AI Rate Professor

Art

Susan Shaw

ART201 · ART221 · 10 lifetime ratings

AI rating
26/100
RMP rating
1.8/5
Take again
20%
Difficulty
3.4

The decision

unless you can handle blunt criticism and already feel confident in your art skills.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerHarsh criticismRude tone concernsTough feedbackEffort can still earn gradesPoor learning environment
  • Reviews are mostly negative, with repeated concerns that criticism feels harsh, rude, or not constructive.
  • Grades can be good for students who already have art skills and put in effort, so the class is not impossible academically.
  • Online reviews are especially critical about Zoom behavior, participation pressure, workload, and student treatment.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

62/100

Good grades are possible if , but harsh critique raises the cost.

Online reviews directly say effort can earn an A or B, while but more concern about criticism.

Is the course easy?

Standard

44/100

The art work is not described as intellectually impossible, but students need skill, effort, and .

Online reviews emphasize prior skill and homework, while and project effort.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

15/100

Participation appears important, and online reviews describe students being challenged about absences or Zoom disconnections.

Online reviews provide the clearest attendance concerns, while attendance policy.

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

22/100

because they describe rude behavior, harsh criticism, and an unsupportive learning environment.

Both formats are negative, with online reviews giving more detailed complaints about class conduct and communication.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

35/100

Grades are achievable with effort, but students repeatedly describe her satisfaction and as difficult.

Format shift

Online reviews mention tough grading and effort-based success, while grade mechanics.

Workload

Heavy

30/100

Several online reviews mention lots of , and projects that require significant time and effort.

Format shift

Online reviews give stronger workload evidence, while effort.

Teaching experience

Poor

28/100

, and not constructive, despite a few students saying she means well.

Format shift

Online reviews are more severe about rude treatment, while in-person reviews also report disrespect and discouraging critique.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

18/100

The course appears , and group work rather than exams.

Format shift

and critique-based assessment, with .

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

4 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

and disrespectful behavior, though one review says the projects are fun for students who accept direct critique.

Main concern

.

What students said

“The and rarely constructive.”
Art221
“ .”
art201

Remote format

Online

6 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

Online reviews are mostly negative, citing rude comments, harsh critiques, participation pressure, and , though effort can still lead to an A or B.

Main concern

Students describe rude treatment and criticism that is not constructive.

What students said

“If you try on the in the class.”
Art221
“Do not take a class with ”
Art221

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

Reviews do not clearly prove an , midterm, or final.

Reviews Do Not Clearly Prove Exam Policy

Assessment risk

Varies

50/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

, proctoring, open-book exams, quizzes, midterms, or finals.

Online

Online reviews do not clearly prove webcam, proctoring, .

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“The and rarely constructive.”

Voice snapshots generated from 10 reviews, highlighting key themes in , and classroom climate. Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Quality

28/100

“Instead of helping students improve, the criticism often came across as discouraging and unhelpful.”

⚖️ Grade Effort

62/100

“If you try on the in the class.”

🚩 Recommendation Risk

22/100

“ make the class a miserable experience for you”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫

  • The and rarely constructive.
  • her critiques were harsh if it seemed like you hadn't put in effort.
  • her criticism isn't constructive.

Theme 2

📈 About Grades and Work

  • If you try on the in the class.
  • She does assign very fun projects and effort needed on them.
  • You need to , and then she will be satisfied.

Theme 3

🚩 About Class Climate

  • She was really rude to students.
  • Did not cultivate a good learning environment.
  • Not open-minded or considerate of students and their personal lives, pretty rude.

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

10

Recent reviews read by the AI

10

Lifetime ratings

70/100

Evidence confidence

Ten recent reviews give consistent concerns across formats, but the sample is small and .

Inside 10 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 50
4 out of 50
3 out of 53
2 out of 52
1 out of 55

Course coverage

Art2217 reviews
art2013 reviews

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

10 reported outcomes

A range

5

A+ 2 · A 3

B range

2

B+ 1 · B- 1

C range

3

C+ 2 · C 1

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

0

No reported values