Doesn't requiring the SAT penalize underprivileged students who can't afford test prep?
No. The purpose of requiring a math readiness score is not to rank students against each other — it is to make sure students are placed in programs they are prepared to succeed in. A student admitted to a STEM program without the math foundation to complete it is not being helped. They are being set up to struggle, accumulate debt, and leave without a degree. Real equity means matching students to the right school and the right classroom, where they can build on what they know and actually graduate.
Isn't the SAT a biased test that doesn't measure real ability?
The SAT math section measures basic mathematical fluency — the same skills required to succeed in college-level STEM coursework. UC San Diego's own data shows that without this check, the share of incoming freshmen requiring math remediation surged from under one percent to nearly 12 percent. Among students placed into the most remedial math course, more than 25% had a perfect 4.0 high school GPA. The test isn't perfect, but it catches what grades alone miss, and right now, nothing else is catching it.
Didn't the UC drop the SAT to increase diversity and access?
That was the stated goal. The outcome data shows it failed. Removing the readiness signal didn't remove the preparation gap — it just moved it from the admissions office into the classroom, where it became harder to address. UC instructors now report reteaching middle school math alongside college-level material. The students most harmed by this are the ones the policy was supposed to help.
Doesn't this resolution hurt students who test poorly but are otherwise strong?
The resolution asks for a math readiness requirement for STEM applicants specifically, not a blanket admissions cutoff. A student who tests below readiness is not necessarily rejected from the University of California. They can pursue a non-STEM major, build their math skills at a community college, or transfer in when ready. What harms students is admitting them to programs where they cannot complete the coursework.
Won't this reduce the number of underrepresented students in STEM?
In the short term, it may change where some students begin their STEM journey. But the current system is producing worse outcomes — students who arrive underprepared face course failure, longer time to degree, and higher dropout rates. Meanwhile, every seat given to a student who is not prepared for the program is a seat not available to a student who is. Students who did the work and met the standard deserve to know that admissions decisions reflect actual readiness.
What about students who are smart but didn't have access to advanced math courses?
The SAT math section tests foundational fluency, not advanced coursework. It identifies students who have the baseline skills for college-level STEM, and it can also surface high-potential students in under-resourced schools whose talent might otherwise go unrecognized because their school didn't offer AP courses. Removing the test didn't help those students — it eliminated one of the few objective signals that could have surfaced their ability.
What does the Cal State system do with test scores?
CSU is also test-blind for admissions decisions. However, CSU still uses test scores for course placement after admission, to determine which math and writing courses a student is actually ready for. Even CSU implicitly acknowledges that grades alone do not predict math readiness. UC faculty are arguing that this readiness check should happen before admission to STEM programs, not after.
This is purely advisory. Why should a school board weigh in on UC admissions policy?
Because our students go to UC, and their readiness for those programs is our business. Advisory resolutions put a district on record on issues that directly affect its graduates. More than 2,300 UC STEM faculty and more than 900 humanities, social science, law, and education faculty have called for action — more than 3,000 signatures combined. The UC Academic Senate has committed to completing its admissions review by June 2027. No California school district has weighed in yet.
Why now? Why the urgency?
UC's BOARS committee approved a formal review roadmap on June 5, 2026 — then rescinded it in July, within five weeks, under mounting public and faculty pressure. The Academic Senate chair has since reaffirmed that the Senate will complete its review by June 2027. The window for school districts to be on the record before that review concludes is closing. A resolution passed now puts a district's position in front of the committee while deliberations are still underway.
Didn't UC just cancel its own testing review? If so, what's the point of a school board resolution?
BOARS established a formal review workgroup in June 2026, then rescinded it weeks later. The Academic Senate chair subsequently reaffirmed the Senate's commitment to completing a review by June 2027. Read together, these two events suggest UC is moving under external pressure, not on its own momentum — exactly the kind of process that school board resolutions are designed to influence.
Didn't the UC Regents already vote 23 to 0 to eliminate the SAT in 2020? Isn't this already decided?
The full Regents voted 23–0 to phase it out — but only after overriding the recommendation of their own Task Force, which had voted 51–0 to retain the SAT. The data since then has validated the Task Force: by fall 2025, UC San Diego's incoming class included 921 students — with an average high school math GPA of 3.65 — who arrived needing remediation below high school level. The vote didn't settle the question. It deferred a reckoning that arrived anyway, inside the classroom.
Isn't this just STEM and math professors with a grievance? Is there broader support?
The original faculty push was led by math and STEM faculty — more than 2,300 signatures, including seven of nine UC Mathematics Department Chairs and more than 50 STEM department chairs. In June 2026, humanities, social science, law, business, and education faculty joined with a separate open letter — more than 900 additional signatures — extending the argument to verbal reasoning for all admissions. Combined, more than 3,000 UC faculty have now called for action.
The 2027–28 admissions cycle opens in August 2026. Even if UC acts by June 2027, isn't that too late for the next cycle?
Yes — and that is the point. The current UC review timeline cannot produce a policy change in time for the 2027–28 cycle. A resolution that calls on UC to act before that cycle closes makes a deliberate demand that goes beyond what UC has committed to. School board resolutions are not required to be timid. They can name what needs to happen and when.