AI Rate Professor

Computer Science

Stacey Grasso

CISOL278 · CIS278 · CIS279 · CIS255 · CIS254 · CIS256 · CIS252 · CIS278279 · 24 lifetime ratings

AI rating
35/100
RMP rating
2.7/5
Take again
0%
Difficulty
3.1

The decision

Take Grasso only if you can learn programming independently and and .

Best fit · Self Taught ProConfusing InstructionsSlow GradingSelf-Study HeavyProgramming GrindHelpful for Motivated Coders
  • Reviews are mixed but lean negative, especially about , and weak online structure.
  • Students with programming ambition or prior coding skill sometimes do well and find parts of the course fair.
  • The course is not an easy A because projects, tests, and and risk.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

38/100

A high grade is possible for strong coders, but , and unclear requirements make it effort-heavy.

Online evidence is and unclear materials, while but still effort-heavy.

Is the course easy?

Challenging

35/100

Programming content becomes difficult quickly, and the raw material alone.

Online reviews emphasize self-teaching, while and .

Is attendance flexible?

Varies

55/100

Reviews do not clearly prove strict attendance rules, but , and direct help.

.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

32/100

Students frequently advise taking someone else because of , and heavy self-teaching.

Online reviews are strongly avoidant, while motivated programmers.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

28/100

Students mention no partial credit, 100% accuracy, point deductions, no curve, no , and delayed grades.

Format shift

Online reviews describe harsh accuracy expectations, while and .

Workload

Heavy

27/100

Projects, labs, tests, reading, and debugging can take substantial time, .

Format shift

Online workload is self-study heavy, while and coding skill.

Teaching experience

Poor

42/100

Some motivated students praise her fairness and explanations, but , and slow responses.

Format shift

Online teaching evidence is worse, while positives.

Assessment method

Balanced

62/100

Assessment , and participation in some courses.

Format shift

Both formats mention projects and .

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

21 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

In-person reviews are mixed, with some praise for fair projects and but many complaints about confusion, pace, and .

Main concern

Students often need strong coding independence because explanations and .

What students said

“If you have no ambition, you're gonna have a hard time.”
CIS254
“Spend more time looking up stuff on your own than using the class notes.”
CIS278
“ .”
CIS254

Remote format

Online

3 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

Online reviews are strongly negative, describing textbook-driven , and heavy self-teaching.

Main concern

and delayed or .

What students said

“ .”
CIS256
“her instructions often take more time to decipher than they do to solve.”
CIS278279
“we're 2 weeks before finals and we've only gotten 3 projects back corrected”
CIS278

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Exams appear standard to somewhat tough, with coding tests and finals mentioned but rules.

Coding TestsCumulative FinalMultiple Choice FinalNo Clear Proctoring Evidence

Assessment risk

Standard

45/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, and a multiple choice final, but do not clearly prove book or .

Coding TestsCumulative FinalMultiple Choice FinalMultiple Midterms
“ and ”
CIS279
“3 midterms, mostly writing code & some theory. and pretty easy.”
CIS256
“There were 5 tests in total; 4 exams plus the final.”
CIS254

Online

Online reviews do not clearly prove webcam, proctoring, open-book status, or .

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ if you can.”

Voice snapshots generated from 24 , and online versus in-person differences. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

42/100

“Not the .”

👍 Recommendation Rate

32/100

“ .”

⚖️

28/100

“Grading was out of control, 100% accuracy required.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • as best as she can but .
  • for my understanding.
  • .

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • .
  • and your organization, so make sure you are neat with your coding.
  • and if you want to pull up your grades

Theme 3

💻 About Online and Projects

  • All of the content in the Online classroom space was years old and contained many errors.
  • her instructions often take more time to decipher than they do to solve.
  • Project instruc poorly written;

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

24

Recent reviews read by the AI

24

Lifetime ratings

78/100

Evidence confidence

Credibility is high because 24 reviews across many years show repeated patterns, though some course-format labels conflict with review text.

Inside 24 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 52
4 out of 55
3 out of 57
2 out of 59
1 out of 51

Course coverage

CIS2547 reviews
CIS2787 reviews
CIS2564 reviews
CIS2552 reviews
CIS2521 review
Show 3 more courses
CIS2782791 review
CIS2791 review
CISOL2781 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

4 reported outcomes

A range

3

A+ 1 · A 2

B range

0

No reported values

C range

1

C- 1

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values