A group of over 600 professors throughout the University of California called for the SAT or ACT to return as an admissions requirement for science, technology, engineering and mathematics majors beginning in fall 2027. Their open letter argued that six years without test scores had left campuses unable to assess mathematical readiness consistently.
The effort was led by mathematicians at UC Berkeley and addressed to senior university officials. Signatories also sought formal authority for STEM faculty over readiness standards in their disciplines. They said some instructors were having to revisit middle-school mathematics while teaching university courses in fields that depend on quantitative skills.
The letter cited diagnostic results from Berkeley’s first-semester calculus program. From fall 2021 through fall 2023, at least 20% of tested students showed deficits, according to the faculty account. Zvezda Stankova, a Berkeley teaching professor and lead organizer, described a spring 2023 Calculus II class in which 25% to 30% of students were severely unprepared.
A separate UC San Diego Academic Senate working-group report added another warning. It documented an approximately thirtyfold rise from 2020 to 2025 in incoming first-year students assessed below high-school mathematics. Of that group, 70% tested below middle-school levels.
UC’s regents voted unanimously in May 2020 to suspend SAT and ACT requirements and remove them entirely by 2025. Supporters cited unequal access to test preparation and concerns about bias against lower-income applicants and students of color. A California court injunction later forced the university to stop considering scores sooner than planned. Scores may still be submitted for placement after admission decisions.
The faculty demand remained contested. Saul Geiser, affiliated with UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education, issued a report in September 2025 that called the SAT unsuitable for public universities. He argued that high-school grade-point average predicted first-year performance better after controlling for income and race, and that score-based rankings disadvantaged some high-achieving applicants from underrepresented or lower-income backgrounds.
Stankova offered the opposite equity case, saying admission without adequate preparation could set disadvantaged students up to fail. Earlier UC Academic Senate work had also concluded that scores could help admission rates for students from disadvantaged schools and predicted college performance better than grades, though UC gave grades greater weight.
University leaders had not endorsed the new letter. Spokesperson Rachel Zaentz said UC would work with schools and higher education partners on instruction and support. Academic Senate chair Ahmet Palazoglu said the systemwide admissions board was developing a policy roadmap.
The proposal was therefore a faculty request, not an adopted rule. It placed documented preparation concerns against unresolved arguments over prediction, access and fairness, with UC’s review process still ahead.
