Standardized testing has been a central flashpoint in college admissions debates. The University of California’s decision to eliminate SAT and ACT requirements is a leading example in that conversation and has prompted renewed attention to what admissions offices use when test scores disappear (University of California Office of the President announcement; see Source Attribution below).
This article summarizes an opinion by Dr. Kent Ingle, explains observable shifts in admissions practices after test-optional moves, reports on reporting that several elite institutions have revised testing rules, and weighs empirical evidence. Opinion claims from the original column are labeled as such; factual claims are attributed to public reporting or research where possible.
What California changed and why
The University of California system stopped using SAT and ACT scores in undergraduate admissions decisions, ending the tests’ role as a required baseline measure (University of California Office of the President). The stated goal was to reduce a barrier believed to disadvantage many lower-income and first-generation students and to promote equity across a large and diverse applicant pool.
Supporters argued standardized testing had worked as a hurdle for students with limited access to test preparation and other resources. Opponents warned that removing a common metric would force admissions offices to rely more heavily on other signals — some of them more subjective and more closely tied to family resources.
How admissions shifted without tests
In his opinion piece, Dr. Kent Ingle argues (opinion) that eliminating tests caused admissions processes to lean more on subjective indicators that can advantage wealthier applicants: inflated GPAs, polished and coached essays, and costly extracurriculars or summer programs. Those components can reflect unequal access to tutoring, private counselors, and paid opportunities.
These are observable patterns in application components: GPA scales and grading practices vary considerably across districts and schools, essay coaching has grown as an industry, and extracurricular resumes sometimes reflect access to paid or otherwise exclusive experiences. Whether these shifts produce worse overall equity than test-based evaluation is contested and appears to vary by institution and applicant pool.
Elite schools reversing course
Reporting by higher-education outlets and national press has documented that several selective colleges revisited their test-optional policies after pandemic-era changes. Coverage has named institutions such as MIT, Dartmouth and Yale among those that adjusted testing guidance or expectations in recent admissions cycles (reporting in Inside Higher Ed and other outlets). The adjustments took different forms: some schools reinstated testing requirements, others began to more strongly recommend tests for certain applicant groups, and some refined how they use scores in context.
These reported reversals matter because selective colleges set benchmarks that many other institutions watch closely. When highly selective schools add standardized data points back into their reviews, advocates say it helps admissions compare students from uneven high school contexts; critics say it risks reintroducing access gaps unless paired with strong test‑support programs.
The equalizer argument for tests
One argument in favor of standardized testing — advanced by Dr. Kent Ingle in his piece (opinion) — is that tests can operate as an “equalizer” for students from under-resourced or failing public schools. The idea is that a high, objectively scored test result can reveal academic readiness when school transcripts understate ability due to grade inflation, weak curricula, or limited course offerings.
Supporters of this view point to cases where students with strong test scores gained admission despite thin extracurriculars or lower-profile high schools, arguing the score provided a common comparability metric. Skeptics counter with evidence that test performance itself is correlated with access to preparation and other socioeconomic factors, so scores are not a pure measure of innate potential.
Weighing the evidence and the author’s view
The Fox News column by Dr. Ingle advances a clear normative position: that removing standardized testing has harmed merit-based admissions and that restoring tests is a needed corrective (opinion). That argument rests on plausible empirical concerns about subjective signals, but it does not settle the larger empirical questions.
Research on test-optional policies shows mixed results. Some institutions reported modest gains in particular diversity measures after going test-optional; others saw little change or shifts in which groups applied and matriculated. National associations and education researchers have urged longer-term tracking, careful controls for applicant pool changes, and contextual measures to interpret outcomes (see NACAC and higher-education reporting cited below).
Policymakers face trade-offs: eliminating an obstacle tied to testing access versus the risk that subjective measures amplify wealth-linked advantages. Hybrid approaches — for example, optional testing supplemented by strong contextual data, expanded outreach, and free preparation programs — are among the experiments underway at different colleges.
What other colleges should consider
California’s experience is presented in the opinion as a cautionary tale. Practical recommendations for other admissions offices include: monitoring outcomes over multiple years, improving training for holistic review to reduce bias, collecting richer context on applicants’ educational environments, and pairing any testing policy with concrete access supports (fee waivers, free prep, targeted outreach).
Institutions that require or recommend tests should also adopt measures to reduce disparities in preparation and access. Those policy choices reflect institutional priorities about measurement, fairness, and the types of preparation they expect of incoming students.
Source attribution
This analysis summarizes and critiques an opinion piece by Dr. Kent Ingle titled “The progressive education machine is collapsing. We should let it fall” (Fox News opinion). Where the original represents an author’s judgment, this article marks it as opinion. Factual statements about policies and reporting are attributed to the public announcements and coverage cited below.
Key sources cited or consulted: University of California Office of the President (public announcement on SAT/ACT policy), reporting by national higher-education outlets including Inside Higher Ed, and research and guidance from the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). The opinion column analyzed: Fox News by Dr. Kent Ingle (link below).
Source: Fox News opinion by Dr. Kent Ingle: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/progressive-education-machine-collapsing-let-it-fall
Additional sources: University of California press materials (https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room), Inside Higher Ed coverage (https://www.insidehighered.com), National Association for College Admission Counseling (https://www.nacacnet.org).
