Obscuring preparation gaps harms both students individually
Six years after the University of California abandoned standardized testing in admissions, the consequences of that idealistic experiment have grown difficult to ignore — classrooms are receiving students unprepared for foundational coursework, and the faculty who teach them are asking for a course correction. What began as a well-intentioned effort to broaden access has prompted a reckoning with the difference between the appearance of equity and the conditions that make success possible. On July 14, the UC Board of Regents will face a question that universities across the country have already begun to answer: whether the tools we set aside in pursuit of fairness were, in fact, part of what fairness requires.
- Nearly 12% of UC San Diego's incoming first-year students in 2025 were unprepared for pre-calculus — a figure that was just 0.5% before the test-blind policy took effect, signaling a measurable collapse in baseline academic readiness.
- Over 3,200 faculty members across STEM and humanities have signed letters demanding reversal, warning that hiding preparation gaps doesn't close them — it simply delays the harm.
- The New York Times Editorial Board, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, and Brown have all broken with the test-blind consensus, creating institutional momentum that is difficult for UC to resist.
- Even Janet Napolitano, the UC president who championed the 2020 policy, now says the experiment needs to be revisited — a rare public reversal that signals how far the ground has shifted.
- The UC Academic Senate is framing its response as a careful, data-driven review, but the July 14 regents meeting looms as a moment of decision that deliberate language may not be able to defer.
Six years after the University of California went test-blind in undergraduate admissions, the New York Times Editorial Board has declared the experiment a failure and urged the UC Board of Regents to reverse course — just days before the board is scheduled to revisit the policy on July 14.
The decision to eliminate standardized test scores entirely in 2020 was itself unusual. A faculty task force had spent a year studying the question and concluded in a 225-page report that test scores were meaningful predictors of student success, including GPA, retention, and graduation rates. The regents rejected that finding anyway — not by making tests optional, but by refusing to consider scores even from students who wished to submit them.
The costs have since become visible. At UC San Diego last fall, nearly 12 percent of incoming first-year students were not prepared to take pre-calculus. In 2020, that figure was 0.5 percent. Faculty across the system have responded with alarm: more than 2,300 STEM professors and 900 humanities faculty signed separate letters calling for reversal. One letter put it directly — obscuring preparation gaps offers the appearance of access while undermining the chance of success.
The broader landscape has also shifted. Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Brown, and others have reinstated test requirements after their own pandemic-era experiments. And Janet Napolitano, the UC president who originally championed the test-blind approach, has publicly changed her position, calling the results a signal that the policy needs to be revisited.
The UC Academic Senate has responded with language of careful review rather than urgency. But with the regents meeting days away and institutional pressure mounting from every direction, July 14 will likely determine whether UC's test-blind era ends — and whether the system acknowledges that the tools it discarded were never as dispensable as it hoped.
Six years after the University of California system stopped considering standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions, the New York Times Editorial Board has declared the experiment a failure. The paper's editorial, published Monday, urges the UC system to reverse course—a call that arrives just days before the UC Board of Regents is scheduled to revisit the policy that has become increasingly controversial among faculty.
The UC system adopted its test-blind approach in 2020, a decision that came after an 18-member task force of professors from all 10 campuses spent a year studying the role of standardized tests in admissions. That committee, the Standardized Testing Task Force, concluded in a 225-page report that test scores were useful predictors of student success, including undergraduate grade point average, retention, and completion rates. Despite this finding, the regents voted to reject test scores entirely—not merely making them optional, but refusing to accept them even from students who wanted to submit them.
The consequences have become visible in the classroom. Last fall, nearly 12 percent of first-year undergraduates at UC San Diego were not qualified to take pre-calculus, a foundational course. In 2020, that figure had been 0.5 percent. The Times Editorial Board cited this data as evidence that the test-blind policy had produced results that were "larger than the regression elsewhere," even accounting for broader educational disruptions like COVID-19 school closures and the rise of artificial intelligence.
The pressure to reconsider has come from within the university itself. More than 2,300 UC faculty members in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics signed a letter calling for the policy's reversal. An additional 900 humanities faculty members signed a similar letter. One of those STEM faculty letters stated plainly: "Obscuring preparation gaps harms both students individually and the University collectively. It offers the appearance of access while undermining the chance of success." Even Janet Napolitano, the UC president who championed the test-blind policy in 2020, has shifted her position. She told the Times that while the policy was "a worthwhile experiment," the results made it "increasingly clear that the experiment needs to be revisited."
The UC system is not alone in reconsidering. Many universities that adopted test-blind or test-optional policies during the pandemic have since reversed course. Harvard, Brown, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and the California Institute of Technology now require standardized test scores. The Naval Academy and West Point also require them. Brown University President Christina Paxson has argued that standardized tests are better predictors of academic performance than high school grades alone, though she acknowledged the debate over whether the benefits outweigh legitimate concerns about the tests themselves.
In response to questions about the policy, UC's Academic Senate Chair Ahmet Palazoglu said the university is conducting a comprehensive, data-driven review of how to assess college readiness and support student success. He noted that much has changed in the education landscape since 2020, and that the faculty Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools is leading the review. The statement suggested deliberation rather than urgency, even as the pressure to act mounts.
The Times Editorial Board has called on the regents to act decisively when they meet on July 14. "The university's trustees, known as the regents, have the final word," the editorial stated. "When they next meet, on July 14, they should have the courage to admit they made a mistake six years ago and reverse it." What happens at that meeting will determine whether UC's experiment with test-blind admissions ends, and whether the system returns to using standardized test scores as part of its evaluation of applicants.
Citações Notáveis
The experiment needs to be revisited— Janet Napolitano, former UC president
Obscuring preparation gaps harms both students individually and the University collectively. It offers the appearance of access while undermining the chance of success— UC STEM faculty letter
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did UC move to test-blind admissions in the first place? It sounds like they had data suggesting tests mattered.
They did have that data from their own task force. But this was 2020—the pandemic was raging, testing centers were closed, and there was real momentum nationally to question whether standardized tests were fair or useful. It felt like the right moment to try something different.
And now they're seeing students arrive unprepared. That's a concrete problem.
Yes. At UC San Diego alone, the share of first-year students who couldn't handle pre-calculus jumped from half a percent to 12 percent in five years. That's not a small shift. These students are struggling from day one.
But couldn't other things explain that? The source mentions COVID closures, AI, phones.
The Times acknowledged all of that. But they argued the decline at UC was steeper than what's happening elsewhere. And the faculty letters suggest the problem is real enough that thousands of professors are willing to say publicly that the policy isn't working.
What's interesting is that even Janet Napolitano, who pushed for this, now thinks it was a mistake.
That's the telling detail. She's not saying the idea was wrong in principle. She's saying the experiment ran and the results showed it needs to change. That's a significant admission from someone with real skin in the game.
So what happens on July 14?
The regents decide whether to reverse the policy. The Times is calling for them to do it. Faculty are pushing for it. Even the former president supports it. The question is whether the current leadership will move as quickly as the pressure suggests they should.