The bar doesn't move when you can measure it
Across the University of California system, more than 1,400 faculty members have signed an open letter calling for the return of standardized math testing requirements — a reversal of the test-blind admissions policy adopted in 2021. Their concern is not gatekeeping but its opposite: students admitted to demanding STEM programs without foundational skills are failing at higher rates, and professors find themselves teaching middle school arithmetic in college classrooms. The question at the heart of this debate is an old one — whether removing a flawed measure of readiness serves equity, or merely makes inequality harder to see.
- UC professors are spending precious class time on fractions and basic algebra because a significant share of incoming STEM students never mastered the material in high school.
- The 2021 shift to test-blind admissions, intended to close equity gaps, may have deepened them — admitting underprepared students into rigorous majors where failure rates are now climbing.
- Grade inflation has made high school GPAs an unreliable signal, leaving universities without a common benchmark to distinguish genuine content mastery from effort and attendance.
- Over 1,400 faculty have signed an open letter demanding reinstatement of SAT/ACT math requirements, joining a national reversal already underway at Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown.
- Advocates argue that standardized tests, paired with free preparation programs in underserved communities, can function as a tool for equity rather than a barrier to it.
Inside UC classrooms, a quiet crisis has been building for years. Professors teaching calculus and chemistry report spending weeks on material that should have been mastered long before college — fractions, exponents, basic algebraic manipulation. Diagnostic tests reveal that a significant share of incoming STEM freshmen at schools like UC Berkeley and UC San Diego lack the foundational skills their courses demand. In response, more than 1,400 faculty members have signed an open letter calling on the University of California to reinstate standardized testing requirements, reversing the test-blind admissions policy adopted in 2021.
The original shift away from the SAT and ACT was driven by equity concerns — advocacy groups argued the tests disadvantaged low-income students and students of color, and a pandemic suspension eventually became permanent policy. But faculty pushing for reinstatement argue the policy has produced the opposite of its intended effect. By eliminating an objective measure of preparation, they say, the university has masked rather than addressed unequal readiness — and in doing so, has set students up to fail in the very majors they were admitted to pursue.
Kara Jean Hyde, a lecturer at UC Irvine and co-director of the UC Irvine Math Project, has become a prominent voice for reinstatement. Her argument is not that the bar should be raised arbitrarily, but that without a shared metric, the bar becomes invisible. An A in one school district may reflect genuine mastery; in another, it may reflect effort or homework completion. Universities have no reliable way to tell the difference. Policy analyst Neetu Arnold echoes this concern, noting that grade inflation has made GPAs increasingly uninformative — leaving professors to absorb the consequences in classrooms fractured between prepared and underprepared students.
Hyde's vision for reinstatement is explicitly equity-minded. She points to free SAT preparation programs serving dozens of underserved middle and high schools in Southern California, arguing that a clear, common standard — backed by real support — gives students something to aim for rather than a wall to run into. Her concern extends to the pipeline itself: foundational standards, she argues, must be strengthened beginning in kindergarten.
The UC faculty's push arrives amid a broader national reckoning. Dartmouth, Yale, Brown, and Princeton have all reversed test-optional or test-blind policies in recent years, citing internal data showing standardized scores remain the strongest single predictor of college success. The UC Board of Regents has not yet responded to the faculty letter, but the momentum is unmistakable — what began as a pandemic accommodation has become a defining policy question about what universities owe the students they admit.
Inside UC classrooms across California, a quiet crisis has been building. Professors teaching calculus and chemistry are spending weeks on material that should have been mastered in high school—fractions, exponents, basic algebraic manipulation. The diagnostic tests they administer to incoming students reveal the scope of the problem: a significant portion of freshmen entering STEM majors at schools like UC Berkeley and UC San Diego lack the foundational math skills their courses demand. Now, more than 1,400 faculty members have signed an open letter demanding that the University of California system reinstate standardized testing requirements, a reversal of the test-blind admissions policy the system adopted in 2021.
The shift away from the SAT and ACT was meant to address equity concerns. Advocacy groups had argued that standardized tests were biased against low-income students and students of color, and during the pandemic, the university suspended the requirement. That suspension became permanent after a 2019 lawsuit settlement. But five years later, the faculty pushing for reinstatement argue that the policy has achieved the opposite of its intended effect. By removing an objective measure of academic preparation, they say, the university has masked rather than solved the problem of unequal readiness—and in doing so, has admitted students into demanding majors without the tools they need to succeed.
Kara Jean Hyde, a lecturer in education and co-director of the UC Irvine Math Project, has become a public voice for this position. She told reporters that standardized tests, when paired with support programs, can actually serve equity. "A student's not just a single number or a single letter," she said, "but standardized testing can play an important role in ensuring one level of measuring where that bar is so that the bar doesn't move." Hyde's concern is not that the bar should be raised—it's that without a common metric, the bar becomes invisible. An A in one high school district may mean content mastery; in another, it may reflect effort or homework completion. Universities have no way to know which students truly understand the material they'll need.
The problem manifests most acutely in STEM courses. Instructors report that classrooms have become fractured: some students arrive ready for college-level work, while others are missing baseline skills. This disparity forces professors to slow advanced lectures to accommodate underprepared students, leaving everyone worse off. Those admitted without sufficient preparation face higher dropout and failure rates in critical courses—the very gatekeepers that determine whether they can continue in their major. Neetu Arnold, a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute, frames this as a consequence of grade inflation in high schools. "These professors are dealing with the consequences of relying too heavily on grades," Arnold said, "especially when grade inflation has made GPAs less informative." Without standardized benchmarks, universities have lost a tool for distinguishing between students who have mastered material and those who have simply worked hard or completed assignments.
Hyde's argument for reinstatement rests on a specific vision of how standardized testing could serve equity rather than undermine it. She points to successful programs in Southern California that provide free SAT preparation to dozens of middle and high schools in underserved areas. In this model, the test becomes not a barrier but a target—a clear standard that students can prepare for with proper support. "Standardized tests can play a great role in ensuring more equitable access for students to reach that bar," she said. Her concern extends beyond the university. She argues that foundational standards must be raised starting in kindergarten, so that by the time students reach college, they arrive prepared. The alternative—lowering expectations or masking preparation gaps—serves no one.
The UC faculty's push comes as a broader reversal is underway at elite institutions nationwide. Dartmouth, Yale, Brown, and Princeton have all reversed their test-optional or test-blind policies in the last two years, citing internal data showing that standardized test scores remain the single best predictor of college success. The UC Board of Regents has not yet responded to requests for comment on the faculty letter. But the momentum is shifting. What began as a pandemic-era accommodation has become a policy question that universities across the country are reconsidering—not because they want to exclude students, but because they are watching the consequences of removing a tool that, despite its flaws, provided a common language for measuring readiness.
Notable Quotes
Standardized testing can play an important role in ensuring one level of measuring where that bar is so that the bar doesn't move.— Kara Jean Hyde, UC Irvine lecturer and co-director of the Math Project
These professors are dealing with the consequences of relying too heavily on grades, especially when grade inflation has made GPAs less informative.— Neetu Arnold, Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would professors want to bring back a test that was removed specifically because it was seen as biased?
Because they're watching students fail in their courses. The test wasn't removed because it was inaccurate—it was removed because it correlated with socioeconomic status. But removing the test didn't solve that problem. It just made it invisible. Now students are admitted without the skills they need, and they're the ones who suffer.
But couldn't the same bias still exist if you bring the test back?
That's the argument Hyde is making—you bring it back, but you pair it with free prep programs in underserved schools. The test becomes a target, not a barrier. You're saying: here's the standard, and here's how we'll help you reach it.
What happens to the students who are already in the system without those skills?
They're the ones in the fractured classrooms right now. Some are ready for calculus. Others are doing middle school algebra. The professor has to choose: slow down for everyone, or leave some behind. Either way, someone loses.
Is this really about the test, or is it about something else—like high school grades not meaning what they used to?
It's both. The test is just the visible symbol. The real problem is that we've lost a common language for what "ready" means. An A in one district might mean mastery. In another, it means you turned in your homework. Universities can't tell the difference anymore.
So the faculty are saying: we need something objective to know who actually knows the material?
Exactly. And they're saying that's not anti-equity—it's pro-equity. Because right now, the students getting hurt are the ones admitted into hard majors without the foundation to succeed.