AI Rate Professor

Music

Shulamit Hoffman

PIANO1 · PIAN240 · MUSICFUND · MUS301B · MUS202 · MUSIC202 · MUSIC100 · PIANOI · MUSIC · MUS302 · MU100 · MUS101 · MUSC301 · PIANOII · MUS100 · 51 lifetime ratings

AI rating
10/100
RMP rating
2.0/5
Take again
3.57%
Difficulty
3.8

The decision

Avoid unless you strongly value strict music training and can , and .

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerTough graderHeavy workloadRude feedbackPassive aggressiveMusic-major expectations
  • Students , and little useful feedback.
  • Workload is heavy for an elective, especially readings, discussions, and .
  • A small minority praise her expertise, but the .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

MissionImpossible

15/100

An A is possible for a few students, but most comments say it requires excessive work, exact formatting, and surviving harsh deductions.

Online and reviews especially focused on strict discussion-post requirements.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

28/100

The content is not always conceptually advanced, but , and music-major expectations make the course feel much harder than an elective.

Online reviews emphasize writing volume, while , and unclear explanations.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

25/100

Attendance and participation appear important in in-person classes, while online reviews focus more .

and participation, while online evidence shows little flexibility for late submissions.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

8/100

Students overwhelmingly say not to take the class because the , and .

Both formats are mostly negative, with only a few older in-person reviews recommending her for highly motivated music students.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

8/100

Reviews repeatedly mention points off for small issues, grammar, formatting, and .

Format shift

Harsh grading appears in both formats, with online reviews giving the clearest examples of .

Workload

Overwhelming

12/100

Students frequently , and music work that exceeds expectations for an elective.

Format shift

Online students mention long discussion posts, while and readings.

Teaching experience

Awful

18/100

Most students describe her as rude, passive aggressive, confusing, or unhelpful despite acknowledging musical expertise.

Format shift

and communication, while in-person reviews stress public criticism and harsh classroom tone.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

25/100

Grades , and assignments rather than clearly described exams.

Format shift

Both formats emphasize assignments, though a .

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

33 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

, though a few students praise her knowledge when they are already motivated and prepared.

Main concern

, and music-major expectations.

What students said

“I get more homework in this class than both my calculus class and accounting class.”
MUS100
“She belittles people who struggle instead of helping them.”
MUSICFUND

Remote format

Online

17 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

Online reviews are overwhelmingly negative, with students citing , and weak feedback.

Main concern

The online class often feels like high-effort writing work with strict deductions and little support.

What students said

“Her weekly discussion post requirements are insane, the longest prompts I've ever had for discussion posts (1000+ words every week).”
MUS202
“if you don't write 1,200+ words expect to get a D with .”
MUSIC202

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Reviews do not clearly prove a consistent exam format, and the .

Reviews do not clearly prove a consistent exam policySome reviews mention tests or examsAssignments and discussions dominate grading

Assessment risk

Varies

35/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

and , but do not clearly prove closed-book rules or a consistent exam structure.

Some comments mention exams or testsNo clear proctoring or book policyDiscussion work can dominate grades
“She's way to tough of a .”
MUS100
“Discussions are worth 50% of your grade but quizzes and the .”
MUS100

Online

Online reviews do not clearly prove webcam, proctoring, Lockdown Browser, open-book exams, or a .

Reviews do not clearly prove online exam policyDiscussion posts are major graded workSome comments mention test-heavy tags
“The (and most of your grade)”
MUSIC202
“the life”
MUSIC202

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“This class felt more punishing then educational.”

Voice snapshots generated from 50 reviews, highlighting key themes in , and format differences. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

18/100

“She grades the assignments and leaves the most vague and .”

⚖️

8/100

“Grading was extremely harsh, with issues.”

📚 Workload Pressure

12/100

“I get more homework in this class than both my calculus class and accounting class.”

Theme 1

📚 About Workload

  • Her weekly discussion post requirements are insane, the longest prompts I've ever had for discussion posts (1000+ words every week).
  • She expects about 3 written discussions every week that require basically 500 words for each discussion.
  • The like 40 different concepts.

Theme 2

⚖️

  • She grades very tough marks you down for every little thing.
  • though her grammar is not that great to begin with.
  • .

Theme 3

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • Very rude and impatient.
  • She belittles people who struggle instead of helping them.
  • Her quality of teaching is gold standard and motivating.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

50

Recent reviews read by the AI

51

Lifetime ratings

92/100

Evidence confidence

The rating is highly credible because 50 reviews span many years, include detailed examples, and show a strong recurring pattern of complaints.

Inside 50 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 56
4 out of 54
3 out of 56
2 out of 58
1 out of 527

Course coverage

MUS10012 reviews
MUS20212 reviews
MUSIC20212 reviews
MUSIC1003 reviews
MU1001 review
Show 10 more courses
MUS1011 review
MUS301B1 review
MUS3021 review
MUSC3011 review
MUSIC1 review
MUSICFUND1 review
PIAN2401 review
PIANO11 review
PIANOI1 review
PIANOII1 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

26 reported outcomes

A range

7

A+ 2 · A 5

B range

6

B+ 1 · B 4 · B- 1

C range

4

C+ 3 · C- 1

D range

1

D- 1

F

1

F 1

No letter grade reported

7

Drop/Withdrawal 3 · Not sure yet 4