Principles to Guide the Application of the Transfer CSU (TCSU) Numbering System for California State University (CSU) System Wide Articulation

AS-2776-06/AA (Rev) - November 9, 2006

RESOLVED: That individual community college courses receiving a Transfer CSU (TCSU) number associated with a Lower Division Transfer Pattern (LDTP) should be articulated at all CSU campuses offering a comparable course; and be it further

RESOLVED: The same principle apply to comparable course sequences; and be it further

RESOLVED: That “comparability” implies equivalent prerequisites, required core content, contact hours and laboratory activities; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the faculty of the appropriate CSU campus discipline have primary responsibility for determining TCSU comparability with campus courses; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the LDTP Steering Committee facilitate the resolution of questions regarding this policy and comparability. If questions remain, the issue will be referred to the established LDTP discipline course review team, which will have ultimate decision-making authority.

RATIONALE: Discipline faculty from across the CSU have invested significant time and effort developing course descriptors for courses included in LDTPs. Discipline faculty from across the system will invest significant time reviewing community college course submission for the purpose of certifying their congruence with said descriptors. The purposes of the LDTP project and the associated TCSU numbering system, by which certification can be communicated are to facilitate the major preparation and smooth transition to the CSU by transfer students. Disallowing major credit for comparable courses taken at community colleges would pose an unreasonable hardship for transfer students.

It is also unlikely that community colleges will submit sufficient courses for review if approval of courses does not imply articulation outside of LDTP transfer. If courses are modified to meet the guidelines set forth by the CSU discipline faculty, community colleges many have to redo and renegotiate dozens of campus-to-campus articulation agreements with individual CSU campuses, not to mention UC and private institutions.

SB 1415 (Brulte) states “the California Community Colleges and California State University shall adopt, and the University of California and private postsecondary institutions may adopt, a common course numbering system for the 20 highest-demand majors in the respective segments.” It is widely understood that the TCSU numbering system will replace the CAN system, in which we no longer participate, for the CSU to meet the intent of this bill.