University of California: Testing Required?

Compass is tracking the developments to University of California testing policy as UC faculty push for a reinstatement of ACT/SAT requirements to address student underpreparedness.

Any ultimate decision to reinstate testing lies with UC’s Board of Regents. The Regents are advised by the UC President and the Academic Senate. The Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) is a standing subcommittee of the Academic Senate that makes policy recommendations for undergraduate admissions. 

As of the latest update to this post (July 27, 2026), the Regents, UC President, and Academic Senate have all indicated that the review of UC testing policy should conclude no later than the end of the coming academic year (May–July 2027). 

Compass will continue to monitor updates from UC faculty, the Regents, Academic Senate, BOARS, and other stakeholders in an effort to provide useful analysis of where policy is likely to land, and what it means for UC-aspiring families.

I. Current and Projected UC Testing Policy Status 
HS Class Year Current UC Testing Policy Compass Projected UC Testing Policy Likelihood of Test Free
 Likelihood of Test Optional

 

 Likelihood of Test Required When will we likely know for sure? 
2027 Test Free Test Free Certain Zero Zero N/A
2028 TBD Test Free or Test Optional  High Medium Low Late Spring 2027
2029 TBD Test Required Low Medium High Late Spring 2027
2030 TBD Test Required  Low Medium High Late Spring 2027
II. Latest Development

Next expected milestone (February 12, 2027): BOARS submits its report to the Academic Council.

July 22, 2026: Academic Senate expedites delivery of report on standardized testing to February 12, 2027.

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 Decision Node: UC Regents meet next at UCLA on September 15-16, 2026. 

Sources:

III. Timeline of Developments on UC’s Return to Standardized Testing

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, 2026, at UCLA, or July 20–21, 2026, 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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

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:

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: 

IV. Practical Guidance

To help UC-aspiring families plan for the impact of a return to testing, we are forecasting where UC testing policy will likely land, by class year. Families should be aware that, as of now, no official adjustments to the current UC Test Free policy have been confirmed (last update, 7/27/26). While UC testing policies remain uncertain, some scenarios are emerging as more likely than others. We will continue to update our analysis of where UC policy is likely to land as, over the coming months, the UC Board of Regents, Academic Senate, UC Office of the President, faculty, community voices, and other stakeholders debate UC’s future testing policy.

Why Test Free Policy Will Hold: On July 22, 2026, the Academic Senate Chair wrote: “There has been no change to UC’s standardized testing policy at this time. Students applying by November 30, 2026, for fall 2027 admission will not be required to submit SAT or ACT scores, nor will any other applicant for admission for fall 2027.” This statement effectively confirms that the Class of 2027 will apply Test Free. Further, on July 14, 2026, the UC Board of Regents established a timeline to evaluate a recommendation on UC testing policy from the Academic Senate for no later than the end of the next academic year (May-July 2027). This is long after high school students in the Class of 2027 will have applied to UC.

Why Test Free Policy Might Not Hold: N/A. Test Free is confirmed. 

Compass Analysis: Following the Academic Senate Chair’s statement, and the Regents establishing a review timeline of no later than the end of the next academic year (May-July 2027), UC faculty asking for immediate reinstatement of testing policies affecting the Class of 2027 have lost their argument (which, in all likelihood, was a negotiating tactic anyway, to concede reinstatement for the Class of 2027 in order to advance the chances of a Test Required policy for Class of 2028). Students in the Class of 2027 can comfortably plan on the Test Free policy holding for their year.

Why a Test Free Policy May Hold: If the Regents vote to reinstate testing in May of 2027, or July of 2027, then they will provide a lead time of only several months until the Class of 2028—at this point, rising seniors—must submit their applications in late November. Aware that this does not leave much time for students, families, schools, test sites, and counselors to adjust to a changing testing policy, the Regents may choose not to reinstate a testing requirement for the Class of 2028.

Why a Test Optional Policy May Be Introduced: A Test Optional policy may satisfy UC faculty as a stopgap measure (bridging a Test Free policy for the Class of 2027, and a Test Required policy for the Class of 2029). Compared to Test Required, Test Optional will reduce the pressure on students, families, schools, and test sites facing a tight turnaround time from the Regents’ vote to when UC apps are due. 

Why a Test Required Policy May Be Introduced: Some UC faculty feel the current timeline for a potential reinstatement of a testing requirement is too slow. The Academic Senate and Regents are listening. On July 22, 2026, Ahmet Palazoglu, Academic Senate Chair, accelerated the delivery of a testing recommendation from BOARS by four months, to February 2027. He left open the possibility for a policy change applying to the Class of 2028, writing, “Because this process is just beginning, the University has not determined whether admissions requirements for fall 2028, or any future admissions cycle, will change.” 

Compass Analysis: Unfortunately, we may not know UC’s testing policy for students in the Class of 2028 until summer before your senior year. If you wait to pursue testing until then, and UC does reinstate testing, either in the form of a required or optional policy, either system-wide or for your specific program, you may be left with limited time to test, or re-test (until your UC app is due in late November). 

To Do Now / Early Junior Year: Proactively evaluate the importance of a test score given your individual ambitions and circumstances, while you still have ample time to prepare and test. 

Questions to help UC-aspiring Class of 2028 students evaluate testing’s importance:

  • Are you planning to apply to other schools that require or recommend test scores, or other competitive test-optional schools where you are hoping to send in a score?
  • Are you hoping to apply to the most competitive UC campuses, such as UC Berkeley and UCLA?
  • Are you hoping to apply to competitive STEM majors, such as computer science or physics?
  • Are you applying from a highly-resourced high school?
  • Are you applying from in-state or out-of-state?
  • Per baseline exams, is testing a strength of yours? (Would you likely send in a test score if UC is optional for your class year?)

Why a Test Required Policy Will Be Reinstated, or a Test Optional Policy Will Be Instated: There is every indication that the Board of Regents, the head of the Academic Senate, and the UC President are taking faculty concern over UC’s Test Free policy seriously. No longer is it a question of whether testing will return, but rather in what form, when, and how. UC faculty are asking for Test Required, not Test Optional. The Regents plan to decide on UC testing policy by the end of this next academic year, when students in the Class of 2029 are rising juniors. This provides more time for students, families, schools, test sites, and counselors in the Class of 2029 to adjust than it would for those in the Class of 2028  The likeliest policy outcome, then, is that the Regents vote to return to Test Required only for 2029s and beyond.

Why a Test Required Policy Will Not Be Reinstated, or a Test Optional Policy Will Not Be Instated: The question over how test scores serve UC’s mission and obligation to the people of California sparks ongoing debate. Although there is currently no organized UC faculty counter-movement to the open letters signed by 3,000+ UC faculty asking for a return to standardized testing, the year-long timeline until the Regents review the Academic Senate’s advisement on a return to testing in June 2027 leaves time for counter-movements to gain traction. History also indicates that the Regents can vote contrary to the advice of BOARS / the Academic Senate. In 2020, the Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF), established by the Academic Senate, recommended that UC retain its test requirement, but the Regents ultimately voted against this recommendation, establishing instead a Test Free policy.

Compass Analysis: UC-aspiring Class of 2029 families should plan on test scores being relevant at UC. How relevant? Students aspiring to competitive UC campuses like UCLA or UC Berkeley can reasonably conclude that the likelihood that testing is optimal, if not fully required, is high. Same with students aspiring to competitive majors, such as computer science, mathematics, or other STEM-related disciplines. (Students aspiring to the humanities or social sciences disciplines should not tune out! Although much of the focus has been on STEM-related majors, UC Humanities, Social Sciences, and other non-STEM faculty also have an open letter signed by nearly 1,000 faculty arguing for return to standardized testing).

Should the current policy review timeline at UC hold, you should know what the testing policy will be for you by the summer of 2027, when you are a rising junior. This is a good scenario, since the summer before junior year is a popular and useful time to start figuring out your testing plans. In spring of 10th grade, plan to establish your baseline tests so that you enter the summer with clarity on whether ACT or SAT is a better fit, and can put a prep plan in place at a time most suitable to you.

If you are seeking to formulate the right one-on-one prep plan for your individual scenario, please schedule a consultation with an expert Compass Director.

Eric Anderson

About Eric Anderson

Eric graduated with Phi Beta Kappa honors from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he was a Rhodes Scholarship campus nominee and an award-winning Global Studies instructor. After joining our LA team in 2015, Eric returned to his hometown of Chicago to open Compass’s midwest office.

Leave a Reply

Share

Get Your Free Compass Prep SAT Guide!