More than 600 faculty in STEM fields at the University of California signed a letter asking for the restoration of the SAT or ACT for students who want to major in STEM fields, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. They complained that too many students enroll in STEM classes without adequate preparation.
Absent a test requirement, the faculty said, too many severely unprepared students were choosing STEM majors, where they were certain to fail.
It calls on university leaders to reinstate the requirement that applicants for STEM-intensive majors submit SAT or ACT math scores. In 2020, under legal pressure and equity concerns, the system eliminated that requirement and urged public colleges to start accepting more students from impoverished high schools. Critics said the testing requirement unfairly favored privileged students and wasn’t the best predictor of college success.
“The SAT/ACT mathematics requirement is not an obstacle to equity; rather, it is a prerequisite for it,” the letter, which was distributed by faculty members in the math department at the University of California at Berkeley but signed by faculty members systemwide, said.
“Failing to measure preparation gaps does not remove barriers; it moves them into the classroom, where they become harder to overcome. An admissions process that ignores foundational readiness does a disservice to the most vulnerable students.”
Without standardized-test results or other reliable readiness measures, it’s hard to know which students are actually prepared for STEM majors, the letter says.
For those of us who have criticized standardized tests, based on their inherent flaws and their current overuse, this is a reminder that these instruments are valuable for some purposes. In highly competitive fields, like the STEM subjects, it makes no sense to admit college students whose skills are inadequate to the challenge. College professors should not be expected to teach midddle-school math.
Those colleges that choose an open-admission policy are free to do so.
But where the field of study requires a certain level of preparation, students should demonstrate that they are ready and prepared as a condition of admission.
Universities that don’t like standardized tests could offer their own test.
Which brings us back to the opening of the 20th century, when a large number of colleges created the College Entry Examination Board to devise a common test that would demonstrate whether or not students were ready for college.
The Board administered a test each year that assessed students’ knowledge and ability in courses. The “college boards,” as they were known, required full answers to thoughtful questions. They were not standardized and machine-scored. Students were told in advance which works of literature would be assessed and read them to be prepared.
The “college boards” were read and scored by college and high school faculty.
The hand-written exams were replaced by the standardized exams in 1941, on Pearl Harbor day. The leaders of the CEEB sacrificed the old style exams with the onset of the war. It was a move they had wanted to make, to save money and time.
Ever since, we have struggled with the reality that some kind of test was necessary to demonstrate college readiness, alongside the awareness that the standardized tests are biased in favor of students with higher family incomes. They are also biased in favor of students who attended good schools with experienced teachers, advanced classes, and ample resources.

So, what, are they admitting students whose highest level of high school math was Algebra? I mean, can they not tell from a student’s transcript who has been prepared for college level math and science? Or are we admitting that AP classes are useless (which, admittedly, is a fair point)? Or what?
The SAT does not include science and it’s optional on the ACT. Neither test covers calculus. Why would those tests tell colleges more about a student than a transcript that shows that a student has passed classes like Calculus and Physics?
LikeLike
And, incidentally, students who have passed Calculus and Physics probably have an AP score to prove it, so, if they need a test, why is a specific AP test not a better indicator than a general test like SAT or ACT?
LikeLike
You can’t use AP scores for admission since AP exams are frequently taken in the senior year and scores aren’t released until summer.
Many schools now require students include their intended major when applying.
LikeLike
I can only speak from my experience having run an honors CS program before retiring.
There was frequently pressure to admit students who had a high overall average or even a high math average but students who didn’t meet a certain bar mathematically frequently struggled and that’s putting it mildly.
Students in CS at my former institution (honors or regular) had to take calc 1 and 2, linear, and discrete math with the last course being the course with the highest failure rate at the school. They had to take these classes early as they were prerequisites for other classes.
This meant that kids had to be ready for that level of math out the gate.
To be honest, SAT scores weren’t really helpful – more of a baseline – if a kid scored under 550 on math they would almost certainly struggle and even 600 was questionable.
A better indicator was the regents score for Algebra2/Trig. If they scored well there (on the exam, regardless of class grade) they’d likely succeed. This was combination of the rigor of the exam plus the fact that the kid had to have advanced to that level by the end of their Junior year.
A kid with a 99 math average but who topped out in Geometry (10th grade math) was a risk.
The other strong indicator was if the kid took APCS-A (not APCS-Principles which was worthless) but in that case, the class grade and the AP score was irrelevant. It was more the experience the kids had of a year of programming.
LikeLike