<p>Based on this articulation agreement, could you say that taking ENGWR 300 by itself fulfills both ENGLISH R1A and R1B.?</p>
<p>Here's the link (I can't post it in formatted properly): ASSIST</a> Report: ARC 08-09 UCB Articulation Agreement by Major</p>
<p>yes, yes it does.</p>
<p>Hmmmmmm… so I’m wondering which interpretation is correct. And if there is punishment for the incorrect interpretation.</p>
<p>the latter of course, never the former.</p>
<p>The latter? Which pair are you distinguishing between, and how are you determining their order?</p>
<p>i am determining the order quantitatively, qualitatively would never work.</p>
<p>No, the english 1B is something something with literature . They’re two different classes with two different course name it was like 301 or something 
wasn’t really looking at the course number</p>
<p>Sorry can’t reply on phone but seems like you have to take both , and it counts as 1 course in the total of 88 percent or 80 can’t see well either . So if u are required 10 courses , ud have to complete 9 (being eng1a and 1b counted as 1) to make it 80 percent</p>
<p>:) I know they are two different classes at Cal, but it says they can both be fulfilled with 1 class. I appreciate your response.</p>
<p>To fulfill both, you can any of the following combination of two English Composition classes:
ENGWR 300 & ENGWR 301
ENGWR 480 & ENGWR 481
ENGWR 300 & ENGWR 481
ENGWR 480 & ENGWR 301</p>
<p>There’s a little “&” symbol after the set of “ENGWR 300 or ENGWR 480” meaning you need to take one of those and either “ENGWR 301 or ENGWR 481.” So no, it is not saying you can take one to fulfill two. Unless you’re reading somewhere on the agreement differently than I am.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s confusing because they do not clearly mark things, but sometimes I’m convinced that’s the entire point.</p>
<p>I think you’re correct. I was thinking it said take 1) ENGWR 300 by itself or 2) take ENGWR 480 and ENGWR 301 together or 3) take ENGWR 481 by itself.</p>
<p>If you’re correct then it’s redundant and ridiculous, but that’s probably the case.</p>
<p>That’s what I thought but couldn’t explain it as well as you did kender :)</p>
<p>ooooooh, kender got it down :)</p>
<p>ENGWR300= R1A, not R1A+ another class</p>
<p>Thanks for the help all. Looks like I don’t need to get my Cal decision to know my Cal decision… if you know what I mean.</p>
<p>Cal has the most bizarre clusters for satisfying the english requirement out of any of the UCs</p>
<p>It probably has something to do with their large number of International applicants.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what’s so confusing or redundant about it, but maybe I’ve been reading these things too long for too many different community colleges XD. I’m so used to them. The 480 and 481 class are just honors versions of the 300 and 301 classes if I’m reading things correctly. So same thing, just different rigor and different course numbers.</p>
<p>It’s more the layout that I think tends to be confusing. Not so much to do with UCB and everything to do with Assist. In fact, I’d go so far as to say I like that UCB has the designation in the articulation agreement that the honors classes count since there tends to be some confusion about that when they have different course numbers.</p>
<p>Assist just fails in being clear sometimes, though. Plus, I learned after I transferred to UCSC that although Assist does not say it, one of my majors will not take all of my subject/transfer credit. I was only allowed to transfer two of the pre-reqs. Fun, huh?</p>