AI Rate Professor

Fine Arts

Kathy Sheehan

ART117 · ART110 · ART001 · ART111 · 6 lifetime ratings

AI rating
12/100
RMP rating
2.0/5
Take again
—
Difficulty
4.3

The decision

unless you already have strong art skills and can tolerate heavy criticism and workload.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerHarsh CriticismHeavy HomeworkPoor DemonstrationsHigh Skill ExpectationsAvoid Recommended
  • Most students describe the teaching experience as hostile, impatient, and unhelpful.
  • Several reviews say she expects beginner students to perform like experts.
  • Workload and as harsh, with about three hours of .

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

MissionImpossible

12/100

Getting an A appears very difficult because students report , and heavy nightly work.

.

Is the course easy?

BrainBurner

18/100

The course content may be introductory, but students say she expects professional skill and gives limited useful demonstrations.

.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

18/100

, but one review says she got mad when students were late while being late herself.

Evidence comes only from in-person reviews, with .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

14/100

Students because of harsh attitude, poor demonstrations, and unfair expectations.

.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Harsh

10/100

Students say she grades against other students' skill levels and expects greatness rather than improvement.

Format shift

.

Workload

Overwhelming

8/100

Multiple reviews describe a heavy workload, including about three hours of .

Format shift

.

Teaching experience

Awful

14/100

Most reviews describe her as , and emotionally damaging to students.

Format shift

.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

18/100

The reviews focus on drawing work, demos, 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

6 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

In-person reviews are mostly negative, citing harsh , and grading based on high skill levels.

Main concern

Students say she expects near-expert work and gives unhelpful or .

What students said

“she ”
ART110
“She gives you alot of work, like 3 hours a night of drawing”
ART111
“ unless you are an expert at drawing.”
ART111

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 prove any exam .

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Assessment risk

Standard

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

and workload, but they do not clearly prove exam rules or .

Exam Policy Not Clearly Proven

Online

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“ unless you are an expert at drawing.”

Voice snapshots generated from 6 reviews, highlighting key themes in , and recommendation. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

14/100

“she ”

⚖️

10/100

“She does not grade you based on overall improvement, but rather on greatness”

📚 Workload

8/100

“She gives you alot of work, like 3 hours a night of drawing”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • she easily loses her patience
  • She screwed up EVERY demo
  • her comments were not useful

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • she expected you to be a pro!!
  • She does not grade you based on overall improvement, but rather on greatness
  • unless you are an expert at drawing.

Theme 3

📚 About Workload

  • gives 3 hours of HW per night
  • She gives you alot of work, like 3 hours a night of drawing

Theme 4

⚠️ About Recommendation

  • I advise everyone to stay away from any of her classes.
  • if

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

6

Recent reviews read by the AI

6

Lifetime ratings

64/100

Evidence confidence

Credibility is medium because six reviews across multiple years are consistent, though the data is old and grades are missing.

Inside 6 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 50
4 out of 52
3 out of 50
2 out of 51
1 out of 53

Course coverage

ART1113 reviews
ART0011 review
ART1101 review
ART1171 review

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