Please Note:  The content of this guide has been updated and incorporated into the 2018 version of the How to Articulate Handbook. 

Please click here for the most current edition.

Identifying Appropriate Receiving Institutions

Before circulating a request for articulation, sending institutions are strongly encouraged to identify those institutions or programs where the new course might potentially be transferable, and to direct their requests for articulation appropriately. Receiving institutions can close articulation requests for courses that have no relationship to any courses or programs offered at their institution. Sending institutions may send requests for course articulation to any member of the BC Transfer System who is listed as accepting requests from the sending institution. However, sending institutions should be mindful of the extra workload that may be incurred at receiving institutions by misdirected or inappropriate requests.

It is very helpful for the institution sending the articulation request to indicate the suggested credit desired for the course and, if applicable, to identify the suggested course for which equivalence is sought at each receiving institution. This information can be included on the form accompanying the course outline.Where this is not possible, every effort should be made to provide details about the desired transferability, especially the discipline or department to which the request should be routed. Receiving institutions have told BCCAT that this information assists them to direct the course to the most appropriate department or faculty member. If possible, institutions intending to request specific equivalencies should ask receiving institutions, prior to sending the articulation request, to recommend the most appropriate equivalent course or program at that institution. When the request concerns an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary course, a more detailed discussion may be necessary to determine who should evaluate the course as an equivalent course or an appropriate choice of evaluator may not be obvious.

It is also good practice to specify the program year for which credit is desired if there is any possible ambiguity. For example, some institutions use 300- and 400- level course numbers for courses taught at the second-year level; this can create confusion at a receiving institution if that institution uses 300- and 400-level numbers exclusively for third- and fourth-year courses. If it is likely that the receiving institution will award unassigned credit because of this discrepancy, a request from the sending institution for a specific program level of credit can help the assessor determine the appropriate credit.