The renewed argument over standardized tests is not just about who gets admitted to college. It is also about whether test-optional policies can address deeper gaps in school preparation and access.
A California sociology professor cited an irony in removing ACT and SAT requirements: removing ACT and SAT requirements did not fix racial disparities as intended. The critique has revived a central question for California college admissions: can test-optional policies make access fairer if unequal preparation, resources and school opportunities remain?
The debate matters now because the University of California, which stopped requiring the tests in 2020, is being urged to reconsider their role in first-year admissions. Supporters of a return say campuses need a clearer indicator of academic readiness; opponents say restoring the exams would mistake a deeper K-12 problem for an admissions problem.
The equity promise behind test optional
Standardized testing became a flash point because SAT and ACT scores have long tracked family income, access to tutoring, school quality and familiarity with the admissions process. Critics argued that requiring scores could amplify advantages already available to students from wealthier households.
Test-optional policies were designed to reduce the weight of that one measure. In theory, admissions readers could put more emphasis on grades, course rigor, essays, extracurricular work and the circumstances in which a student achieved them.
That approach does not automatically erase disparities, however. Grades and activities are also shaped by uneven access to advanced courses, stable housing, counseling, technology, time outside school and financially secure families. The professor’s cited irony goes to that larger problem: taking away a measurement tool is different from removing the inequities the tool may reveal.
UC’s 2020 decision remains central
The University of California Board of Regents suspended the use of SAT and ACT scores in admissions in 2020. The decision came amid concerns over whether the exams treated applicants fairly and whether they added useful information beyond students’ high-school records.
UC’s system carries unusual weight in this discussion. Its campuses are public institutions with intensely competitive admissions, enormous applicant pools and a statewide mission that includes opportunity for California students.
According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, the regents are being asked to consider bringing standardized tests back for first-year admissions. That does not mean a return has been approved, and it does not settle what any future policy would look like. It does show that the test-free experiment is being judged against a new set of concerns about college readiness.
Readiness concerns fuel the pushback
A group of UC mathematics professors has argued that more students are arriving without the preparation needed for demanding quantitative coursework. The Los Angeles Times reported that an open letter calling for standardized tests to be reinstated had drawn more than 3,000 faculty signatures.
For advocates of restoring exams, a test score is not supposed to be the whole admissions decision. They see it as one common benchmark across high schools with different grading standards, course offerings and levels of rigor. Their case is that universities need a reliable way to identify students who may need academic support before they fall behind.
That argument has limits. A score can reflect preparation, but it can also reflect test coaching and opportunity. It cannot, by itself, tell admissions officers whether a student overcame barriers, improved sharply over time or has the persistence to thrive once support is available.
Critics see the wrong diagnosis
Opponents of bringing back the SAT and ACT say the complaints about weak preparation should focus attention on California’s schools, not on applicants. If students lack access to strong math instruction, advanced classes or qualified teachers, an admissions test documents that gap rather than repairing it.
The Los Angeles Times quoted UC Davis education-policy professor Michal Kurlaender describing the issue as one of structural problems and inequalities. That framing challenges the assumption that a more selective admissions screen would solve instructional deficits that developed over many years.
Critics also warn that a return to mandatory tests could narrow access at public universities. California’s population is diverse, and the state’s public higher-education system is expected to serve students from families with very different incomes, school systems and levels of college knowledge.
The disagreement is therefore not simply over whether tests are “good” or “bad.” It is over what job admissions should perform. Should it chiefly predict immediate classroom readiness, or should it evaluate achievement in context while leaving universities responsible for helping admitted students bridge gaps?
What the evidence still cannot settle
The available reporting identifies the California sociology professor’s criticism but does not provide the professor’s name, institution, underlying study or a detailed account of which racial-disparity measure was being discussed. That distinction matters. Broad claims about test-optional admissions can refer to application rates, admission rates, enrollment, graduation or academic outcomes, and those measures do not always move together.
It is also difficult to isolate the effect of testing policy from other disruptions. The pandemic changed high-school learning, grading, course access and college application patterns at the same time many colleges stopped requiring scores. Financial pressures, demographic shifts and changes in admissions rules can further complicate comparisons.
A fair evaluation needs more than a single admissions cycle or a headline-grabbing readiness complaint. It should examine who applies, who is admitted, who enrolls, what support students receive and whether they persist through graduation.
The next decision reaches beyond tests
California’s debate may end with a revised role for standardized tests rather than a simple return to the old model or a permanent rejection of it. Some institutions nationally have moved toward test-optional rules, while others have restored testing requirements after concluding that scores added useful context.
For UC, the harder work lies beyond the admissions form. If the goal is both broad access and student success, policymakers will have to confront preparation gaps before applicants reach campus, while universities decide how much readiness risk they can address through tutoring, bridge programs and advising.
The professor’s point is a useful warning against easy narratives. Eliminating the SAT or ACT may remove one barrier for some students, but it cannot by itself equalize the schools, resources and opportunities that shape college admissions long before a test date arrives.
Leave a Reply