The ongoing debate surrounding the University of California's (UC) potential reinstatement of the SAT in its admissions process has sparked intense interest and scrutiny. This issue, which is expected to be addressed by the regents next week, has become a pivotal point of discussion as UC leaders assess the criteria for granting admission to its prestigious institutions.
The decision to eliminate SAT and ACT requirements in 2020 was a unanimous one, but now, six years later, there are indications that opinions may have shifted. Former UC President Janet Napolitano, who played a key role in the initial decision, now advocates for a reevaluation, citing a faculty outcry over the severe deficiencies in math skills among students.
Napolitano emphasizes that while a standardized test score shouldn't be the sole determinant of admission, it could be considered as "a factor" in the renewed assessment. She highlights the need to address the racial and class equity logic that drove the initial decision, acknowledging that the SAT may not erase these inequities but also doesn't exacerbate them.
The changing landscape of UC leadership since 2020 has created an environment conducive to addressing this issue. With a new UC president, James Milliken, in place for over a year, a substantially renewed Board of Regents, and new chancellors at five of UC's nine undergraduate campuses, the timing seems opportune for a reevaluation.
UC's stance on standardized testing has positioned it as a national outlier. While prestigious universities like Stanford, Harvard, and Yale, and public university systems in Tennessee, Georgia, and Texas have reinstated testing, others, including USC and the California State University system, remain test-optional or test-free. This creates a unique context for UC's decision-making process.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons, whose campus math faculty are at the forefront of the push for reinstatement, acknowledges that standardized testing is not a "silver bullet" for improving admissions. Instead, he emphasizes the need to ensure that students possess the writing skills necessary to earn a degree and the mathematical abilities required for calculus-level coursework.
The debate gained momentum when approximately 1,400 faculty members in science, technology, engineering, and math fields signed an open letter expressing concerns about unprepared first-year students. An additional 1,600 faculty members, including those in humanities, social sciences, and arts, later joined, highlighting deficiencies in verbal reasoning and writing skills as well. If the tests are reinstated, the policy would not take effect until the fall 2028 application period at the earliest, a timeline that faculty activists deem too lengthy.
The political climate surrounding this issue is charged. When UC initially rejected the SAT, leaders argued that the test screened out students of color who often lacked test prep resources and that scores correlated more to race and family wealth than readiness. Regents overruled a faculty task force that had recommended keeping the tests due to their predictive value for college success across demographics. UC also settled a lawsuit alleging discriminatory effects of the test on applicants with disabilities and non-white students, an agreement that expired in 2025.
Napolitano cautions that the SAT is not a panacea for the preparedness gap. She emphasizes that the test provides only a snapshot and doesn't reflect a student's actual learning. The Trump administration's opposition to university diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and its elevation of test scores as a primary admissions yardstick of merit, has added fuel to the fire. UC has denied accusations of breaking the law by giving advantages to Black and Latino applicants.
Kim Wilcox, former UC Riverside chancellor, who supports resuming the use of tests, acknowledges the rise of anti-DEI groups and their increased influence. Advocates for underserved students have not ruled out legal action if the tests are reinstated. Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney who represented students in an earlier lawsuit, sees a connection between federal pressure and UC's reconsideration.
The government's interest in this matter is evident. Multiple UC faculty who have commented on the SAT debate on X have received likes from Harmeet Dhillon, the Department of Justice's top civil rights attorney. UC officials are aware that their debate on testing could be used against the university and point to instances where UC settlements have been cited by the Justice Department to fault the university for alleged discrimination.
Shaun Harper, a USC education professor, warns that restoring the tests would provide the White House with ammunition to portray UC as illegally practicing affirmative action. Napolitano, drawing on her experience as a former U.S. Homeland Security secretary and Arizona governor, agrees that there is a risk of the Trump administration weaponizing SAT scores to evaluate university admissions solely based on test scores and make accusations accordingly. However, she notes that California law has barred UC from considering race in admissions for nearly two decades.
UC officials reject the notion that Washington is driving the review. David Volz, chair of the UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools and a UC Riverside professor, asserts that White House pressure was not a consideration and that faculty concerns had been brewing well before Trump's presidency. Two work groups will lead the review, one weighing the pros and cons of requiring the SAT, ACT, or the Smarter Balanced test, and the other reexamining high school course requirements for UC admissions.
Ahmet Palazoglu, the UC Academic Senate chair and a UC Davis chemical engineering professor, emphasizes that the review will go beyond previous work on this subject due to the significant changes in the education landscape since the UC Board of Regents adopted its test-blind undergraduate admissions policy.
Faculty concerns about student preparedness are based on their observations and memories, as UC largely stopped collecting scores after 2020. UC San Diego and UC Berkeley faculty have released data on weaker first-year student math skills based on classroom assessments. Pro-SAT professors argue that UC risks falling behind schools that have already reinstated testing.
Critics of the classroom alarms argue that they miss the broader picture of student success. UC first-year student retention has remained steady at about 92% since the tests were dropped, and four-year graduation rates have increased from 71% in 2020 to 74% this year. Jessie Ryan, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, argues that resuming SAT would be "the wrong approach to an undefined problem."
Eddie Comeaux, a UC Riverside professor who chaired the system's admissions board in 2020, emphasizes that the question is not about the value of standardized tests but about the educational system's responsibility to prepare less-resourced students.
This debate highlights the complex interplay of educational policy, institutional readiness, and the broader political climate. As UC navigates this issue, it must carefully consider the implications for student success, equity, and its own reputation.
