Filipazzi lectures where great and even when I was lost during lectures, it ended up making sense overtime. This was the first math class after taking Calculus BC in high school, and let's just say it is a jump from the level of rigor in high school to that at UCLA. The first midterm was not that bad the class averages where high and it was a fair test, however the second midterm was harder and the class average went down a letter grade.
Filipazzi focuses on conceptual material in quizzes and test you must know the theorems in order to answer some of the questions. One aspect of the test are the computation which guarantee you at least a 70 percent for the midterm, but if you want that A, study the theorems, go to office hours and get more tutoring on the theorems, and ask for scenarios when the theorems don't work.
The homework is also time consuming but are good preparation for what is going to be on the midterms, and the last few problems go over the theorems which is neat and organized. I expect to get a B+ since grades haven't came out yet. But other than that I recommend Filipazzi and it not about the doing the math, but understanding it.

This was not an easy class in my opinion. Filipazzi's lectures were pretty good, and he gives lots of opportunity for questions and clarification. However, the exams are unreasonably difficult. The midterms, meant to take an hour, took over to 3 hours, and the final, meant to be 3 hours long, took almost 7. The content was also very challenging on exams and quizzes; the weekly homework problems were basic whereas all of the tested material were comparable to "challenge" questions that required an understanding of the material I feel was not taught. Overall, I feel that my grade suffered a lot from the difficulty of the exams, which was the worst part of the course.

I took this class virtually due to COVID-19. Grades were determined based on homework, quizzes, two midterms and a final. Homework was long (just don't do it in one sitting) but it helped me prepare for the exams. The quizzes were timed, so definitely more challenging if you don't perform well under a time crunch/don't have a deeper understanding of concepts. Our first midterm was pretty doable, but the second midterm was more conceptual and graded more harshly (remember to include theorem conditions, etc). Final was also fair.

Overall, Professor Filipazzi was very helpful and clear, and cared a lot about his students and how they understood the material. He even apologized because of how we were caught off guard by the second midterm. His lectures could be confusing at first because he would explain proofs and concepts in detail, but looking back they helped me understand the content really well. Would definitely recommend this class and Professor Filipazzi!

Keep in mind this review was during remote learning, so things may not apply for in-person classes. The meant 24-hr midterms/finals.
Overall, Filipazzi was a good professor. He was willing to answer questions and was pretty chill. The only questions he would put off were those unrelated to material, but mostly for the interest of time. I did not go to office hours with him, so I have no comment for that.
Midterm 1 was pretty straightforward and easy. The avg was an A in my class for that.
Midterm 2 was bad for a lot of people. The avg was B- -C+ on it. However, based on my own test and the group chats, this was mostly due to the grading being picky and taking off points for non-rigorous justifications/imprecise classification. Some of the problems were different that what was provided in the homework, which I think threw a lot of people, including myself, off.
The Final was very similar to the Midterms, but longer. So while I think it was similar difficulty to Midterm 2, what helped me personally was that I knew what work/specificity was required by reviewing the Midterm answers. A few of the questions were extremely similar to Midterm questions and the same justifications could be used. The avg was about a B+ - A- for the Final.
The quizzes were 30 mins long (online format). Because they were multiple choice/true-false, they tended to be very different than homework/conceptual. In my opinion, they were harder than the midterms/final.

HW was 15% graded on completeness/randomly selected correctness. 2 lowest scores were dropped.
Midterms (2) were 22.5% each.
Quizzes (3) were worth a total of 10%
Final 30%

A good portion of the material needed was covered in lecture except for a few times he had us read from the textbook. Some homework questions definitely required self-study of textbook or office hours to understand.
Based on the released medians/means of the midterms/quizzes my class the mean was around 87 and the median was around 89, where the cutoff for an A- was 90. I heard he may have rounded or shifted the cutoffs though (not sure).

I just read some other reviews. Tests definitely were not as unreasonable as some people made it out to be, but I do think that they may have been more strict/rigorous with grading because tests were 24 hrs open note/book. But agree with him being a good-hearted person. To the person that mentioned "undecipherable symbols", that was just LaTeX not loading properly lol. I think most math professors that can use computers prefer to write in LaTeX, so that's just something you might want to get used to.

Don't slack off if you did well on the first midterm otherwise the second midterm's gonna bite you in the butt. I only managed to scraped an A because Filipazzi had mercy and perhaps rounded up. My advice for this class would be to SHOW ALL WORK because I had a lot of points taken off for not showing enough work or not giving sufficient justification despite having correct answers.

Grade distribution: 10% quizzes, 15% homework, 22.5% each midterm, 30% final

Quizzes:
There are three quizzes. Quizzes were mostly conceptual like many people said, so make sure you are firm on the conceptual aspects. But also make sure you can do the calculations. The averages were 88%, 74%, and 80% for quiz 1, 2, and 3.

Homework (5% correctness, 10% completeness, 1 pt for each problem, 6 pt for correctness for each hw):
There is one homework each week (so 10 hw's) with 20-30 problems. Sometimes there were less than 20 problems, but most of the time it was 20 to a little over 30 problems. Homeworks are totally manageable, but hard to finish in one day. They were due every Friday. He also picks three random problems for each hw and uses those to give you the grade for correctness. Recommend going to OH if you're stuck on a problem since some problems are more conceptual. He drops the two lowest hw scores at the end.

Midterm 1 (50 pts):
I personally did badly on this one, but it was due to my own mistakes. The average for midterm 1 was 87%, with a median of 90%. It was mostly about vectors and we hadn't touched the multivariable part yet, so most people did well. (104/200 people got A's)

Midterm 2 (50 pts):
This midterm was harder than the final (hardest out of the three tests). Both midterms were designed to take 50 minutes, but I and most students definitely took way more than that (like several hours). For me personally, limits were where I got most points off, so make sure you are solid on your limits and practice some difficult ones too. Also, make sure to state EVERYTHING. I got points off for not stating why a function is continuous (the question didn't explicitly ask that). The average was 76% with a median of 79%, so you can tell that it was the hardest.

Final (75 pts):
If I remember correctly, Filipazzi mentioned how some students emailed him saying how difficult midterm 2 was, so he took that into consideration. Idk if it's because of that, but the final wasn't as hard as expected. But make sure you know the conditions for applying certain methods. For example, many people didn't realize that the condition for using the chain rule definition of directional derivatives was that the function had to be differentiable at that point. Most people did well in the final. (121/201 people got an A) The average was 89% with a median of 92%.

Tests overall:
Tests were not unreasonably hard (it was a reasonable difficulty, but definitely not easy), but one con was that it took me several hours to do each test when it was designed to take less time.

Lectures:
Attendance is not mandatory, and it's recorded. He uses many examples and different versions of those can show up on tests, so make sure you understand each example. He asks students if they have a question and kindly explains, so don't be afraid to ask questions.

Discussion:
Discussion attendance rates were really low, and for me personally, it helped just a little but not that much. Attendance is not mandatory and it's also recorded.

Helpfulness:
Professor Filipazzi is very helpful and tries to answer everyone's questions in an easy way. After the first midterm, I emailed him saying how I was having a hard time in the class and that I don't know how to study, and he offered to have a personal meeting to address the problems that I was concerned about. I thought that was very nice of him. I did much better on the next two tests.

OVERALL:
I would take a class with him again because even though the material was hard, he tries his best to explain in an easy way and I can see that he cares about his students. I was expecting a B+ (88.38%) but it got rounded to an A-, so I'm really grateful for that.

Professor Filipazzi is both a nice person and a good lecturer who explains every concept clearly. His exams are extremely easy.
The only problem is that the class is at 8 a.m. I remember in week 9 only around 10 people showed up in one of his lectures.

The professor was pretty helpful and responds to emails. However, his classes are structured in a way that's quite hard for you to follow. Sometimes he talks about 1/2 of a section, sometimes 1/3, sometimes 1 whole section, or sometimes he would talk about 4/5 and give you the rest to read by yourself. Also, he does not have a clear rubric for the homework and quizzes. All he says is "show enough work". What is enough? What I've experienced is that doing something might be completely okay for the homework, but on the exams, they will give you ZERO POINTS because they say you didn't show enough work. The rubrics are VERY VAGUE.

Other fun fact, when the professor makes a mistake in class, he would send an email with almost cryptic code trying to explain the case, which makes you even more confused lol.

Also, the class has a lot of homework compared to other lectures with other professors. On average, I would say we had about 5-10 more questions EACH WEEK (and FYI, each question would sometimes take up a whole page or more so don't think 5-10 questions are trivial). Also, all the other professors were dropping a lowest quiz for this quarter but for some reason Filipazzi just decided not to do that...

To my CONFUSION, he had like a 4.5+ rating on Bruinwalk before. Anyways, this class is not very enjoyable and Filipazzi definitely does not deserve all the super high ratings he's gotten in the past.

This professor graded his exams extremely unfairly. He showed no mercy on midterm 2 which killed the grades of the majority of the class. All these good reviews you see on here are of students who are ultra math tryhards. If you are an ultra math tryhard then you will do great. If you consider yourself an average or barely above average math student like me, you will not get an A in this class. You will get a B if you are lucky. Steer clear of this professor if you value your sanity.

review doesn't matter since this is his last class he's teaching but he was indeed great.