MUSA 1100
Fundamentals of Music Theory · 10 instructors on record · 87 sections
Boston College's ratings are bunched at the top — the median instructor averages about 88 out of 100 on the raw scale, and 44% of them clear 90 — so a raw score cannot separate anybody. Every figure here is ranked against BC classes and that rank is re-expressed out of 100, which is what turns a raw 88 — the middle of the university — into a figure that says where somebody actually stands. On this scale 77 is the median, 84 the top quarter and 91 the top tenth. Workload is then an adjustment on top of that, worth nothing at all for an ordinary one. Lighter work than 72% of BC classes.
The class itself, averaged across everyone who taught it — who taught it is the board below.
How is this worked out?
That is what a student picking a section is actually choosing between: the board carries each instructor's own score for this class, and the score above is the class averaged across all of them.
Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question. It is not a measure of difficulty, grading or workload.
How is this worked out?
Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question for this class only — students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it measures intellectual challenge and NOT grading, workload or quality. Almost every BC class scores high on it, which is why it is shown as a rank rather than a score.
One of Boston College's five workload bands, not a number of hours. Higher means more work, not worse.
How is this worked out?
Boston College reports workload for this class only as one of five bands, not as a number of hours, and it does not publish what the bands mean — so this site will not translate it into hours. Higher means more work, which is not the same as worse.
An introductory music theory course designed for students with a strong interest in music. As a Core course it includes speculations on how musical discourse informs our perception and understanding of the world around us. Students learn to acquire skills in music notation and transcription. The following theoretical concepts will be extensively covered: notation of pitch and rhythm, scales, intervals, chords, and harmonic progression. Students leave the course prepared for upper-level study in music theory and will begin to question broader issues concerning the meaning and use of music. Training in Keyboard Skills is required in the accompanying Lab
Scores are real averages. The order also accounts for how many records back each one — the count is under every score — so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. 1 of the 10 rows carry a mark saying so.
| Rank | Instructor | Curve | Easiness | Challenge | RMP overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Riikka Pietilainen-CaffreyAssociate Professor of the Practice, Director of Choral and Vocal Performance · Music | 9296 raw · 3 records | 84+2 to the score | 51st | —no page |
| 2 | Michael BurgoMusic | 8694 raw · 4 records | 81+1 to the score | 37th | 924 ratings · all classes |
| 3 | Emily MurphyAdjunct Professor, Piano · Music | 8288 raw · 10 records | 96+5 to the score | 15th | —no page |
| 4 | Barbara GawlickMusic | 8191 raw · 21 records | 81+1 to the score | 36th | 929 ratings · all classes |
| 5 | Thomas LeeMusic Provisional fewer records | 9197 raw · 1 record | — | 15th | —no page |
| 6 | Benjamin ParkMusic | 7989 raw · 3 records | 81+1 to the score | 79th | 743 ratings · all classes |
| 7 | Randy McGeeAdjunct Professor, Vocal Instructor · Music | 7788 raw · 10 records | 82+1 to the score | 31st | 702 ratings · all classes |
| 8 | Leah KoschAdjunct Instructor, Piano · Music | 7283 raw · 17 records | 78±0 to the score | 20th | 747 ratings · all classes |
| 9 | Julia CareyMusic | 6775 raw · 4 records | 84+2 to the score | 10th | 401 rating · all classes |
| 10 | Ayako HattoriAdjunct Instructor, Piano · Music | 6776 raw · 14 records | 84+2 to the score | 22nd | 663 ratings · all classes |
1 of 10 rows are marked provisional: fewer than 3 records stand behind the number. That is thin evidence, not a bad instructor — the record count is in every row. The RateMyProfessors column is an instructor's overall figure across everything they teach, not a figure about this class.
How this board is built and ordered
Positions account for how many records stand behind each number, so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. Every score shown is the real average — only the ordering is adjusted. The comparison here is the class itself: a thin record is read against how this class was rated overall, not against the university.
Every instructor with an evaluation record for this class is on this board — it is not a top ten, and nothing is hidden behind a “show more”. Curve is the instructor's score for THIS class only, ranked against every instructor we hold and printed back out of 100, with the raw BC average underneath it; nothing on this board is an average across the other things they teach. Easiness is an adjustment on top of it, worth up to about ±6 — BC's workload item, ranked and turned over, so a lighter section gains and a heavier one loses, while an ordinary one changes nothing — and each row prints the adjustment, signed. The board is ordered on the same figure it prints, adjusted for how many records back it. Challenge is BC's “intellectually challenging” item shown as a rank against every class we hold; students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it is not a measure of difficulty or grading, and it is never marked better or worse.
That site has no course dimension, so its figure is shown for information and kept out of the ranking.
The line
All 13 items · means across 87 recordsBars are ranks, not raw scores. Nothing here is graded good or bad.
What each item asks
- Explains Clearly
- The instructor was effective at creating an understanding of difficult subject matter.
- Available
- The instructor was available for help outside of class.
- Motivating
- The instructor motivated me to do my best work.
- Sparks Interest
- The course stimulated my interest in the subject matter.
- Organized
- The course was well organized.
- Clear Goals
- The learning objectives for the course were clear.
- Useful Later
- What I learned is applicable beyond this course.
- Assignments
- Assignments and exams contributed to my learning.
- Fast Feedback
- I received feedback on my work in a timely manner.
- Useful Feedback
- The feedback I received on my work was meaningful.
- Workload
- How much work the course took outside class, on Boston College's five-band scale — the band boundaries are not published, so this is not a number of hours.
- Challenge
- The course was intellectually challenging.
- Attendance
- Attending class was necessary to do well in this course.
Why these numbers are curved
Both the number and the bar are the rank against every comparable record we hold, printed back out of 100. BC's questions all have a median around 4.5, so on the raw scale every cell here would read in the high eighties and every bar would be nearly full — thirteen numbers that tell you nothing. Each cell prints its raw BC figure and its percentile underneath, so nothing is hidden by the transform. Every bar is one ink colour — nothing here is graded green or red. The hatched bars are not ratings at all: a higher number on either describes a different course, not a better one.
Game log
87 sections · newest first| Instructor | Term | Sec | Instr | Course | Work |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbara Gawlick | Spring 2026 | 01 | 84 | 72 | 40 |
| Barbara Gawlick | Spring 2026 | 02 | 88 | 82 | 60 |
| Thomas Lee | Spring 2026 | 03 | 97 | 87 | — |
| Randy McGee | Spring 2026 | 04 | 95 | 88 | 40 |
| Leah Kosch | Spring 2026 | 05 | 96 | 88 | 60 |
| Leah Kosch | Spring 2026 | 06 | 87 | 84 | — |
| Riikka Pietilainen-Caffrey | Spring 2026 | 07 | 97 | 94 | 40 |
| Ayako Hattori | Spring 2026 | 08 | 74 | 77 | 40 |
| Emily Murphy | Spring 2026 | 08 | 91 | 77 | 40 |
| Barbara Gawlick | Fall 2025 | 01 | 93 | 88 | 40 |
| Barbara Gawlick | Fall 2025 | 02 | 96 | 91 | — |
| Randy McGee | Fall 2025 | 03 | 87 | 82 | 40 |
| Leah Kosch | Fall 2025 | 04 | 80 | 80 | 40 |
| Riikka Pietilainen-Caffrey | Fall 2025 | 05 | 98 | 95 | 40 |
| Julia Carey | Fall 2025 | 06 | 80 | 74 | 20 |
| Ayako Hattori | Fall 2025 | 07 | 79 | 78 | 20 |
| Emily Murphy | Fall 2025 | 07 | 87 | 78 | 20 |
| Barbara Gawlick | Spring 2025 | 01 | 88 | 83 | 40 |
| Randy McGee | Spring 2025 | 02 | 96 | 86 | 40 |
| Leah Kosch | Spring 2025 | 03 | 82 | 75 | 40 |
| Julia Carey | Spring 2025 | 04 | 66 | 58 | 60 |
| Leah Kosch | Spring 2025 | 05 | 87 | 85 | 40 |
| Leah Kosch | Spring 2025 | 06 | 75 | 67 | 40 |
| Ayako Hattori | Spring 2025 | 07 | 70 | 75 | 40 |
| Emily Murphy | Spring 2025 | 07 | 86 | 75 | 40 |
Showing the first 25.
How to read this board
Instructors are ranked on their record in this class only, never on their average across everything they teach. Scores are out of 100 — Boston College's 1–5 agreement scale, ×20, the way these numbers were printed for years. Workload is BC's own five-band figure, not a number of hours, and is shown as a rank. A dash means the question was not reported, and is never a zero.