Schools are not equal so they produce uneven outcomes. However, for schools that have no AP courses and probably little dual enrollment and lots of kids with A’s, a kid that has a high test score but has to apply to schools that are test blind may not actually stand out in the context of the local school.
Tests do act as a filter too but this could actually benefit students who are not prepared for college yet and would be better served with more preparation. I don’t think anyone would suggest that tests are needed to give another leg up to kids from better schools with higher scores. If the UC’s wanted to do that, they could have implemented those policies already and wouldn’t even need to bring back test scores to do so but rather just admit more kids from high performing schools. They obviously don’t want to do that nor do most of these schools. Look at the direction that acceptance rates have been moving - it’s not toward letting in more kids from top schools but rather opening up admissions to students from schools all over the country. At the same time, it serves no one if some kids end up at a university they are not prepared for and flounder. Test scores can in fact help identify students who might need extra help. Look at the test required example of UT that you have brought up. Test required and yet they are not using the tests to let in more kids from good schools but rather to identify and address possible shortcomings in student’s education background.
I am not sure UCs have a legal right to bring back the SAT even if they wanted. Wouldn’t they have to go back to courts and fight it there? I thought their settlement agreement ensured UCs would remain test blind. I would love to know if I am wrong.
Looking at the quality of education offered across the UC system (including the graduation rate), the scenario you are suggesting feels to me like we are trying to build hypotheticals to fit a certain conclusion, rather than looking at actual facts and evidence.
In other words, I don’t think there is much if any evidence that relying on the extensive UC requirements as well as success in local context is resulting on unqualified kids being admitted. If there is evidence to the contrary I’d love to see it.
As for the kid who isn’t at the top of their class but tests well, why do you see that kid as more qualified than the kid who is at the top of their class but doesn’t test as well? Why value a one off-test more than years of in class performance? I don’t buy the “lots of As” argument because this problem (if it is a problem) is more concentrated at higher performing schools, and because if a student has met the vigorous UC requirements it is highly unlikely that the straight A kid is, as you put it, “not prepared for college.”
Now it may be that student A (and student A’s parents) think they are more deserving of UC admission than student B, because while their performance in school is slightly worse, student A got a better test score, but the counter argument could be made as well. Either way, it is not a question of whether either of these two students is “not prepared for college.”
In other words, I question the fundamental assumption that a significant number of kids who aren’t prepared for college are being admitted into the UCs.
Many do suggest this, while others are careful not to phrase it that way. But however it is or isn’t suggested, many view the tests as an objective measure of preparedness for college, and do not believe a kid from a low performing school with a 1200 SAT should be admitted when a kid from a high performing school with a 1450 is rejected. This is especially true of those whose kid is rejected.
Or maybe I misunderstand . . .
What SAT score would indicate that a kid who met all the UC requirements and is at the top of their class is “not prepared for college?”
How many kids are there who met all the UC requirements and are at the top of their classes are “not prepared for college?”
I doubt it…it’s late for juniors (class of 2026)…especially CA (and other west coast) students who still have widespread SAT/ACT access issues. And I expect a lot politically would have to happen to make that change. Perhaps some UC experts can weigh in…@ucbalumnus, @gumbymom and any one else I forgot.
It does seem very late for 2026 and from what I know about the UCs typical slow moving process, would seem unlikely… on the other hand I noticed that our (public CA) high school clearly made an effort this year to provide SAT tests physically at our school, and has continued to open new testing seats throughout the year. I don’t remember SAT being given at our HS before this year, and I also remember that S23’s counselor told him the tests weren’t important… now the counselors are recommending the tests. So, just occurred to me that it’s possible there are changes afoot.
Because in many schools getting an A in class has less to do with your competence in the subject and knowledge and more to do with making sure all homework and class work is turned in and you did exte credit work. This is the reason while half the kids at our AP Chem class who got A’s scored ones and twos in the exam. AP Lit guarantees an A is you attend a lot of theatre events. You can get so much extra credit that it would be hard to not get an A. Grades can mean great performance but also could mean nothing. It’s hard to know that without knowing individual schools. Exam is an exam.
It won’t be brought back for class of '26. According to meeting minutes from a UC admissions committee, it appears that UCLA and Berkeley representatives are interested in examining bringing back standardized testing. It specifically noted that the Regents would have to vote to bring back tests and one barrier is the lack of testing availability in California. Santa Cruz opposed brining back testing.
I’ve heard that UCLA admissions personnel recently have said that they are happy with their admissions results without testing. These same personnel are not the same as the UCLA prof assigned to the BOARS committee who expressed interest in reexamining testing.
My guess is UCs won’t be bringing back testing unless data shows there’s a strong benefit to using testing. Given CA politics and influence on the Regents, I don’t see the public as interested enough to apply pressure for testing regardless of what the results show.
I hope at some point soon some academics can do a study comparing performance of students with v. without test scores in the post-Covid test optional environment. This will be difficult at the UCs as they only had 1-2 years of data to look at before they went test free.
Probably not likely that UCs would require testing without a lots of advance notice, because of equity concerns that short notice would create. Note that some schools (e.g. Stanford) gave a lot of advance notice, but others (e.g. UT Austin) did not.
Also, wasn’t one of the court cases specifically that test optional (versus required or blind) was unfair or something?
UCs did not have test optional during the COVID-19 era. They were going to allow campuses to choose optional or blind, but a lawsuit settlement meant that optional was not allowed.
Smith v Board of Regents. The trial court judge in Alameda County ruled that tests did not properly accommodate disabled students’ limitations and granted an injunction against UC using test-optional policies. The case was settled some months after the ruling barring use of testing until 2025.
I don’t know enough about the specific accommodation arguments, but notably the same arguments haven’t been raised (yet) against CA private universities like USC and Stanford. I strongly suspect that if testing is brought back, the same arguments will be raised again regardless of the fact that Covid-level complications no longer exist.
My questions aren’t about AP classes.Not sure why you are reintroducing AP classes after the moderators specifically asked us to move on from that topic, so I won’t respond to that part of your post
Hopefully to clarify, am asking for evidence (not anecdotes) that a signicant percentage of kids at the top of their classes and who have met all the UC requirements are “not prepared for college.”
I also asked . . .
What SAT score would indicate that a kid who met all the UC requirements and is at the top of their class is “not prepared for college?”
How many kids are there who met all the UC requirements and are at the top of their classes are “not prepared for college?”
Why? What will we learn from this? If one group graded a little better or a little worse will that mean that the UCs were admitting students who were unqualified? Is there some sort of unwritten mandate somewhere the the UCs mission is exclusively to only admit students with the absolute best chance of receiving the highest grade point at college? Or could a colleges mission be broader than that?
Here’s a scenario I am personally familiar with. One student who got a couple of B’s in 9th grate which was not odd at the school the student was at which was high performing, transferred to another school wherein there was extreme grade inflation. This student most would have argued was well and truly above the other students at the school in college preparation, taking more AP’s and advanced classes than any other student by a stretch and did get straight A’s at the new school but you would never have made that assumption by class rank because there were at least 12 students with straight A’s and some students also with only one B in a class of about 100. Though the student had an unweighted GPA north of 3.95, the class rank was somewhere between 15-25% because it was based solely on unweighted GPA rather than weighted GPA. The school only used weighted to rank students among those with the same GPA so some highly ranked students avoided all the AP/Honors courses. It’s one of those schools that does not send students to top colleges but rather local colleges and universities and the state school is not highly ranked so will accept most students with some rather low GPA cutoff. Note that neither of the high schools are in California and I expect that schools in California would be better equipped to rank classes due to the UC system but it is an example of how a student who is not ranked at the top of the class could be overlooked if only class rankings are used. I expect there are way more schools on the bottom end that do in fact not know how things like class rank should be calculated given that they are not schools from which kids go on to attend top schools so things like class rank just don’t matter to most of the student body. This kind of rampant grade inflation and issue with class ranking would easily be spotted with a SAT scores. This student did have the highest SAT score though a few but less than a handful of students were NMf’s I believe and had the most 5’s on AP tests and took more AP classes than any other student but was easily outranked by students who never took one AP class or even an honors class. Note that at least one of the other National Merit students was in a similar situation with 1 B transferred into the school from 8th grade.
Also to think that grade inflation is only happening at the top seems rather odd and certainly not the experience I am familiar with as in this example I mentioned. There are kids who are unable to read that are graduating high school. In a school where half the kids are not able to read, how many students would receive an A just for attending and being able to do some of the work?
I would think the SAT scores that shows readiness would depend on the school and the subject. For instance, I think for Caltech/MIT a 700 on the math subsection is basically considered a score which shows the student has the preparation to do the work. Berkeley’s engineering program might be around there. I don’t think a theater kid would need anything along those lines. As for reading, I am not sure what score would be the minimum required to indicate readiness for university work and again the minimum score might depend on major so an English major might be expected to meet perhaps a different bar than a biology major or maybe not since both are required to be proficient in the mechanics of reading and writing.
As for kids meeting the UC requirements, I would imagine quite a few. From my understanding, their requirements are not some heavy bar to meet. I noticed on this board that most people will point out that a kid hasn’t yet had the 1 credit of visual/performing arts as being the most common requirement for a kid to have missed if they are applying from out of state. The other requirement that a few kids don’t seem to meet would be the 3 years of a foreign language but lots of kids would have both of these if they attend school in CA given the counselors there would be familiar with the UC requirements. Being top of a class may not be as meaningful as one would think. Kids are graduating without being able to read after all.
Could be because other schools are starting to require them and they don’t want to have students who had their eye on schools that require tests ie. Stanford left out in the cold due to lack of access to testing.
I wouldn’t assume that at all. Many CA high schools, including my daughter’s school, do not rank. In fact, my daughter’s school does not even choose val and sal based on rank because they do not rank students at all (instead, students with a GPA over a certain threshold are invited to apply for the honor).