The University of California test-blind admissions policy is under renewed scrutiny after a New York Times editorial and large faculty letters urged the system to reconsider removing standardized test scores from undergraduate evaluations. Regents, the Academic Senate and campus leaders are assembling data as BOARS and other committees prepare a formal review.
University of California test-blind admissions: claims and response
The New York Times Editorial Board called the UC decision to go test-blind “a terrible mistake,” arguing that removing SAT and ACT scores has masked declines in preparation for some courses. Faculty groups across the system pressed a similar point: more than 2,300 STEM faculty and more than 900 humanities faculty signed open letters urging UC to revisit the policy and its effects on student readiness.
Faculty-reported campus data cited in those letters highlight pronounced shifts in course readiness at some campuses. For example, faculty posting to the shared letters and materials reported that the share of incoming students at UC San Diego not meeting a campus precalculus readiness benchmark rose from about 0.5% in 2020 to roughly 12% by the 2024–25 academic year, a change faculty say warrants investigation.
UC leaders have pushed back on quick policy judgments, noting the challenge of disentangling effects of the test-blind policy from pandemic-era disruptions, K–12 instructional changes and broader shifts in grading. Officials and faculty leaders say the forthcoming review will focus on evidence and will not be a predetermined reversal of past decisions.
How University of California test-blind admissions began and what the STTF found
The systemwide vote in 2020 adopted a test-blind approach: UC does not consider SAT or ACT scores in admissions decisions even when applicants submit them. That change followed multi-year work by the Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF), formed in 2019 to study the role of standardized tests in fairness and prediction.
The STTF — an 18-member committee representing all 10 UC campuses — produced a 225-page report that remains central to current debates. The task force concluded that standardized test scores “aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion.” Critics of the test-blind policy cite those findings to argue that scores provided useful predictive information about which students might need additional support.
Supporters of the test-blind move counter that scores have long correlated with socioeconomic factors and that the UC must balance predictive value with access and equity concerns. The STTF itself recommended careful use of data and further study — which is now being revisited in light of new campus-level signals.
Who is leading the review at UC and what they say
The Academic Senate and its Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) are coordinating the faculty-led review. Ahmet Palazoglu, chair of the UC Academic Senate, said the review will be “comprehensive” and “data-driven,” emphasizing that faculty-led analysis will compare outcomes across campuses and demographic groups.
Janet Napolitano, who supported the 2020 change as then-UC president, described the policy as “a worthwhile experiment” that now needs fresh assessment in light of new evidence, telling the New York Times the experiment should be revisited rather than simply doubled down upon.
University leaders have described the review as multi-part: BOARS and Academic Senate committees will evaluate predictive validity, equity impacts and practical consequences for admissions offices; campus admissions officers will supply localized data; and analysts will attempt to control for pandemic effects and related shifts in high school assessment practices.
Implications for applicants and campuses
A potential outcome of the review could be reinstating SAT or ACT requirements for some applicants or adopting a hybrid model — for example, moving from test-blind to test-optional or test-aware policies. To clarify terms: test-blind means scores are not considered at all; test-optional allows applicants to submit scores that will be considered; test-aware means scorers may know whether an applicant submitted scores but their use varies by campus or program.
If UC shifts away from test-blind admissions, campuses would need to update application guidance, evaluation rubrics and outreach to high schools. Applicants could see renewed pressure to take standardized tests, with implications for preparation access and equity. Campuses might also respond by expanding placement assessments, remedial coursework, tutoring and advising to address concentrated preparation gaps.
Observers caution that any return to testing would require careful steps to avoid worsening disparities. As one Academic Senate leader put it, the goal of the review is not merely to restore a prior metric but to identify admissions and support strategies that reliably predict and improve student success.
What comes next
BOARS and the Academic Senate will continue collecting campus-level data and analyses in the coming weeks. Regents are expected to discuss the matter at an upcoming meeting in mid-July, but faculty review and data work may continue beyond that session. Applicants and counselors should watch official UC communications for any formal changes to admissions criteria or timelines.
Source attribution
This article synthesizes reporting and primary materials, including the New York Times editorial, faculty letters posted with supporting campus data, and the UC Academic Senate’s Standardized Testing Task Force report. Coverage summarizing those materials appeared in Fox News and other outlets; primary documents remain available for direct review.
- New York Times editorial on UC testing policy
- Faculty letters and signatories (ucstudentsuccess.org)
- UC Academic Senate — Standardized Testing Task Force
- Fox News: coverage summarizing the NYT editorial and faculty concerns
Readers should consult these primary sources for full text, tables and appendices. BOARS and the Academic Senate will publish findings and recommendations when their data review concludes.
