AI Rate Professor

Human Services

Scott Hoage

HUMSV184 · HUM181 · HUMSV189 · HUMSV13073 · HUMSV181 · 11 lifetime ratings

AI rating
79/100
RMP rating
4.1/5
Take again
72.73%
Difficulty
2.9

The decision

services if you will participate and do the work; online is less consistent.

Best fit · Effort For RewardInspirationalGives good feedbackParticipation mattersDiscussion-drivenClear expectations
  • , and fair grading when work is done.
  • and low challenge; recent Human Services reviews are far stronger.
  • one found unclear prompts and criteria.

Key questions

Four answers before you build your schedule.

Is this an easy A?

FairEffort

72/100

Many report As when they complete work and participate; as fair, not free.

Online has both easy-A praise and ; .

Is the course easy?

Beginner

68/100

, though some call it lecture-heavy or low challenge rather than abstractly hard.

One online review called it overall easy; .

Is attendance flexible?

Mandatory

28/100

and participation as important.

Both online and .

Is this professor recommended?

WorthIt

76/100

Strong recent recommendation for and inspiration, tempered by older waste-of-time reviews and .

In-person recommendation is stronger; online is split.

Course guide

See how this professor fits your week.

Grading

Fair

68/100

Students say grades match effort with clear criteria and , though one online review tags him a .

Format shift

Online has a ; in-person emphasizes fairness.

Workload

Moderate

58/100

Assignments and participation , though reading and group work appear.

Format shift

Online mentions research if you go the extra mile; and participation.

Teaching experience

Good

78/100

Recent students highlight energy, clarity, immersion, and inspiration; a minority say he only reads slides.

Format shift

In-person teaching praise is stronger and more detailed than online.

Assessment method

FocusOnAssignments

35/100

, and progress monitoring more than high-stakes exams.

Format shift

; work and participation dominate comments.

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

10 reviews

High confidence · Best fit for Effort For Reward

fair, inspirational, discussion-driven teaching with and , though a few older reviews call lectures PowerPoint-heavy and unchallenging.

Main concern

and participation matter; older complaints about reading slides still exist.

What students said

“Professor Hoage is very fair, east going and an inspirational professor.”
HUMSV13073
“If you do the work your grades reflect your hard work.”
HUMSV13073
“All he does is read off of and makes you read chapters out of your book.”
HUMSV181

Remote format

Online

2 reviews

Low confidence · Best fit for Self Taught Pro

and ignored feedback, while another called it an easy, well-run intro path into addiction studies.

Main concern

Unclear assignment criteria and weak .

What students said

“He is not specific on some of is done.”
HUMSV13073
“Overall easy class and I would highly recommend this professor to anyone interested in getting started in addiction studies”
HUMSV13073

Exam style

Know what to expect from exams and major assignments.

; assessment centers on coursework and participation.

Limited exam detailAssignment and participation focused

Assessment risk

Standard

55/100

Low score means less forgiving assessment conditions.

In person

; one older comment notes he works with students on classwork and tests.

Tests mentioned without policy detail
“Awesome teacher, would work with you in regards to classwork and test.”
HUM181

Online

Online reviews focus on assignment clarity and .

Assignment-based focus
“The , and the , but did require some effort and research”
HUMSV13073

Student evidence

See what students actually said.

Top student voice

“Professor Hoage is very fair, east going and an inspirational professor. and concise information on all expectations of his courses and brings a great energy into the class.”

Voice snapshots generated from 12 reviews spanning online and . Credibility rating: Medium.

🎯 Teaching Energy

78/100

“He makes lessons engaging and fun a great pleasure to have him for Human Services Addiction Studies.”

👍

76/100

“Wish he taught more subjects because and I learned a lot.”

⚖️ Fair Work-to-Grade

72/100

“If you do the work your grades reflect your hard work.”

⚠️ Online Clarity Risk

45/100

“This makes the class very challenging, and I always have to guess what he is looking for before I submit.”

Theme 1

👨‍🏫 About Teaching Style

  • brings a great energy into the class
  • student-centered and
  • It was very informative and easy to understand.

Theme 2

📈 About Difficulty & Grades

  • If you do the work your grades reflect your hard work.
  • Overall easy class and
  • Very boring and no challenge at all.

Theme 3

❤️ About Character

  • Inspirational
  • Accessible outside class
  • hilarious in teaching method

Data context

See exactly what the AI read.

Analysis sample

12

Recent reviews read by the AI

11

Lifetime ratings

72/100

Evidence confidence

Twelve reviews span 2015-2026 with mixed eras; recent cluster is detailed and consistent, older negatives reduce certainty.

Inside 12 stored ratings

Quality ratings

5 out of 58
4 out of 51
3 out of 51
2 out of 51
1 out of 51

Course coverage

HUMSV130736 reviews
HUMSV1813 reviews
HUM1811 review
HUMSV1841 review
HUMSV1891 review

Reported outcomes

A range results lead the reported letter grades.

8 reported outcomes

A range

6

A+ 1 · A 5

B range

1

B+ 1

C range

0

No reported values

D range

0

No reported values

F

0

No reported values

No letter grade reported

1

Not sure yet 1