UC might go back to using the SAT and ACT for admissions. Here’s why that doesn’t add up

The University of California Board of Regents is being asked to consider whether to reinstate SAT and ACT scores for admissions; In fact, this discussion is very hot. New York weighs in It’s about the Golden State dilemma.

Despite dire warnings from our friends on the right coast thousands (yes, thousands) Among the professors who claim that incoming students lack the necessary skills, I am here to offer a somewhat contrarian view based on reality, common sense, and an important fact that is constantly tossed aside: Parents in California pay taxes for their children. California kids can go to these excellent schoolseven if they cannot perform advanced calculations.

UC is not Harvard and was never intended to embody this kind of self-perpetuating exclusivity disguised as meritocracy. As the parent of two (hopefully) college-bound teenagers, I understand the anger over both the UC admissions process and the post-pandemic AI mess plaguing our K-12 schools.

But at best, this effort to immediately bring back these tests is a disservice to both the mission of our public universities and the remaining classes of children who have lost learning during the pandemic. At worst, it’s jumping on the misguided and reactionary anti-diversity, anti-inclusion bandwagon driven by the Trump administration and pretending we don’t see where it’s going.

Here’s common sense: It’s not a question of scamming students or lazy teachers, of course both exist. This is a problem with high schools and the lasting effects of the pandemic. Bringing back the test won’t solve either.

“Of course, these are systemic structural problems and inequities,” said Michal Kurlaender, chancellor’s professor of education policy leadership at UC Davis.

Still, the argument is that we are admitting the “wrong” candidates, that is, candidates who lack the academic skills to solve the derivative f(x) = 3x² + 2x − 5 but are desirable for other, perhaps invalid, reasons supported by our current admissions.

This narrative was given a boost of rocket fuel when UC math professors published an open letter demanding the reintroduction of standardized testing to weed out unprepared students who fill their classes. That letter has now been signed By more than 3,000 UC faculty members.

Surprisingly, the letter appears to push for a return to standardized testing, arguing that no matter what professors do, a growing percentage of students are too stupid to succeed.

“UC has limited resources and can only help a certain number of students and only when the readiness gaps they need to overcome are achievable,” the letter says.

These “wrong” candidates are thought to have sneaked their way through the grueling admissions process with inflated grades and AI tricks (let alone the numerous Advanced Placement test scores that are largely ignored in this discussion), and some apparently believe it was administrators’ foolish decision to emphasize an admissions process that goes beyond rankings, scores, and grades.

The consequence of the unwelcome presence of these admitted “false” confessions in our elite academic halls is that world-class professors are forced to teach fundamentals inferior to theirs, and the reputation of our best schools is diminished – Berkeley’s Just ranked as the nation’s #1 public university (UCLA is No. 2) and received a record 133,000 applications in the first year in 2026.

Here’s the truth I’m talking about: When we talk about the wrong candidates, we’re actually largely talking about race and socioeconomics (including the ever-squeezing middle class).

In California, where the Latino population is more than 40% and growing, our universities are increasingly pressed to serve this demographic and other “first-generation” or underrepresented college applicants. We also significantly increased the number of students our universities accept from every demographic group.

It’s helpful to know that standardized testing was eliminated by lawmakers in a controversial 2020 ballot measure, largely based on the idea that it discriminates against this broader pool of students — but the data doesn’t actually support this.

In fact, a study group of 19 people investigating the topic found the opposite: The tests were useful predictors of college success and, when used as a factor among broader admissions criteria, could extract diamonds in the rough from average applications.

Wait, what?

So why am I against returning to these tests? Because the part of this report we’re ignoring is the revelation that the University of California may outperform the SAT or ACT. Saul Geiser, a UC Berkeley professor and one of the leading experts on the subject, says the task force’s report is flawed because it does not take into account factors such as family income and parental education. He calls the SATs “antithetical” to the UCs’ mission and says it’s an “illusion” to think that bringing them back would do anything other than harm diversity.

“Unlike private Ivy League colleges, public universities should seek to serve all sectors of the state and all segments of the population,” he told me. “SAT poses a major obstacle to achieving this mission because of its strong association with inherited privilege.”

The task force initially recommended that California create its own alternative test by 2025 that would go beyond math and English and measure the perseverance, resilience and determination that have always been indicators of success in college and life.

The pandemic and costs ended this project, but our new age of artificial intelligence has made it more possible than ever. UCLA professor Li Cai, who was on the working group and serves as director of the National Center for Research on Assessment, Standards, and Student Testing, said he supports bringing back standardized testing even though he voted for it six years ago and said the blind testing adjudication process was a “failed” experiment.

But it also supports a test designed by the UC system for the UC system; It is a test that is free, can be taken as many times as you want, at any time, at your school or local library, and provides constant feedback so that students can better identify their weaknesses and prepare.

“My vision hasn’t changed much,” Cai told me. “A prominent public university like UC…has almost an obligation not to allow the private sector to take responsibility for intellectual leadership.”

Along with hesitation about the real effects of returning to the SAT is the fact that not all UC professors agree that it’s impossible for missing students to catch up. Björn Birnir is chair of the Mathematics department at UC Santa Barbara and one of two mathematics chairs in the system who did not sign the open letter.

He told me that Santa Barbara sees the same deficiencies in math, especially non-math fields, but has found an effective way to deal with it that doesn’t require reducing admissions based on test scores.

When students lack basic skills, they are often sent during the summer to catch up at a nearby community college. He said they usually come back, ready for the roughness he expects.

“These problems need to be solved, but you can’t solve them by reinstating the SAT,” Birnir said. “Just closing the door is not actually the best solution. We think the best way is to allow these students to complete their deficiencies.”

Problem solved.

Bringing back the SAT might satisfy frustrated professors and parents, but it’s a test that will never be able to combat the complex reality of our public universities: We want them to be both world-class and a way for our flawed, still-recovering kids to achieve their dreams, even if it involves summer school.