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.

Do not take this class!! Although I ended up with an A, I basically learned everything from YouTube and my TA. He is a nice person but not a good instructor. The two midterms created a lot of anxiety, but the final and homework are doable.

In the beginning of the term, I heard some call him "unnecessarily complicated," and while I understood his vector explanations, later lectures were a mix of last-minute examples and mumbled answers to students' questions. He writes small; I often sat in the front but relied constantly on my phone camera as a magnifying glass. He knows his stuff and gets into the backbone of why certain theorems/equations are the way they are (read: proofs), but as a new teacher, he isn't used to teaching people who don't get concepts like he does.
His lessons and HW come from the book (pdf available on Reddit), with HW graded on part completion and accuracy - he won't tell you which problems are for accuracy. Quizzes are doable if you do the homework and have a TA who reviews concepts right before. The lowest of three scores is dropped.
Tests were similar to practice midterms and did cover topics taught, but his midterm questions went HEAVY on technical computation like chain rule and improper integrals (which were not reviewed in-class), and the proofs. God, some of these proofs... The questions themselves were not totally out of the blue, but the 50 minute timeframe made these exams hellishly difficult unless you have a solid pre/outside-class understanding of math. I studied by rereading the book's explanations with the professor's notes, doing extra practice problems in the book (especially the post-chapter exercises), and attending office hours. You cannot cheese these exams. The biggest slap for me was the psychological shock of test time management. Flip through all the questions first and plan accordingly, or get swamped with one minute left on the clock.
First midterm was extremely hard, with a mean of 60 that was curved 2-3% after the 2nd midterm was over. The second midterm had a mean of 67 but was even harder than the first though he explicitly said in office hours and emails that he would try to make it easier. I got a B- and C on midterms 1 and 2 pre-curve. To be fair, he checked over his final exam with other math professors and his TAs, resulting in reasonable questions for our 3 hour test period. My raw A- on this final pulled up my grade.
As a person, this professor tries to be forgiving, engaging, and flexible, but as a professor, this person has caused a lot of unnecessary stress and ennui. I would not take this class until he gains more teaching experience.

I don't think Ebert is an evil being who was out to make all of his students fail, but he was definitely an incompetent professor who didn't care to help us or hear out our concerns in the slightest (especially since this was his first time teaching the class). Going to lectures is almost pointless -- I learned more just taking notes out of the textbook (which you can find online for free) and all of his lectures are posted on Canvas. If you do decide to go to lecture, good luck getting a spot where you can read his tiny handwriting on the whiteboard. He also mumbles incoherently throughout lecture, so if you can't read what he's writing, you won't be able to deduce it by what he's saying either. The exams were unfairly difficult (only the final had a cheat sheet, which was a great help). He admitted that the first midterm was too hard and included material not covered in lectures/homework and the second one was too long so no one could finish it, but still decided not to curve anything despite our pleas. The final felt more fair and I did the best on that out of the 3 exams. The only reason why I managed a B- in this class is because his grading thresholds (decided at the beginning of the quarter) are very lenient (I would've probably had a C- by a normal grading scheme).
Overall, this class was a nightmare. The material is already hard enough (especially for someone who isn't great at calculus) so you really need a helpful professor for a course like this. Do yourself a favor and do NOT take this class with Ebert. Just get another professor or wait till next quarter but PLEASE listen to me and everyone else's reviews it's truly just so so awful. If I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, I really hope he learns from this quarter and improves as a professor in the future. Ebert, if you're reading this, no offense, but please take all of these reviews to heart and make things better for your future students.

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.

main takeaway from this review:
DO NOT TAKE THIS PROFESSOR!! I REPEAT DO NOT TAKE THIS PROFESSOR!!!!!!!

To preface this review, I really think Ebert is a nice guy deep down and that he has no ill intention of wanting his students to fail or purposefully making his class miserable. I honestly think he is completely oblivious to JUST how bad of a teacher he is. Anyway, this does not excuse the fact that you should do everything possible to not have him as a teacher. I thought math 31A and 31B were a walk in the park and while I expected 32A to be significantly harder, Ebert made it impossible to succeed. He has no skills in teaching. Lectures consist of him mumbling incoherent words that no one can hear, and even if you could, wouldn’t make any sense. He also writes extremely small and messy. Pretty much all he does is copy stuff from the textbook but make it WAYYY more confusing. It was much better to just skip lecture and teach the concepts to myself from the textbook. This was quite the struggle for me personally because I’ve never been the type to understand math just from reading a textbook. As you can probably tell from reading other reviews, the midterms were insanely difficult. He would give midterm reviews that made a lot of sense and weren’t too challenging, so I went into both midterms with a false sense of confidence that I was prepared for them. I was definitely not. I got a 63 and 59 on the midterms. Fortunately, he seemed to learn from his mistakes and made the final MUCH easier and actually comparable to the final review and I got an 85 on it. The one good thing I can say is he does have a very generous grading scheme. I think in any other class I would’ve gotten a C or C- for how much I know but I ended with a B. This class was so miserable and put constant stress on me the whole quarter. Now I feel completely unprepared for Math 32B. Seriously DO NOT take this class, please trust me.