.0

The decision

if you accept a supply-heavy studio with a still-developing instructor and .

Best fit · Effort For RewardRestrictive StyleSupply HeavyYoung InstructorMixed ReceptionArt Studio
  • Only two reviews leave a split picture of restrictive teaching versus solid substitute performance.
  • Students notice heavy art-supply demands and limited student preference input.
  • One review credits visible improvement in student work and future growth potential.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

48/100

No student calls it an Easy A and moderate difficulty ratings imply ordinary effort for grades.

; no online reviews.

Is the course easy?

Standard

50/100

Difficulty sits mid-range with studio demands but no extreme intellectual load described.

; no online reviews.

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

50/100

Reviews do .

; no online reviews.

Is this professor recommended?

Depends

45/100

One student finds him out of his element while another says he did a good job and will improve.

; no online reviews.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

50/100

No detailed grading comments so fairness is assumed neutral from mixed quality scores.

Format shift

; no online reviews.

Workload

Moderate

42/100

Heavy art-supply list raises cost and prep burden even without a .

Format shift

; no online reviews.

Teaching experience

Average

55/100

Fine artist and improving substitute teacher but also called restrictive and out of his classroom element.

Format shift

; no online reviews.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

28/100

Studio art focus centers on student work and supplies rather than exams.

Format shift

; no online reviews.

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

In-person ART304 feedback splits between restrictive supply-heavy teaching and a capable last-minute substitute who improved student work.

Main concern

Demands many art supplies and a restrictive style that some call suppressive.

What students said

“His teaching style is restrictive and suppressive. He demands far too many art supplies and neglects the preferences of his students”
ART304
“Was able to overcome the class' disappointment, gain their respect, and do a good job of teaching.”
ART304

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 .

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

testing policy.

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Jacob Fossum although a fine artist is out of his element in the classroom. His teaching style is restrictive and suppressive.”

Voice snapshots generated from 2 in-person reviews with conflicting tone on teaching and supplies. Credibility rating: Low.

🎯 Teaching Quality

55/100

“Was able to overcome the class' disappointment, gain their respect, and do a good job of teaching.”

🧾 Supply Burden

42/100

“He demands far too many art supplies and neglects the preferences of his students”

👍 Recommendation Split

45/100

“Young but undoubtedly will improve with further experience into an outstanding instructor.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • His teaching style is restrictive and suppressive.
  • do a good job of teaching. Improvement in all the student's work very noticeable.

Theme 2

🎨 About Studio Demands

  • He demands far too many art supplies
  • neglects the preferences of his students

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 2009 in-person reviews conflict on teaching quality so conclusions stay tentative.

Inside 2 stored ratings

Quality ratings

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

Course coverage

ART3042 reviews

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

0 reported outcomes

A range

0

No reported values

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

0

No reported values