University of California: Testing Required?

On August 19th, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond, President of the California Board of Education, addressed a question at a press conference asking for their position on the open letters and a potential testing reinstatement.

Newsom: “Show me the data.  I have feelings about this.  There are anecdotes about this.  But I want to see the data.  I’ve made that point at the Regental level at the UCs, talked to the President, talked to a number of the members of the board, and expressed that point of view.”

Darling-Hammond: “Bringing a test back may happen or it may not… the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools is taking it up this semester to hear the data.  We do know that during the pandemic there was a slide in the amount of course work the kids were able to take… Just taking the test won’t make the kids more prepared.  You still have to build the educational experience that they have… the UC system understands that they own the high school curriculum of A-G, so they’re looking at that as well.” 

On August 20th, Senators Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R, 19th District) and Roger Niello (R, 6th District) wrote the UC President, Regents, and Senate in support of a testing reinstatement.

The two-page letter expresses “strong support” for the UC faculty’s request for a testing reinstatement.  Specifically, the senators ask that both the UC and Cal State systems require testing for all majors, provide more opportunities for professors to voice their perspectives, and that the Regents move quickly.

Compass Analysis: It was only a matter of time.  The appropriate role of standardized tests in different contexts is a perennial source of debate in educator circles.  At times, the debate attracts broader political interest, especially in California, but also in other states and in the national conversation on equity, access, merit, higher ed, and upward mobility.

A potential testing reinstatement at UC has risen to the levels of California political attention and national interest for numerous reasons: UC’s size and reputation; that UC is Test Free, not Test Optional; that any ultimate decision on the policy is in limbo (in contrast to other schools, that have reinstated testing requirements quietly); the widely-shared stat-soundbytes from the UCSD report; the deliberate efforts by UC faculty to publish op-eds and grant interviews to mainstream media outlets; and, the surprising contrast of a pro-testing position in a blue state.

On that last point, to advance their end goal of a testing requirement, UC faculty have not been shy about playing up the politics.  UC Berkeley mathematics professors and co-authors of the STEM open letter, Svetlana Jitomirskaya and Zvezdelina Stankova, published a commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal with the subtitle: “Even the overwhelmingly liberal Berkeley faculty are fed up with the admission of unprepared students.”

The open question is the extent to which the maneuverings of California politicians on both sides of the testing debate will meaningfully sway UC testing policy.  Senators Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh and Roger Niello are Republicans; they are not crossing a party line by advocating for test scores.  Senator Ochoa Bogh further states an intention to introduce legislation for a testing requirement when legislature reconvenes.  Is such legislation likely to be successful?  Bipartisan support would be essential, and California Democrat lawmakers have yet to take public stances.  Governor support would also be essential, and Newsom’s position on testing is yet unknown.

What is known: Newsom’s influence with the UC Regents is direct and significant.  Of the 19 Appointed Regents, Governor Newsom has appointed or re-appointed 15.  Newsom has alluded to private conversations he’s already had with the Regents about this issue.  His ultimate position on testing will hold considerable sway.

Sources:

• Ochoa Bogh and Niello Letter to the UC 8.20.26
• Senators Ochoa Bogh and Niello Call for Reinstatement of SAT/ACT Admission Requirements
• Gaus, Annie.   “Gavin Newsom dodges SAT question as 1,000+ UC professors warn college students can’t do basic math.”   New York Post.   August 19, 2026.
• Jitomirskaya, Svetlana and Zvezdelina Stankova.  “The University of California needs the SAT Back.”  Wall Street Journal.  June 1, 2026. 

In a letter to BOARS Chair David Volz, Senate Chair Ahmet Palazoglu and Vice Chair Susannah Scott outline the scope, timeline, rationale, and deliverables of two charges: 1) an assessment of “the potential advantages and disadvantages of using standardized test scores in UC undergraduate admissions, including the various ways scores might be used in admissions decision-making”; and 2) “an overarching review of UC’s A–G framework to assess whether the current number and general subject areas of required and recommended courses adequately prepare first-year applicants for academic success at UC.”

Attached to the letter is the language of the approved charges from the Senate:

Charge 1: The Academic Council charges the 2026-27 Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) to: 1) assess the potential advantages and disadvantages of the use of standardized test scores in UC undergraduate admissions as well as the various ways that such test scores could be used in admissions decision-making; and 2) submit a final report and policy recommendations to the Academic Council by February 12, 2027. BOARS should recognize that the Assembly of the Academic Senate in 2020 endorsed the Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF) report’s recommendation that “the University revisit within five years whether the added value of the SAT/ACT still holds, using the methods employed in the STTF report,” and that standardized tests and the admissions context have since changed. As appropriate, BOARS may convene a subcommittee and identify subject matter specialists and other partners or consultants to assist in their study.

Compass Analysis: 

The August charge reads as a “Take Two” to the original June charge.  In June, BOARS charged Workgroup 1 (WG1) with reassessing UC’s testing policy.  Faculty criticized the charge as a delay tactic, and, in early July, BOARS suspended its study of standardized testing.  The August charge confirms that the study of standardized testing is back on, and with renewed urgency (an expedited timeline), following deadline requests by the Regents and Senate. 

A compare and contrast of the two charges reveals a shift in the context in which they originated, more so than in specifics of what, exactly, BOARS will consider.

Compare: Both the June charge and August charge ask BOARS for a policy recommendation, not just a summary of findings.  Both charges invite a range of policy recommendations, opening the door to policy options beyond the two extremes of “All 10 campuses should be Test Required” or “All 10 campuses should be Test Free.”  Both ask for the potential advantages and disadvantages of using scores.

Contrast: The June charge had a policy recommendation deadline of May 2027.  The August charge has a policy recommendation deadline of February 2027.  The June charge came after the UCSD report and during the early stages of the UC STEM faculty open letter, but before the UC Humanities, Social Sciences, and other Non-STEM faculty letter and the July Regents meeting.  The June charge originated with the Senate insofar as it tied into the broader March 2026 “Policies and Partnerships Roadmap” Special Charge to address the balance between access and preparedness.  The August charge originated with more direct calls to action about standardized testing, specifically, from the Senate and Regents.

Still unknown: what data BOARS will use, given the past five years of Test Free policies leaves no opportunity for the kind of A/B analysis other colleges have performed (e.g. comparing how cohorts admitted with scores, and cohorts admitted without scores, end up doing in college).  Precedent from a December 2024 and January 2025 BOARS investigation into testing suggests a starting point is a compare/contrast of student readiness and access metrics from when UC was most recently Test Required, to the past five years of Test Free.  As BOARS reported then, however, this compare/contrast is fraught with confounding variables, including the impact of the pandemic.

Sources:

• UC BOARS Minutes, December 6, 2024.
• UC Academic Senate BOARS Roadmap, June 5, 2026
• UC Academic Council Charges on Standardized Testing and the A-G Framework

What happened: National media, UC campus newspapers, and a high school district in San Diego took positions on the role of testing at UC.  To what extent can various outside voices shape UC testing policy?

On July 6th, the New York Times Editorial Board published “A Great University Undermines its Mission,” arguing for a return to testing at UC.

On July 7th, UC Berkeley’s Daily Cal Editorial Board argued that the way to address the decline in UC student readiness is by curbing tech in education (LLMs, in particular), not by returning to testing. 

On July 8th, LA Times columnist Anita Chabria published, “UC could go back to using the SAT and ACT for admissions. Here’s why that doesn’t add up,” arguing that UC retain a Test Free policy.

On July 17th, the San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board wrote in favor of a return to testing. 

On August 2nd, UCLA’s Daily Bruin Editorial Board published a position in favor of a return to standardized testing.  The following week, on August 9th, a second Daily Bruin article appeared, containing interview efforts with UC faculty and California politicians, including Zvezdelina Stankova (UC Berkeley math professor and co-author of the STEM letter), Li Cai (UCLA education professor), Gloria Romero (Republican candidate for California lieutenant governor), Fiona Ma (Democratic candidate for California lieutenant governor), and David Kleinfeld (UCSD Professor of Physics and Neurobiology).

Since the UCSD report on student underpreparedness was published in November of 2025,  other UC student newspapers, including the New University (UC Irvine) and the Highlander News (UC Riverside) have published editorials from students, both in favor and against a standardized test reinstatement.

On August 6th, the San Dieguito Union High School District Board, which serves six high schools, passed a resolution supporting UC faculty in the effort to reinstate testing.  During a public comment period at the SDUHSD Board of Trustees meeting, ten community members, including UC San Diego professors Jeffrey Braswell (Archaeology), David Kleinfeld (Physics), and Marc Muendler (Economics), Kyle Handley (Economics), spoke in favor of the message to the Senate and Regents.  The Board of Trustees then unanimously passed the motion.  Included in their motion was a commitment to expand high-quality test preparation to the schools they serve should UC return to requiring exams.  Further, they expressed an intention to invite other schools in California to join them in writing the Senate and Regents. 

Compass Commentary: To what degree might the UC decision-making powers (Board of Regents) and its official advisors (Academic Senate and UC President) take into account the voices of the national media, UC students, and Boards of Trustees at California high schools?

National Media: Coverage of the UC testing debate is appearing in discourse between the Regents, Senate, and President.  At the Regents meeting at UCSF on July 14, Senate Chair Ahmet Palazoglu incorporated the New York Times Editorial Board’s July 6th critique of UC’s Test Free policy into his concluding remarks:

“Great universities don’t cling to old decisions simply because they were once the right ones. They revisit them as new evidence is presented and as changing circumstances demand.  I am confident the answer this time will emerge the same way it always does at the University of California: through careful analysis, open and respectful debate, and then reaching a thoughtful conclusion.  That is how we ensure a UC degree remains one of the world’s greatest engines of opportunity for generations to come.  A recent editorial in the New York Times was headlined, ‘A Great University Undermines its Mission.’  Surely, they got the first half right.”

During that same Regents meeting, Chair Maria Anguiano also acknowledged the ongoing testing debate (that has seen opinion pieces appear in the Atlantic, the LA Times, the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, amongst other publications): 

“Recent public conversations have focused on admissions and standardized testing.  Too narrowly in my opinion.  As stewards of this institution, we need to ask a broader and more consequential set of questions.  What knowledge, skills, and experiences best prepare students for success that you see and beyond?”  

UC Students: Of the 26 members on UC’s Board of Regents, there is one Student Regent (voting member, one year term, currently a medical student, not an undergrad).  Of the 23 members on the BOARS roster, there is one undergraduate student representative.

Student influence is felt less through formal governance positions and more through their role as outside voices, such as via student newspapers and student groups.  In a letter to the Regents dated July 13th, the UC Student Association (UCSA) advocated that UC retain a test free policy.  The timing of the UCSA’s letter was surely no accident.  The July Regents meeting occurred over the following two days. 

UC student newspapers are not the New York Times; however, their influence goes beyond mere coverage, and is uniquely strengthened by their proximity to UC faculty, who may see the student newspapers as a way to keep their position top of mind over the next year until a Regents decision.  

California High Schools: To our knowledge, as of writing, the resolution passed by the SDUHSD Board of Trustees on August 6th, voicing support for a testing reinstatement, is the first publicly-stated position from a California high school.  The perspective of high schools is unique, as unlike the national media or campus newspapers, high schools provide UC with prospective applicants and future students.  Should the effort by the SDUHSD Board of Trustees to invite other California high schools to join in the advocacy effort (writing to the Regents and Academic Senate expressing support for a testing reinstatement) gain traction, it is likely that their perspectives would be given considerable credence.  It is also likely that most of the high schools would be from affluent areas.  UC’s mission, to advance both excellence and access for the people of California, is at the crux of the debate over testing, and how to handle the voices of high schools who speak up, and those that do not, is another balancing act of which UC leadership would be keenly aware.

Sources:

• Billing, Karen.  “San Dieguito board passes resolution asking UC system to reinstate standardized tests in admissions.”  The San Diego Union-Tribune.  August 10, 2026.
• Chabria, Anita. “UC could go back to using the SAT and ACT for admissions. Here’s why that doesn’t add up.”  LA Times.  July 8, 2026.  
• Editorial Board.  “Editorial: The UC should restate SAT/ACT requirements to ensure student preparedness.”  UCLA Daily Bruin.  August 2, 2026.
• Editorial Board. “SAT misses the point: Tech, not admissions, drives student underpreparedness.” The Daily Californian.  July 7, 2026.
• New York Times Editorial Board.  “A Great University Undermines Its Mission.”  New York Times.  July 6, 2026.
• SDUHSD Board Meeting.  August 6, 2026.
• Trautenberg, Lauren.  “UC’s consideration of standardized testing return raises preparedness questions.”  UCLA Daily Bruin.  August 8, 2026.
• UT Editorial Board.  “Much-needed UC admissions fixes slowed by ‘the politics of testing.’”  The San Diego Union-Tribune. July 17th, 2026.  
• UCSA Letter of Concern RE: Faculty Request for Reinstating SAT/ACT.

What happened: Ahmet Palazoglu addressed open questions following the UC Regents meeting that occurred the previous week, including:

• Will testing be reinstated for the Class of 2027? No.
• Will testing be reinstated for the Class of 2028? TBD. Palazoglu writes, “Because this process is just beginning, the University has not determined whether admissions requirements for fall 2028, or any future admissions cycle, will change.” 
• When will BOARS deliver its recommendation to the Academic Senate on whether UC should reinstate a testing requirement? February 12, 2027 (four months earlier than the prior deadline of June 2027).

Compass Analysis: UC faculty who signed the open letters and spoke at the Regents meeting in July want testing reinstated ASAP. Families, students, counselors, and schools need lead time to adjust to a changed testing policy. The Regents and Academic Senate are caught in the middle of these competing preferences on timing. Accelerating the timeline by four months may appease UC faculty who lost their argument for a testing reinstatement for the Class of 2027.  

Next Expected Milestones: 

• September 15–16, 2026: UC Regents meet at UCLA.
• February 12, 2027: BOARS submits its report to the Academic Council.

Sources:

• Statement from UC Academic Senate Chair Ahmet Palazoglu on BOARS undergraduate admissions review
• Regents Meeting Agendas and Schedule

What happened: UC Board of Regents met at University of California San Francisco on July 14 and July 15, 2026. Although standardized testing was not on the official agenda, UC Berkeley faculty used the public comments period to critique a recent stall to a proposed standardized testing study by BOARS (the UC Academic Senate’s standing undergraduate admissions subcommittee), and ask the Regents for a return to standardized testing ASAP. 

Here is the statement from UC Berkeley math professor Zvezdelina Stankova.

Compass Analysis: Any speculation that the Regents, Academic Senate, or UC President would take a position opposing UC faculty was disconfirmed.  

Chair Maria Aguiano asked for a recommendation on standardized testing policy from the Academic Senate “no later than the end of this academic year.” The Regents meetings closest to her recommended timeline are May 18–19, 2027, at UCLA, or July 20–21, 2027, at UCSD.

UC President James B. Milliken said, “This board owes it to the people of California, and it is important that we get these decisions right. We must approach our work thoughtfully, but without delay. We should take the time necessary to reach our decisions, but no more.” 

Next Decision Node: The Regents meet next at UCLA on September 15–16, 2026. Whether standardized testing is officially added to the agenda, or once again brought into discussion by UC faculty during the public comments period, we suspect that UCLA faculty will reinforce the message that UC Berkeley colleagues advanced at the Regents meeting in UCSF. With a Test Free policy confirmed for the Class of 2027, UC faculty comments at the September Regents meeting will focus on advancing a testing reinstatement for the Class of 2028.

Sources: 

• Videos: Regents Meeting, July 2026
• Regents Meeting Agendas and Schedule

What happened: Ahmet Palazoglu, Academic Senate Chair, issues the following statement via the UC Office of the President press room: “The Academic Senate is not rescinding its commitment to a comprehensive review of standardized testing in admissions. Recognizing the significance of this issue, the Academic Senate is revising its timeline while ensuring the forthcoming review is thorough, evidence-based and informed by faculty expertise.” 

Compass Analysis: Palazoglu to UC faculty: “We hear you, and we are taking your concerns seriously… but may not move as quickly as you wish.” At its June 5 meeting, BOARS charged a workgroup to investigate “the use of standardized tests in the first-year admissions process.” UC faculty criticized the workgroup as a stall tactic.

“We’re kind of just redoing work that’s already been done. It’s not clear how we’re going to do that work anyway, given that we don’t have the new data (on students who enrolled with versus without the SAT).” Professor Jelani Nelson, Department of EECS, UC Berkeley

“In the absence of sound data, [the Workgroup] will have little to do but debate the politics of testing.” Professor Michael Stryker, Physiology, BOARS member, UCSF

The Workgroup is “a way to delay making a decision.” Professor Zvezdelina Stankova, Department of Mathematics, UC Berkeley

Through his statement, Palazoglu quickly put to rest concerns that a canceled timeline was any indication that BOARS will no longer consider reinstating standardized testing. In stopping short of specifying a revised timeline, Palazoglu softly kicked that decision to the Regents meeting, scheduled for the following day. 

Sources: 

• UC Office of the President Press Room
• Kaleem, Jaweed. “UC abruptly suspends timeline to reconsider SAT in admissions.” LA Times, July 13, 2026.

What happened: At their June 5 meeting, BOARS charged a workgroup to deliver their findings on standardized testing in May and June of 2027. This timeline is now suspended and no new timeline is announced, leading to conjecture that UC is shelving, or delaying, plans to investigate a return to testing.

Compass Analysis: Compass’s Adam Ingersoll posted on LinkedIn cautioning against an interpretation that a shelved timeline meant that a testing reinstatement is off the table: 

“UC has abruptly canceled its multiyear process/timeline for reconsidering the role of the SAT/ACT. Regents meeting today and tomorrow expected to take up the issue and possibly act more swiftly in response to faculty concerns (and I suspect implicit or explicit DOJ pressure as well).

The LA Times article is the starting point to understand what seems to be going on, but the lede is a bit misleading. I would be shocked if the Regents are simply pulling the plug on the process and telling the faculty to shush.”

Sources: 

• BOARS June 2026 Meeting Notes
• Adam Ingersoll LinkedIn Post
• UC Office of the President Press Room
• Kaleem, Jaweed. “UC abruptly suspends timeline to reconsider SAT in admissions.” LA Times, July 13, 2026.

Compass Analysis: Across the 10 campuses, UC staffs over 26,000 Professors, Associate, Assistant, and/or Adjunct Professors, and Lecturers. Over 3,000 have signed the letters. This is far from a majority. What are we to infer about the standardized testing stances of UC faculty who have not signed the letters?

Some oppose a testing reinstatement. Bjorn Birnir, UCSB Math Department Chair, and one of two UC Math Department Chairs not to sign the letter, said, “All [an ACT/SAT requirement at UC] will do is keep students out of mathematics and it may push some students, especially underrepresented students, out of the UC system. We think the problem needs to be addressed in high schools and they need to make a real effort to make sure their students learn at least some mathematics.” 

Some faculty may oppose a testing reinstatement, but may have reasons for not saying so publicly. Others may support a testing reinstatement, but have reasons for not signing the open letters. 

Of note, as of now, there is no evidence of an organized effort by UC faculty to sign open letters in support of a dissenting opinion. 

Sources: 

• Open Letter from UC Humanities, Social Sciences, and other non-STEM Faculty on Admissions Testing
• Open Letter from UC STEM Faculty
• Burke, Michael. “UC freshmen increasingly are not ready for college math. Some professors want to require the SAT again.” EdSource. June 9, 2026.
• UC Employee Headcount

What happened: Just over two weeks after the STEM faculty published their open letter, UC Humanities, Social Sciences, and other non-STEM faculty published a letter of their own. 

In it, they write, “Reasonable people can debate how much weight SAT/ACT should carry relative to other parts of applications and policies may vary by campus and degree program. However, it is unreasonable to require all undergraduate degree programs at all campuses to be test-blind in an era of K-12 grade inflation and the growing use of AI in admissions essays.” 

They echo the urgency of UC STEM faculty to course correct soon: “If the University of California does not reverse course in the next month or two, the Fall 2028 entering class will be admitted on a test-blind basis with all the problems that implies.”

Compass Analysis: Although it was published with fewer initial signatures than the STEM letter, in some ways, the letter from non-STEM faculty more forcefully advances the faculty’s argument. Competitive STEM-heavy schools, such as MIT, Stanford, and Caltech, were some of the first to return to requiring scores. In doing so, they set a precedent that it is perhaps less-than-surprising that, to perform in college-level STEM courses at competitive research institutions, such as those at UC Berkeley or UCLA, students need a foundation in elementary, middle, and high school-level math. At the same time that STEM-heavy schools have returned to Test Required policies, liberal arts colleges have universally retained Test Free or Test Optional policies. 

Are ACT and SAT scores useful indicators of preparedness outside of STEM focuses? Do they provide any indication as to whether students can handle the reading, textual analysis, and essay work foundational to non-STEM majors, too? That UC professors of English, French, Linguistics, Art History, Political Science, Ancient Greek and Roman Studies, Law, Music Theory, and many other non-STEM disciplines felt the need to speak from the vantage point of their own discipline is the most resounding answer to that question in the post-pandemic, Test Optional era.

Sources: 

• Open Letter from UC Humanities, Social Sciences, and other non-STEM Faculty on Admissions Testing
• Open Letter from UC STEM Faculty

What happened: In response to the UC faculty’s open letters, BOARS charges a Workgroup to “investigate the advantages and disadvantages for relying on SAT/ACT scores… as “these tests may have evolved since the STTF’s recommendations were provided in January 2020…”

BOARS further notes that the Workgroup should consider that “[f]aculty on individual campuses should be given flexibility to create admission policies and practices that, while consistent with Universitywide criteria and policies, are also sensitive to local campus values and academic priorities.” 

The Workgroup plans to meet monthly from October 2026 through April 2027, report their “findings and recommendations” to the BOARS Chair in May 2027, and then present a summary at the June 2027 BOARS meeting.

Compass Analysis: The exams did, indeed, evolve. The Digital SAT debuted in 2023. The Enhanced ACT debuted in 2025. But, because UC has been Test Free, not Test Optional, across both evolutions, the university system does not have any new data on how students who have taken the Digital SAT and Enhanced ACT performed at UC relative to peers without scores. Further, precedent from other colleges suggests that the changing of the tests has not been a reason to interrogate or amend a testing policy to the extent of switching between Test Required, Test Optional, and Test Free, or accepting only one exam or the other.

Changes to testing policy that resulted, at least in part, from the evolving exams mostly centered on how colleges wanted to handle the newly optional Science section on the Enhanced ACT. Compass tracks policies on ACT Science here.

The BOARS Workgroup note about providing faculty some discretion and authority on setting testing policies for their individual programs is in response to UC STEM faculty asking for involvement in the admissions process.  It also recognizes that different UC campuses have different levels of selectivity, and that, to date, signers of the open letter have primarily come from the biggest and most selective campuses. UCLA, UCSD, UC Davis, UC Irvine, and UC Berkeley are among the most applied-to universities in the nation.  UC Berkeley and UCLA, in particular, have acceptance rates hovering around 10%. UC Santa Cruz, UC Riverside, UC Merced routinely have acceptance rates well over 50%. Could there be a world in which UC Berkeley, UCSD, and UCLA go to Test Required, even if UC overall is Test Optional? The BOARS charge does not close the door to that possibility.

Sources: 

• UC Academic Senate BOARS Roadmap, June 5, 2026
• SAT and ACT policies and score ranges for popular colleges and universities
• ACT science requirements and recommendations

What happened: UC STEM faculty publish an open letter, signed by ~600 professors in STEM disciplines, calling for the reinstatement of SAT/ACT requirements effective with the 2027 admission cycle (Class of 2027). 

In their letter, they corroborate the findings from the UCSD report with a report from UC Berkeley, chronicling similar increases in enrolling students requiring basic math support. 

The UC STEM faculty anticipate and address the counterpoints to requiring tests at UC, including that tests serve as an obstacle to students from under-resourced schools. They write, “The SAT/ACT mathematics requirement is not an obstacle to equity; rather, it is a prerequisite for it. Failing to measure preparation gaps does not remove barriers; it moves them into the classroom, where they become harder to overcome.” 

They expand upon their stance as an advancement of both equity and college readiness through an FAQ. In it, they address questions such as, “13. Isn’t this proposal inequitable?”, “14. Would this disadvantage students from under-resourced schools?”, “15. Does test preparation make the SAT/ACT unfair?”, and “16. Is the math SAT technically biased against underrepresented minority groups?” 

To that final question, they write, “‘Technical bias’ usually means that a test question or score has different predictive meaning for different demographic groups after controlling for relevant academic preparation. That is different from the existence of group score gaps, which can reflect unequal educational opportunities before college. Research has shown little technical bias in the math SAT questions.”

Compass Analysis: Since 2020, when pandemic-forced test site cancellations and concerns over the equity of Test Required policies led to a national softening of testing policies, UC has been the bulwark of the Test Free movement. In combination with the UCSD report, the STEM open letter suggests it is no longer a question of whether testing will return in some form at UC, but rather when, which exams, what policies, and for which class years. 

The UCSD report and STEM faculty open letter also provoke a broader rethinking of what a submittable score is in Test Optional contexts. Strategic guidance around this question has varied wildly and is highly situational. UC STEM faculty are asking for a basic readiness signal that students can perform high school, middle school, and elementary school-level math. They note that even “A” grades in high school too often fail to send this signal due to the acceleration of grade inflation, the loss of class rank, and the proliferation of pass/fail courses since the pandemic. A good, or submittable, ACT/SAT score may, in certain contexts, be one that sends a signal that a student will not be in need of math or writing remediation before entering first-year college courses, even if that ACT/SAT score is far below average for the institution.

Percentage denotes the accuracy of UCSD students placed into Math 2 (HS-level Math), not all enrolled students at UCSD.

Sources:

• Open Letter from UC STEM Faculty 
• UC Faculty FAQ
• UCSD Report

What happened: The authors summarize the findings of their report, writing, “Over the past five years, UC San Diego has experienced a steep decline in the academic preparation of its entering first-year students — particularly in mathematics, but also in writing and language skills. Between 2020 and 2025, the number of students whose math skills fall below high school level increased nearly thirtyfold; moreover, 70% of those students fall below middle school levels, reaching roughly one in twelve members of the entering cohort. This deterioration coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on education, the elimination of standardized testing, grade inflation, and the expansion of admissions from underresourced high schools. The combination of these factors has produced an incoming class increasingly unprepared for the quantitative and analytical rigor expected at UC San Diego.”

In a section of the report, “The Math Preparation Problem”, the authors elaborate on the increase in students requiring math intervention.

Incoming first-year students to all UC campuses take a math placement exam. When performance on the exam indicates a student has significant gaps in pre-college level math abilities, UCSD places those students in a course called Math 2, where they can build the foundation necessary for college-level math. As the graph below shows, in Fall 2020, fewer than 1% of students required Math 2. 

Over the next five years, UCSD found many more students performing at a level on the math placement exam that put them in Math 2. The increase in number of students and their level of preparedness was significant enough that, in the Fall of 2024, UCSD introduced a new course, Math 3B, to cover high school-level math. Math 2 would only cover elementary and middle school math.

UCSD Growth in the Number of Students with Insufficient Math Preparation

In response, amongst other measures, the authors recommend a return to using ACT/SAT scores, writing: “For more than two decades the Mathematics Department has found that out of all available student data, the single best predictor for math placement has been the SAT (math section) score, with the ACT score being an equally good predictor.”

Compass Analysis: It is an oversimplification to interpret the findings of the UCSD report as “Cause” (UC goes Test Free) and “Effect” (thirty-fold increase in students requiring math remediation), nor are the authors of the report claiming such. Note in the above chart how the percent of students requiring Math 2 or Math 3B increased across five years of Test Free admissions—when testing policy was not a variable, but a control. 

Nor are the authors suggesting that a return to Test Required will be a panacea to the math unreadiness problem. It is one part of a suite of proposed solutions. 

Although the report focuses most heavily on math (the authors identified that as the most urgent issue), they do note that the correlation between math unreadiness and English and writing unreadiness is high: “Moreover, weaknesses in math and language tend to be more related in recent years. In 2024, two out of five students with severe deficiencies in math also required remedial writing instruction. Conversely, one in four students with inadequate writing skills also needed additional math preparation” (p.7).

Feedback from UCSD professors is that students are struggling to engage with longer and more complex texts. Interestingly, UC is no longer accepting the digital SAT as a way to fulfill Entry Level Writing Requirement. They don’t specify why, but a likely reason is that it has to do with the brevity of the Digital SAT’s reading and writing passages, relative to those of the retired paper SAT and current ACT.

Source: 

• UCSD Report

UC Test Free to Test Required Era, 1920 – 2020

UC Test Free Era, 2020 – 2026

UC Return to Testing Era, November 2025 – June 2026