<p>Most people choose the first path since it’s easier and less complicated.</p>
<p>Second part is sort of a back-up plan in case they end up with less than 3.5 in Econ 11 and 101. What is means is… the LEAST you can do is get a B+ in both 11 and 101 (or whatever grade that calculates to 3.3) and IF you have other econ courses that require Econ 11 as pre-req (there aren’t many but they exist) you need to have a cumulative of 3.5GPA… and 3.3 UCLA GPA.</p>
<p>Here are the courses that require 11 as pre-reqs but not 101:</p>
<p>Econ 111
Econ 141A (although these require higher level math)
Econ 170
Econ 171
Econ 172
Econ 181AB
Econ 183</p>
<p>So let’s say you took Econ 11 on Fall Quarter and got a B+.
During Winter Quarter, you take Econ 101 and Econ 170.
You end up with B+ on Econ 101 but A on Econ 170.</p>
<p>The cumulative grade of these three courses is a 3.53.
Although you got cumulative of 3.3 for Econ 11 and 101, because you got A on Econ 170, you end up with over 3.5GPA. If you have any other classes taken at UCLA (which you probably will, like Econ 41 and Mgmt courses) and have an overall cumulative of 3.3 by the time you complete Econ 101 (which will be the end of winter quarter), you will be accepted to BizEcon.</p>
<p>But why go through all these? Just get a 3.5 for 11 and 101 (that’s one A and one B, or one A- and one B+). That’s lot easier.</p>