New York Times Editorial Board Calls UC Test-Blind Policy a Mistake Ahead of Regents Vote
The New York Times Editorial Board has called the University of California system's test-blind undergraduate admissions policy a "terrible" mistake, urging the UC Board of Regents to reverse course before the board's scheduled July 14 meeting. The editorial, published Monday, cited a sharp deterioration in the academic preparation of incoming UC students since the policy took effect in 2020.
The New York Times Editorial Board has called the University of California system's test-blind undergraduate admissions policy a "terrible" mistake, urging the UC Board of Regents to reverse course before the board's scheduled July 14 meeting. The editorial, published Monday, cited a sharp deterioration in the academic preparation of incoming UC students since the policy took effect in 2020.
The Preparedness Numbers
The Times pointed to a faculty group report from UC San Diego showing that nearly 12 percent of first-year undergraduates last fall were not qualified to take pre-calculus, compared with 0.5 percent in 2020. The editorial acknowledged that broader factors — COVID-19 school closures, artificial intelligence, and smartphone distractions — contributed to declining preparedness nationally, but argued the regression among entering UC students was larger than elsewhere, implicating the test-blind policy specifically.
The UC system adopted its test-blind approach in 2020 after voting to set aside the findings of its own Standardized Testing Task Force, an 18-member faculty committee that had studied the question for roughly a year. The group's 225-page report concluded that standardized test scores aided in predicting undergraduate grade point average, retention, and degree completion. The university proceeded with the test-blind policy regardless, in part amid the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Faculty and Former Leaders Urge Reversal
More than 2,300 UC science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty have signed a letter calling for reinstatement of testing requirements, with a separate letter drawing more than 900 signatures from humanities faculty. The STEM letter argued that obscuring preparation gaps harms students individually and the university collectively, offering the appearance of access while undermining the chance of success.
Janet Napolitano, who served as UC president in 2020 and backed the original policy, told the Times the experiment had become increasingly clear it needed to be revisited. Brown University President Christina Paxson, whose institution is among those that have since reinstated test requirements, has argued that standardized scores are better predictors of academic performance than high school grades. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Georgia Tech, Purdue, and the California Institute of Technology also now require scores.
The Regents' Decision
UC Academic Senate Chair Ahmet Palazoglu said in a statement that the faculty's Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools is leading a comprehensive, data-driven review of admissions policies. The UC system has opted so far to form a new committee rather than reverse the policy outright.
The Times Editorial Board said the regents hold the final authority and should admit the 2020 decision was a mistake when they convene July 14. Six years of declining preparation data will be on the table.