Three thousand University of California professors just said the quiet part out loud: bring back the SAT because too many freshmen cannot do middle-school math.
Story Snapshot
- More than 3,000 UC faculty signed letters urging a return to SAT/ACT tests.
- STEM faculty say scores set a basic math bar for college-level work.
- Professors report reteaching middle-school math to UC freshmen.
- UC leaders are reviewing testing but pushed any decision to 2027.
Faculty revolt centers on basic readiness, not politics
University of California faculty did not write one cranky memo. They organized across campuses and disciplines. One letter from science, technology, engineering, and math faculty argues standardized math exams give a shared floor for skills. Another letter from humanities and social sciences backs verbal reasoning tests. Inside Higher Ed reported over 2,300 STEM signatories and about 900 more from other fields, crossing 3,000 total. That scale signals a systemwide alarm, not a niche complaint.
KQED summarized the STEM group’s core claim: standardized test scores provide a common outside check that students have the math fluency needed for college STEM work. That view matches what many parents expect from selective universities: if a student enters calculus, algebra should be a settled skill. Faculty say grade inflation and uneven high school standards make transcripts noisy. A single, comparable test score, they argue, cuts through the noise and sets a floor everyone can see.
What professors say they see in class
Los Angeles Times reporting quotes the letters bluntly: professors now reteach middle-school math to freshmen in University of California lecture halls. That is not a fine point about pedagogy. It is a red flare. Faculty describe wide gaps inside the same classroom, which slows instruction for everyone. They also cite an internal University of California San Diego workgroup that found a sharp rise in students below middle-school level since 2020, a claim that, if accurate, would explain the frustration.
Common sense lines up with the faculty position. If your pipeline relies only on uneven grades, you invite surprises. A short, objective test will not fix K–12, but it will expose mismatches early. That protects students from being thrown into courses they cannot pass and protects standards for peers who can. Conservative readers will see the simple truth here: accountability beats vibes. If you expect rigor, you must measure it.
University leadership is moving, but slowly
University governance is responding. Reports say the Faculty Senate and Regents opened a review on restoring tests after the letters landed. Leaders adjusted timelines, but the Board of Regents now aims for a recommendation by 2027, which means no change before fall 2028. That delay carries a cost. Each entering class arrives before the policy settles. If readiness is slipping, time favors drift. Systems often confuse process with progress; students pay the bill for that confusion.
The great standardized testing experiment has officially failed.
Over 1400 professors at the University of California are aggressively demanding the return of the SAT and ACT.
The test blind admissions policy implemented in 2020 has created an absolute academic disaster.… pic.twitter.com/ADKKWGAFdE
— Ajit – Stocks | Business | AI | Tech | Geopolitics (@Anvayance) August 7, 2026
Opponents raise equity and context. They argue the pandemic wrecked math learning and that artificial intelligence scrambles homework integrity. They also say standardized tests reflect access to prep, not innate ability, and that the current policy tries to reduce racial and income gaps. Those points deserve a hearing. But they do not answer the core classroom claim. None of the public counterarguments present data that disprove the reported readiness failures or show that holistic review predicts STEM success better than test scores.
What a serious fix looks like now
University leaders should run a clean, public test. Compare cohorts before and after test removal on first-year math placement, D and F rates, withdrawals, and major changes in science, technology, engineering, and math. Add high school grades, course rigor, and any optional scores students submitted. Then publish which factor best predicts success. If standardized tests add clear signal, restore them. If not, show the evidence and build a different floor that is just as visible and fair.
Until then, the practical path is obvious. Let students submit scores and let departments use them as placement screens, especially for calculus and beyond. Keep the door open for students with strong grades from underresourced schools, but require a clear demonstration of baseline skills before they enter high-stakes courses. Standards are not about gatekeeping; they are about guardrails. A guardrail keeps a freshman from skidding off the on-ramp on day one.
Bottom line: rescue the floor, then widen the door
The faculty coalition is not begging for elitism. They are asking for a floor that respects time, truth, and taxpayers. A University of California degree promises serious training. That promise needs a shared starter line. Restore a common measure, or replace it with one that is public and proven. Worry less about the optics of equity and more about outcomes that help students rise. Hope never passed calculus. Standards do.
Sources:
latimes.com, insidehighered.com, ktvu.com
