Chabria: UC could go back to using the SAT and ACT for admissions. Here's why that doesn't add up

UC could go back to using the SAT and ACT for admissions. Here’s why that doesn’t add up - Click here to listen to this article - Share via See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred - The use of standardized testing for admissions was eliminated by the UC regents in a controversial 2020 vote. - Professors say incoming students lack necessary skills. Here is a somewhat contrarian position. The University of California Board of Regents is being asked to consider whether to bring back the SAT and ACT for admissions, a debate so hot even New York is weighing in on this Golden State dilemma. Despite dire warnings from our right-coast friends and thousands (yes, thousands) of professors who claim incoming students lack necessary skills, I’m here to present a somewhat contrarian position, based on reality, common sense and one key fact that keeps getting shuffled to the side: California parents pay taxes so their California kids can attend these excellent schools, even if they can’t do advanced calculus. UC is not Harvard, and was never meant to embody that type of self-perpetuating exclusivity disguised as a meritocracy. As the parent of two (hopefully) college-bound teens, I understand the resentment toward both the UC admission process and the post-pandemic, artificial intelligence mess that plagues our K-12 schools. But at its best, this push to immediately bring back these tests is a disservice to both the mission of our public universities and the remaining classes of kids who lost learning during the pandemic. At worst, it is jumping on the misguided and retrograde anti-diversity, anti-inclusion bandwagon being led by the Trump administration — and pretending we don’t see where this caravan is headed. Here’s the common sense: This isn’t a problem of scamming students or lazy teachers, though of course both exist. This is a problem with high schools, and the lingering effects of the pandemic. Bringing back a test solves neither. “For sure, these are systemic structural problems and inequalities,” Michal Kurlaender, the chancellor’s leadership professor of education policy at UC Davis, told me. Still, the argument is that we are letting in the “wrong” candidates — those who lack academic skills that would solve for the derivative of f(x) = 3x² + 2x − 5 but who are desirable for other, perhaps invalid, reasons that our current admissions are favoring. This narrative was given a rocket-fuel boost when UC math professors released an open letter demanding standardized tests be reinstated to weed out the unprepared students cluttering their classes. That letter has now been signed by more than 3,000 UC faculty. The University of California will consider bringing back SAT and ACT requirements for first-year admissions. UC ended test requirements in 2020. Shockingly, the letter seems to be pushing for a return to standardized tests by, in effect, arguing that a growing percentage of their students are simply too stupid to succeed, no matter what professors do. “UC has finite resources and can help only so many students, and only when the preparation deficits they need to overcome are within reach,” the letter reads. These “wrong” candidates are supposedly sneaking through the grueling admissions process with inflated grades and AI cheating (never mind their numerous Advanced Placement test scores, which are largely being ignored in this debate), and what some apparently believe is the foolish decision of administrators to emphasize an admissions process that goes beyond rankings, scores and grades. The result of the unwelcome presence of these “wrong” admits in our elite academic halls is world-class professors being forced to teach beneath-them basics, and a diminishing of the reputation of our top schools — despite the fact that Berkeley was just rated the No. 1 public university in the country (UCLA is No. 2) and received a record 133,000 first-year applications in 2026. Here’s that reality I mentioned: When we talk about wrong candidates, we are actually largely talking about race and socioeconomics (including the ever-squeezed middle class). In California, where the Latino population is more than 40% and growing, our universities have increasingly pushed to serve this demographic and other “first-generation” or underrepresented college applicants. We have also significantly increased the number of students our universities accept, from all demographics. It is useful to know that standardized testing was eliminated by the regents in a controversial 2020 vote, largely based on the idea that it was discriminating against this broader pool of students — though the data didn’t actually back that up. In fact, a 19-person task force that investigated the issue found the opposite: that the tests were useful predictors of college success and could pluck diamonds in the rough out of otherwise average applications — when used as one factor among broader admissions criteria. Wait, what? Then why am I against returning to these tests? Because the part of that report we are ignoring is that it also found that the University of California can do better than the SAT or the ACT. Saul Geiser, a UC Berkeley professor and a top expert on this issue, says the task force report was flawed because it failed to account for factors including family income and parent education. He calls the SAT “antithetical” to the mission of UCs and says that it is an “illusion” to think bringing them back would do anything but hurt diversity. “Unlike private Ivy League colleges, public universities must strive to serve all sectors of the state and all segments of the population,” he told me. “The SAT, with its strong correlation with inherited privilege, is a major barrier to achieving that mission.” The task force originally suggested that California create its own, alternative test by 2025 that would go beyond math and English to measure the persistence, resilience and determination that have always been the markers of success, in college and in life. The pandemic and costs killed off that project, but our new era of AI has made it more possible than ever. Li Cai, a UCLA professor who was on the task force and who serves as the director of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, told me that he supports bringing back standardized testing and that the test-blind decision process is a “failed” experiment — even though he voted for it six years ago. But he also still supports a test designed by the UC system for the UC system — a test that could be free, available to take anytime at your school or local library as many times as you want, and that gives continuous feedback so students can better see their weaknesses and prepare. Hundreds of University of California professors are urging the system to reinstate the SAT or ACT requirement for STEM majors by 2027, saying that the test-optional policy has created a widening preparation gap that threatens the value of UC science, technology, engineering and math degrees. “My vision has not really changed very much,” Cai told me. “A public university, a prominent one like the UC ... has almost an obligation to not let the private sector take the charge in terms of intellectual leadership.” On top of that hesitancy about the real effects of returning to the SAT is the fact that not all UC professors agree it is impossible for lacking students to catch up. Björn Birnir is the chair of the Mathematics department at UC Santa Barbara, and one of only two math chairs in the system who did not sign the open letter. He told me that Santa Barbara sees the same deficiencies in math, especially in non-math majors, but it has found an effective way to deal with it that doesn’t involve slashing admissions based on test scores. When students don’t have the basic skills, they are sent to the nearby community college, often over the summer, to catch up. They usually come back, he said, ready for the rigor he expects. “These problems, they have to be addressed, but you don’t address them by reinstating the SAT,” Birnir said. “Just shutting the door is not really the best solution. We think the best way is to have a path for these students to make up deficiencies.” Problem solved. Bringing back the SAT may satisfy frustrated professors and parents, but it is a test that can never contend with the complicated reality of our state universities: We want them to be both world-class and a pathway for our imperfect, still-recovering kids to achieve their dreams, even if it involves summer school. More to Read Insights L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles. Viewpoint Perspectives The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the piece - The article argues that reinstating the SAT and ACT would contradict the core mission of the University of California as a broad-access public system rather than an elite, exclusionary institution modeled on private universities, and contends that California taxpayers expect these campuses to educate a wide range of students, including those who may not have advanced calculus skills. - It further maintains that the rush to bring back standardized tests is a misdirected reaction to post-pandemic learning loss and frustrations with artificial intelligence in K-12 education, and suggests that this impulse aligns with a wider anti-diversity, anti-inclusion agenda in national politics rather than with the needs of current students. - The piece emphasizes that student skill gaps, particularly in math, stem from structural problems in high schools and the lasting effects of the pandemic, and argues that admissions tests do nothing to repair these underlying inequities or improve classroom preparation. - It criticizes the UC math faculty open letter calling for a return to standardized testing as implicitly portraying a growing share of students as incapable of success, and warns that talk of admitting the “wrong” candidates is in practice about race and socioeconomic status, given California’s large and growing Latino population and the focus on first-generation and underrepresented students. - The article notes that UC regents eliminated the SAT and ACT requirement in a contentious 2020 vote amid concerns about bias against students of color and lower-income applicants, even though a faculty task force found those tests to be useful predictors of college performance and capable of identifying strong students in otherwise average applications when used as one factor in a holistic review[1][4][5]. - Nevertheless, it highlights arguments from UC researchers that demographic variables such as family income, parental education and race explain a large share of differences in SAT scores, and that this strong correlation with inherited advantage makes national exams incompatible with a public university’s obligation to serve all segments of the state[3]. - The piece points out that UC’s own task force envisioned an alternative, UC-designed assessment that would move beyond math and English toward measuring traits such as persistence, resilience and determination, and argues that modern AI tools could revive this project and allow for a low-cost, flexible, feedback-rich exam tailored to California’s needs[1][4]. - It underscores examples from UC campuses, such as sending underprepared students to nearby community colleges for intensive remediation before returning to university courses, to show that targeted support and clear pathways can address academic deficiencies without closing the door through stricter test-based admissions. - Ultimately, the article contends that restoring the SAT and ACT might placate anxious professors and parents but would fail to capture the “complicated reality” of UC as both a world-class system and a public pathway for imperfect, still-recovering students, and argues that investing in better preparation and UC-specific assessment is more consistent with the system’s mission than reembracing national standardized tests. Different views on the topic - In contrast, many UC faculty members and admissions leaders argue that math preparation among incoming students has declined to “severe” levels, and view reinstating the SAT and ACT as a necessary way to screen for quantitative readiness and prevent large numbers of underprepared students from enrolling in demanding courses[6][8]. - Faculty committees and institutional research at UC have repeatedly found that standardized test scores, though imperfect, are significant predictors of first-year grades, graduation rates and other measures of academic success, and in some analyses outperform high school grade point average once grade inflation and varying school standards are taken into account[3][4][5][9]. - National reporting and expert commentary contend that abandoning testing requirements in the name of diversity misunderstands the evidence, noting that SAT and ACT scores contain substantial information about academic readiness and can support both excellence and diversity when they are one component in a broader review rather than a sole gatekeeper[5][9]. - Opposing views also stress that a common exam provides a statewide or national benchmark that mitigates disparities in grading practices across high schools, and argue that standardized tests can help identify high-potential students from under-resourced schools who may lack access to advanced coursework but demonstrate strong performance on objective assessments[2][3][7][9]. - Critics of the 2020 UC regents decision assert that board members moved away from testing in response to perceptions of racial and socioeconomic bias, despite faculty recommendations to retain exams in some form, and now face a situation in which faculty are “sounding the alarm” about skill deficits and pressing to reverse a policy they view as a failed experiment[1][6][8]. - Some commentaries suggest that UC’s heavy emphasis on broad access without robust academic screening strains finite instructional resources, and argue that professors cannot remediate extensive gaps at scale; from this perspective, admissions policies should prioritize applicants who already demonstrate strong quantitative foundations in order to protect course quality and institutional reputation[4][8]. - Additionally, organizations and analysts concerned with admissions standards maintain that test-optional or test-blind policies can inadvertently advantage affluent students who have more support in crafting compelling holistic applications, and argue that maintaining standardized tests helps ensure a more transparent and merit-based process across socioeconomic groups[2][7][9].