<p>Yes beyphy, that is correct, yet I would not say it is easy. I have served on articulation committees and have even written an appeal for a UCB Philosophy student who had these issues. The faculty was impressed how I was able to lift the burden of proof and place it back on them that they even accepted more classes then he was requesting. </p>
<p>As a philosophy major, learning the proper way of applying logic, proof, and understanding legal and rhetoric concepts such as ‘burden of proof’ has the capability of trumping formalities. Although Assist is the accepted depository of articulation agreements, it is constantly in flux and depends on many factors. Those factors include the efforts and willingness of the CCC’s faculty to conform their curricula to state standards vs. autonomy of the department. It also depends on how knowledgeable the CCC’s Articulation Officer is and their communication between the advisory committees and state organization boards. A well informed AO can petition the UC Articulation Analyst (by October 31st) who has the power to decide unless there is a discrepancy. If there is a discrepancy, a note of recommendation and inquiry will go to the department faculty and and another to BOARS (or that UC’s Academic Senate). Just like in normal governmental proceedings, after the legislative branch debates and makes recommendations it is raised up to the administrative branch who has the power of veto.</p>
<p>Once it goes to UCOP, they can incorporate into the TCA which you see as ASSIST. What you don’t see is OSCAR but another way is to go look at the extended description of the class in question. BOARS and the UC Academic Senate will compare and analyze the history of the course at the CCC beyond just the class name and brief description. A UC may look at CAN but since that hit the 25 year expiration I think they just call it C-ID now and so may refer to the LDTP/TCSU for comparison and insight.</p>
<p>I take it the aim in regards to this discussion is to qualify for course-to-course transfer which is possible even if not formally recognized by Assist. There is even the possibility of arguing in favor of 2 CCC classes for a c-2-c but any core class(es) should at least qualify for a lower division requirement or you are not trying hard enough. I agree that the Logic class would be hard to prove if you suck at logic and the class descriptor sufficiently lacks a UC SLO. If it is the CCC class that sucked and your argument was good they may even consider the CCC lower division core as a upper division elective to make up for having to take another lower division core at the UC. If it was a quality CCC history of philosophy class then if you are any good at logic and argumentation then you should be able to convince the faculty member as ‘comparable’ towards counting as ‘accepted in lieu of’ the required lower division requirement. If you do not have many classes or have more philosophy electives than core or support, and are of average intelligence like GTarrant, then the faculty member, curriculum adviser, and AO have the power to deny your appeal and the course will be incorporated under GE breadth. </p>
<p>Realize, he UC system did not participate in the CAN system which has expired this year so many of these issues are coming to a head and require involvement on all levels. If you students realized that you have been granted more power than the majority of the staff, faculty, and administration, there is potentially so much those involved could accomplish. If you are not willing to learn how the system works then you have no one to blame but yourselves.</p>
<p>If one was too choose the overly emotional, accusatory, reactionary methodology, such as GTarrant has displayed here, their chance of success in lifting the burden would be reduced. You do not have to prove that X class is ‘equivalent’ as that is recognized from both the sender and receiver institutions as possessing too many contingent factors. To be able to wedge the decision towards your favor requires knowing about your major and material covered. AFTER you are admitted to X UC, you need to prove that X CCC class taught curriculum material that is ‘comparable’ and/or can be ‘accepted in lieu of’. All that matters is that your argument is succinct and holds weight plus it does help if you informed and impress the AO and/or faculty so they feel confident you know the material. Hence if you can’t argue logic, using what you should have learned from a logic class for UCB to accept, then your appeal request deserves to be denied. These people are still human and born with reason as same can be said of Admission committees. You could have a 3.93 but if your personal statement and/or appeal for admissions does not engage or hold some weight or interest to the person reviewing then what? How would it not be fair that say a 3.33 student was able to gain admission or c-2-c qualification through effort over the 3.93 student that lied down in quiet desperation?</p>