AI Rate Professor

Art History

Ken Alexander

ART · ART12 · HUMANITIES019 · ART08 · HUMAN020 · HUMAN019 · ART007 · ART10 · HUMAN024 · HUMAN20 · HUMAN19 · ART07 · HUMAN0200016 · HUMAN022 · ART6 · HUMANITIES20 · ART008 · ART7 · HUMANITIES · ART006 · ARTHISTORY · ART17 · HUMANITIES19 · ART0062 · HUMAN0229528 · HUMAN120 · 84 lifetime ratings

AI rating
42/100
RMP rating
3.5/5
Take again
37.93%
Difficulty
3.3

The decision

if you want challenging art history or humanities and can handle blunt, high-demand teaching.

Best fit · Hardcore LearnerPolarizing personalityHeavy readingTough graderCornell notesPassionate lectures
  • passionate genius vs rude and condescending.
  • , and group work make the load high.
  • About 38% would take again; and can handle blunt style.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

HardWork

36/100

An A is possible if you read and participate heavily, but many call him a .

Online has some easier grading comments; .

Is the course easy?

Challenging

34/100

, and critical thinking make content demanding for most students.

and work intensity.

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

22/100

and skip-class tags warn you will not pass.

Mandatory tone is strong in person; some .

Is this professor recommended?

Avoid

38/100

Would-take-again is under 40% and many warn sensitive or unprepared students to stay away.

Online lean more negative; and avoid.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Strict

32/100

, and vague rubrics appear often alongside occasional .

Format shift

A ; most in-person reviews say strict or tough.

Workload

Heavy

24/100

Lots of reading, Cornell notes, papers, videos, and .

Format shift

Heavy workload is consistent online and in person.

Teaching experience

Average

52/100

Deep subject passion and engaging lectures are undercut by rudeness and .

Format shift

Online skews lower on personality; in-person is highly polarized.

Assessment method

Balanced

48/100

Mix of , and exams.

Format shift

Online mentions discussion posts and group tests; , and discussions.

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

45 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

amazing lectures and deep knowledge versus calling out students and .

Main concern

Sarcasm, public call-outs, and .

What students said

“he's awesome. Just TRY!”
HUMAN019
“very condescending, asks a lot of rhetorical questions, uses shame tactics with students”
HUMANITIES

Remote format

Online

5 reviews

Medium confidence · Best fit for Hardcore Learner

Online sections still report heavy busywork, group tests, and a rude tone, with .

Main concern

and blunt communication can feel stressful online.

What students said

“He is super rude to students especially if you do not know what is happening.”
ART008
“gives A LOT of busy work but I didn't learn a single thing. Around 8 assignments per week”
ART007

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

, and group components rather than pure open-book ease.

Reading conversationsWritten examsGroup testsSpeaking and writing components

Assessment risk

Standard

48/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

In-person work , and heavy notes.

Four exams speaking and writingReading conversationsArt project phasesCornell notes
“ and writing”
ART008
“ .”
HUMAN19

Online

Online students mention group tests, discussion posts, and lots of .

Group testsDiscussion postsLots of homework
“the because all you do is discuss the prompt&record”
ART008
“abundance of and Cornell notes”
HUMAN20

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“He's harsh but if you come to class and pay attention and do your work you'll pass.”

Voice snapshots generated from 50 reviews (5 online, 45 in person), highlighting polarization, rigor, and workload. Credibility rating: High.

🎯 Teaching Quality

52/100

“His lectures are very engaging and interesting and he really knows what he's talking about.”

⚠️ Personality Risk

30/100

“very condescending, asks a lot of rhetorical questions, uses shame tactics with students”

📚 Workload

24/100

“set aside like at least 2 or 3 hours a day to just read. then you also have to do notes.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • passionate about his area of study
  • lectures were entertaining
  • Makes you develop strong critical thinking skills

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • Not an easy A with
  • Lots of time consuming, but not difficult work

Theme 3

😤 About Personality

  • Extremely rude, will call you out in class
  • sarcasm is borderline condescending
  • needs to retire NOW

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

50

Recent reviews read by the AI

84

Lifetime ratings

88/100

Evidence confidence

Fifty reviews over many years provide rich, repeated themes on workload, personality, and .

Inside 50 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 534
4 out of 516
3 out of 514
2 out of 58
1 out of 512

Course coverage

ART0087 reviews
ART0065 reviews
ART0073 reviews
HUMAN02295283 reviews
HUMAN203 reviews
Show 21 more courses
ART122 reviews
ARTHISTORY2 reviews
HUMAN0192 reviews
HUMAN0222 reviews
HUMAN0242 reviews
HUMAN192 reviews
HUMANITIES2 reviews
HUMANITIES0192 reviews
ART1 review
ART00621 review
ART071 review
ART081 review
ART101 review
ART171 review
ART61 review
ART71 review
HUMAN0201 review
HUMAN02000161 review
HUMAN1201 review
HUMANITIES191 review
HUMANITIES201 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

27 reported outcomes

A range

12

A+ 7 · A 5

B range

9

B+ 5 · B 4

C range

4

C+ 2 · C 1 · C- 1

D range

1

D+ 1

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

1

Drop/Withdrawal 1