I am someone who self studies most of the time and doesn't pay attention in class and for me Ebert was a nice professor. His exams are def. bit too lengthy but i think he has been improving as a professor a lot. He is such a nice guy too. Its just that he is bit unorganized and his curve does help the grades. I personally havn't been to any of his lectures whole quater but i have watched them all online and have given exams based on them. I think i am on the path to get an A. The class itself isn't that hard thus professor doesn't really matter but if you struggle in math dont take him.

Bro is literally from USC acting as a spy to make the ucla fail as a cia operative. He probably has never talk a class in his life, every other word that comes out of his mouth is "in particular", even when doing the calculations on the board, which are just straight from the textbook. I just stopped going half way through the quarter since he records his lectures. His proofs on exams are absolutely terrible, never giving any way or direction to them. Most of the kids never even finished the exam, gave way too much work within a 50 minute lecture midterm. DO NOT TAKE.

My experience in Math 32A with professor Mark Ebert has been unfortunately very inconvenient. Between his exams having mathematical proofs on them which he fails to teach or even go over, to not having enough time on the exams to finish, to feeling incompetent enough to complete one of his exams which have material and questions which are unlike anything we see in lecture or on the homework, Mark Ebert has left me confused on whether I am proficient at math or not. Each time I walk into his lecture, I take a chance and always end up leaving more confused than when I entered. He always seems to go over allotted class time by an average of 5 minutes. His lectures are rushed and unclear such that simply reading the textbook would be more explanatory than actually going to class. Whenever students ask questions, he always answers a completely different question than the one he was presented with. His first midterm average was a 63% which was lower than even he thought that it would be, leaving many students, including myself, feeling incompetent about math and even questioning whether or not we belong in STEM courses.

This class wasn't easy, but it wasn't extremely hard in terms of workload. There are weekly homework assignments from the textbook and 1-2 homework problem-level quizzes before each midterm. I would say the difficulty of the class comes from unclear lectures and test difficulty. However, seeing that the class felt so miserably about the exams, Ebert put in curves and reasonable (?) adjustments to grades so that half the class received a B or above, I believe. But, I definitely felt fucked at certain points in the class. About the lectures, I know people straight up went to other prof's lectures because Ebert was not very clear. He teaches straight from the textbook. I recommend going to office hours for questions. If you take this class, it's not impossible to get an A but you should be prepared to self-study.

Ebert isn't a great lecturer but he tries his best. Like others said lectures are pretty incoherent with a lot of mumbling. It takes quite a while to get through one, he skips lots of steps that make it hard to understand what is going on. I do think a lot of the hate is undeserved. The difficulty of his class is partially made up for by the curve. The grading schemes are also pretty forgiving letting your drop a midterm and put emphasis on the remaining one + final.

Our test averages were all in the 60s, but the grading policies and curve meant that the average final grade was still a B. Quizzes were reasonable and mostly based off the homework (please do the homework before quizzes) and helped bump your grade a little.

This class is fairly easy to pass. The content is manageable and the final curve was VERY generous, with a 73 being a B- and scores in the 50s being Ds. If you cannot pass this class, it is a genuine skill issue. To not pass, you would need midterms/finals in the low 50s and 40s. The other review saying that there are "thousands" of equations to memorize is also tripping. There are lots of equations each derived from one another, but realistically you only need to memorize like 4-8 of them and if you do enough practice problems, you definitely will have them memorized.

Ebert is definitely improving as a professor, but I still wouldn't recommend his class if you can find an easier professor. If you are a strong math student though, you can definitely get an A in this class self-studying.

Class is hard with this professor, very hard proofs on the midterms and the finals, would recommend a lot of self study involved in this class.

Let me get the good stuff out of the way first.

His class is bruincasted, meaning that you don't really have to attend lecture, and the discussions are also optional unless there's a quiz (and even then- it kinda seemed like you could ask to take the quiz kinda flexibly as long as you were taking it in the other discussion section). The HW is pretty light (it comes out of the textbook), the TA's that grade the exams are quite generous when it comes to partial credit, and the grading scheme overall is pretty pleasant (You only need a 90 for an A, as opposed to a 93 pre-curve). Prof. Ebert also shows a willingness to curve the MT's and the class as a whole should the average be too low.

However, that's mostly where the good stuff ends. Attending lecture often leaves you more confused than you started (unless you've already read and somewhat understood the materials in the textbook), as he reads straight from his slides (which are basically copied straight from the book) like a bulldozer, and is generally incapable of answering simple questions without spinning the questioner around in a circle. His MT's were rather brutal-MT1 had a proof problem that none of us had ever seen before, whereas the computational aspect of MT2 combined with the extreme time squeeze meant that the entire class was basically up in arms after the midterm. You'll most likely be relying on your ability to self study, your TA, and whatever you can scrounge from YouTube- don't expect to get anything out of Professor Ebert's lectures.

Math with Professor Ebert is an experience. Not one I needed in my life. Not one I will ever forget. Just an experience.

Nothing he says makes an ounce of sense. His writing isn't much better than his speaking. If you sign up for this class, Ebert is not your professor - the textbook is. That is the only way to do well, or to even understand what is being taught. Lecture is worthless, unless you can somehow decipher what he's saying or writing.

Exams are fair enough. Homework is very manageable. Not once did his assignment/exams feel like they were constructed to sabotage student performance, so that is the one plus.

I do believe some of the comments about Ebert are harsh. He is very knowledgeable about what he is teaching and is a kind person at heart, but he just tends to have a bit of trouble being clear. This lack of clarity comes through in inconsistently paced lectures, discrepancies between what is taught and what is on the exam, and questionable answers to both mathematical and grading questions. However, the class isn't impossible. As long as you are willing to read the textbook and do practice problems, you can pass. If you can take this class with another professor, highly recommend doing so, but don't skip out on taking this class just because Ebert is the only professor available to enroll in.

Ebert is not a good lecturer, so if you struggle with math and need it explained to you, either expect to learn the content from your TA or pick a different professor. The homework is very manageable, and while the midterms were both very difficult, he curves so that the final grade distribution is very generous. He also showed a lot of improvement buy the end of the quarter, and the final was reasonable/easy. He also does a lot more proofs than is typical of this class, so if that interests you it might be worth a shot.