In 2020, the University of California system made national headlines when it announced it would stop requiring SAT and ACT scores for admissions.

The move, referred to as a “landmark decision” that “could reshape the nation’s college admissions process,” was celebrated by many education advocates, who argued that standardized tests favored wealthier students, who could afford expensive tutoring, test-preparation courses, and multiple opportunities to take the exams.

Critics of the tests also questioned whether the tests accurately measured a student’s potential for success in college. Pointing to growing concerns about equity, the UC system eventually moved from test-optional to completely test-blind admissions, meaning scores would not be considered at all.

At the time, the decision was presented as a way to create more opportunities and remove barriers for disadvantaged students. Those in favor argued that the move was compassionate, modern, and fair.

But six years later, the conversation has changed dramatically.

Today, more than 1,400 University of California faculty members have signed letters urging the university to reconsider its testing ban, particularly for students entering STEM fields. Their concern is not political. It is practical.

In their letter, educators pointed out a growing problem that, in hindsight, may have been predictable. Professors say they are increasingly encountering students who arrive unprepared for college-level math and science courses. Some report even having to reteach concepts that should have been mastered years earlier.

As the letter states, “We now observe preparation gaps so severe that instructors must re-teach middle school mathematics while simultaneously teaching the material students need for sciences, engineering, economics and other quantitatively demanding fields.”

According to data cited by faculty, the percentage of incoming students requiring remediation in basic math has risen sharply since standardized testing requirements were eliminated.

Per a report from UC San Diego’s Senate Administration Working Group on Admissions, it describes a “near-thirtyfold explosion” in students entering college with math skills below the high school level. In 2020, roughly one in 200 incoming freshmen fell into that category. Just five years later, that number had climbed to nearly one in eight students.

The issue is not simply that students are struggling — college has always been challenging. The larger concern is that universities no longer have a reliable way to identify whether applicants are academically prepared for higher education in the first place. If students lack the foundational skills that should have been established years earlier, expecting them to tackle increasingly demanding material becomes difficult, if not impossible.

That is where standardized testing re-enters the debate.

No one claims the SAT or ACT is a perfect measure of intelligence or future success. A test score cannot capture all the qualities that contribute to a student’s success, such as work ethic, creativity, leadership, perseverance, or individual circumstances. But college admissions have never relied on a single metric. Standardized tests have simply served as one objective benchmark among many.

For decades, they provided a consistent way to evaluate applicants coming from schools with different grading standards, course rigor, teaching styles, and academic expectations. While imperfect, having at least one common measure helps colleges compare students from vastly different educational backgrounds and better assess their readiness for higher education.

Ironically, some recent research has suggested that test scores may actually help identify talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds rather than exclude them. A student from a struggling school who earns a strong SAT score demonstrates academic readiness in a way that grades alone may not reveal. Without that measure, admissions officers often have fewer tools to distinguish exceptional students from average ones.

The larger issue goes beyond admissions policies. It touches on a growing trend in education: the belief that lowering standards creates fairness.

Unfortunately, life doesn’t work that way.

Removing a measurement doesn’t remove the underlying problem. If students struggle with algebra, eliminating the test that reveals the struggle doesn’t suddenly make them proficient in algebra. It simply makes the deficiency harder to see until they arrive in a college classroom, where the consequences become far more expensive and difficult to address.

In many ways, the current debate is really about expectations. Students generally rise to the standards set before them. When schools challenge students, provide support, and hold them accountable, many discover they are capable of far more than they imagined. When expectations are lowered in the name of protecting self-esteem or promoting equity, students often pay the price later.

Adulthood is full of standards. Employers expect competence. Professional licensing exams exist for doctors, nurses, engineers, and attorneys. Trade certifications require demonstrated skills. The real world rarely hands out participation trophies. At some point, individuals must prove they can perform the tasks required of them.

Education should prepare students for that reality, not shield them from it.

That is why the University of California is now reviewing whether its testing policy should be reconsidered. Faculty leaders have launched a formal process to examine both admissions testing and the preparation students are receiving in high school.

While no decision has been made, the fact that this conversation is happening at all reflects a broader pattern: policies implemented with good intentions in the name of “equity” often produce severe consequences that are hard to correct. Unfortunately, the students who have already been negatively affected by these lowered standards won’t benefit from a policy reversal. Still, supporters of reinstating testing hope the discussion leads to changes soon enough to minimize the impact on future students and better prepare them for the challenges ahead.

California’s experiment was built on the hope that removing standardized tests would create a more equitable system. But fairness is not achieved by pretending differences in preparation do not exist. Fairness means helping students reach high standards and giving them the tools to meet those standards.

The goal of education should never be to make success easier by lowering the bar. It should be to help more students clear the bar. And sometimes, the first step toward solving a problem is being willing to measure it honestly.