The University of California’s Academic Senate recently reversed course on a promised review of standardized testing for admissions even as alarming math preparedness data from California high school graduates and incoming college students keeps getting worse. Faculty members across STEM fields had urged reinstating SAT/ACT math requirements after studies showed dramatic declines in basic math skills, but the Senate delayed the review with a statement about revising timelines and ensuring thoroughness. That decision has drawn sharp criticism from those who say the state’s education system is failing students and the workforce.
Several hundred UC professors publicly warned university leaders that incoming students are arriving at campus without the math foundation expected of college-bound graduates. These faculty voices argued that instructors are spending class time on material that belongs in middle school or high school rather than advancing college-level learning. The consequences ripple beyond classrooms into workforce readiness and the broader economy when graduates lack fundamental numeracy.
A study at one UC campus found a startling rise in students entering with math skills below high school level, and a large share were said to be below middle school proficiency. Faculty signatories urged the system to reinstate math testing for STEM applicants starting with the 2027 admissions cycle to help identify gaps and set appropriate remediation. That request reflected growing frustration that dropping testing requirements has coincided with a slide in measurable competency.
On July 10 the Academic Senate had initially agreed to review standardized testing policies, prompting cautious optimism among some professors and parents. But just days later, the Senate announced it was pausing that review and adjusting the timeline, framing the move as a commitment to a careful, evidence-based process. For critics, that explanation rings hollow given the scale of documented declines and the urgency of restoring academic standards.
After published reports emerged today (July 13) that the University of California’s Academic Senate voted on July 10 to rescind its review of standardized testing admissions, Ahmet Palazoglu, the University of California’s Academic Senate Chair, issued the following statement:
“The Academic Senate is not rescinding its commitment to a comprehensive review of standardized testing in admissions. Recognizing the significance of this issue, the Academic Senate is revising its timeline while ensuring the forthcoming review is thorough, evidence-based and informed by faculty expertise.”
That exact statement has been met with skepticism by those who see it as a stalling tactic rather than a sincere recommitment to fixing an academic crisis. Critics point out that when a large fraction of freshmen test at or below middle school math levels, delaying action amounts to neglect. The claim that more “evidence” or “faculty input” is required feels like an excuse when teachers are already reporting widespread deficiencies.
Faculty who signed the open letter emphasized that the erosion of basic math skills forces college instructors to backtrack into remedial subjects, which undermines higher-level teaching and wastes valuable classroom time. They argued that standardized math measures, while imperfect, provide a consistent benchmark to assess admissions readiness and target supports where they are needed. Restoring those measures for STEM applicants would be a practical step, supporters say, to protect academic standards.
Opponents of reinstating standardized testing have pushed for broader definitions of merit and more holistic admissions practices, arguing that tests can disadvantage certain groups. But the practical consequence in this case is clear: course placement, instructional design, and student outcomes depend on a reliable assessment of skills. Without that, universities scramble to compensate in ways that dilute academic rigor and stretch faculty resources thin.
From a policy perspective, the debate exposes a deeper tension between ideological approaches to education and the need for measurable standards. Some state education policies have shifted to emphasize narrative metrics and equity goals, but the outcomes on student proficiency cannot be ignored. When graduates lack numeracy, employers and communities bear the cost of a workforce unprepared for technical and analytical jobs.
There is also a political layer to the argument: critics contend that lowering or discarding objective benchmarks aligns with a broader agenda that prioritizes equity narratives over academic excellence. That framing fuels skepticism among those who want accountability and measurable progress in student learning. For many voters and taxpayers, ensuring students meet basic competencies is not an optional policy preference but a practical necessity.
Fixing the problem will require clear standards, honest data, and a willingness to restore assessments that reveal gaps so educators can address them. Reinstating targeted testing for subject placement and admissions in fields that require quantitative skills would help universities align expectations with incoming preparation. Without such steps, the pipeline from K-12 to college to career risks producing more graduates who are certificate holders in name only.
Universities and state leaders face a choice: acknowledge the evidence and act swiftly to restore rigorous admissions criteria where needed, or continue to defer while the preparedness crisis deepens. Students deserve competent instruction and actionable support, and the state’s future competitiveness depends on graduates who can do the math required by modern jobs and innovation.
Add comment