The ongoing debate surrounding the University of California's (UC) potential reinstatement of the SAT as an admissions requirement has sparked intense interest and scrutiny. This issue, set to be discussed by the regents next week, is a pivotal moment for the nation's leading public university system as it assesses its approach to selecting students.
The decision to eliminate the SAT and ACT requirements in 2020 was unanimous, but now, six years later, there are indications that opinions have shifted. Former UC President Janet Napolitano, who led the university during the initial decision, now advocates for a reevaluation, citing a faculty outcry over students' severe deficiencies in math skills.
Napolitano emphasizes that while a standardized test score shouldn't be the sole factor in admissions, it could be a valuable consideration. She believes that the logic behind the initial decision, focused on racial and class equity, deserves a fresh look.
A Changing Landscape
The UC's willingness to revisit this issue is notable, given the significant changes in its leadership since 2020. With a new president, James Milliken, and a largely renewed Board of Regents, the university is in a unique position to address this matter. Additionally, five of UC's nine undergraduate campuses have new chancellors, further emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review.
UC's stance on standardized testing sets it apart from other prestigious universities and public university systems. While institutions like Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and public universities in Tennessee, Georgia, and Texas have reinstated testing, UC has maintained its test-optional or test-free policy.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons, a key figure in this debate, acknowledges the complexity of the issue. He emphasizes the need to ensure students have the necessary writing and math skills for their chosen courses, but he doesn't view the SAT or ACT as a 'silver bullet' solution.
The debate gained momentum when approximately 1,400 faculty members in STEM fields signed an open letter expressing concerns about unprepared first-year students. This was followed by another 1,600 faculty members from humanities, social sciences, and arts, who highlighted deficiencies in verbal reasoning and writing skills.
If the tests are reinstated, the policy would not take effect until the fall 2028 application period at the earliest, which many faculty members consider too long.
Political and Legal Considerations
The political climate adds another layer of complexity to this debate. The Trump administration's opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and its focus on test scores as a primary admissions yardstick have influenced the conversation. UC has faced accusations of racial discrimination in its admissions practices, which the university denies.
Kim Wilcox, former UC Riverside chancellor, supports resuming the use of standardized tests, arguing that anti-DEI groups now have a louder voice. Advocates for underserved students are concerned about potential legal challenges if the tests are reinstated.
Public Counsel attorney Mark Rosenbaum, who represented students in a previous lawsuit, believes there is a connection between federal pressure and UC's reconsideration. He warns that UC may be 'knuckling under' to the Trump administration.
UC officials are aware of the potential legal and political ramifications of their decision. They point to a recent settlement with Jewish faculty and students over a UCLA pro-Palestinian encampment, which was cited by the Justice Department to fault UC for alleged antisemitism.
Shaun Harper, a USC education professor, shares concerns that restoring the tests could provide the White House with ammunition to portray UC as illegally practicing affirmative action.
Napolitano, with her experience in government, agrees that there is a risk the Trump administration could 'weaponize' SAT scores, evaluating university admissions solely based on test scores and making accusations accordingly. However, she notes that California law prohibits UC from considering race in admissions, which has been in place for nearly two decades.
UC officials reject the notion that Washington is driving this review, stating that faculty concerns have been long-standing, predating the Trump administration.
Two work groups will lead the review, one focusing on the type of test to be required (SAT, ACT, or Smarter Balanced) and the other reexamining high school course requirements for UC admissions.
Ahmet Palazoglu, the UC Academic Senate chair, emphasizes that the review will be comprehensive, considering the significant changes in the education landscape since the initial decision.
Classroom Observations and Student Success
Faculty members have expressed concerns based on their observations of students' skills, particularly in math. Zvezdelina Stankova, a Berkeley math professor, describes engineering students struggling with basic algebra, having skipped Calculus 1 based on high AP scores.
Critics of the SAT reinstatement argue that these classroom observations don't paint the full picture of student success. UC's first-year student retention rate 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.
Eddie Comeaux, a UC Riverside professor who chaired the system's admissions board in 2020, emphasizes that the debate is not about the quality of standardized tests but about the educational system's responsibility to prepare all students, especially those with fewer resources.
Conclusion
The UC's decision on standardized testing will have far-reaching implications, not just for the university but also for the broader educational landscape. It raises questions about the role of standardized tests in admissions, the preparation of students, and the balance between equity and academic readiness. As the debate unfolds, it will be interesting to see how UC navigates these complex issues and whether its decision will set a precedent for other institutions.
