First, coursera is a ghost town. There is no activity on the forum. Real responses stopped a year ago. Most of the activity is from 3 years ago. This course is dead.
Two, this course seems to approach the topic as teaching inadequate ways to perform various tasks to show the inadequacies. You can learn from that; we will make mistakes or use approaches that are less than ideal. But, that should be a quick "don't do this," while moving on to better approaches
Three, the professors seem to dismiss batch learning as a "dodgy" technique. If Hinton, Bengio, and other intellectual leaders of the field recommend it as the preferred technique, then it probably is.
Four, the professors emphasize log likelihood. Mathematically, minus the log likelihood is the same as cross-entropy cost. The latter is more robust and applicable to nearly every classification problem (except decision trees), and so is a more versatile formulation. As neither actually plays any roll in the training algorithm except as guidance for the gradient and epsilon formulas and as a diagnostic, the more versatile and robust approach should be preferred.
The professors seem very focused on decision trees. Despite the "apparent" intuitive appeal and computational tractability, the technique seems to be eclipsed by other methods. Worth teaching and occasionally using to be sure, but not for 3/4 of the course.
There are many mechanical problems that remain in the material. At least 6 errors in formulas or instructions remain. Most can be searched for on the forum to find some resolution, through a lot of noise. Since the last corrections were made 3 years ago, the UW or Coursera's lack of interest shows.
It was a bit unnecessary to use a huge dataset that resulted in a training matrix or over 10 billion cells. Sure, if you wanted to focus on methods for scaling--very valuable indeed--go for it. But, this lead to unnecessary long training times and data issues that were, at best, orthogonal to the overall purpose of highlighting classification techniques and encouraging good insights about how classification techniques work.
The best thing about the course was the willingness to allow various technologies to be used. The developers went to some lengths to make this possible. It was far more work to stray outside the velvet ropes of the Jupiter notebooks, but it was very rewarding.
Finally, the quizzes were dependent on numerical point answers that could often be matched only by using the same exact technology and somewhat sloppy approaches (no lowercase for word sentiment analysis, etc.). It does take some cleverness to think of questions that lead to the right answer if the concepts are implemented properly. It doesn't count when the answers rely precisely on anomalies.
I learned a lot, but only because I wrote my own code and was able to think more clearly about it, but that was somewhat of a side effect.
All in all, a disappointing somewhat out of date class.