California sociology professor cited ‘irony’ in removing ACT/SAT not fixing racial disparities as intended
A UCLA sociology professor has joined calls to restore the SAT and ACT within the University of California system, arguing that its test-blind admissions policy has not reduced racial disparities as intended. He described the outcome as ironic, saying the policy may instead leave universities with less reliable information about applicants’ academic preparedness.
The intervention aligns with criticism from some faculty members, including academics in STEM subjects, who say increasing numbers of students arrive insufficiently prepared for university-level work. Supporters of test-blind admissions have sought to limit the influence of standardised testing, while critics argue that well-designed use of scores could help identify disadvantaged but high-achieving applicants.
- UCLA professor urges restoring SAT and ACT consideration.
- He says test-blind admissions failed to narrow disparities.
- Faculty warn some students are underprepared for university.
New here? Start with this
The University of California is a public university system whose campuses, including UCLA, admit students from across the state and beyond. For many years, applicants could submit SAT or ACT scores as part of their applications; the tests assess skills such as reading, writing and maths.
The system stopped considering these scores in admissions, a policy known as test-blind. Supporters say standardised tests can reflect unequal access to schooling and preparation, while critics argue that scores may offer useful evidence of a student’s academic readiness.
The debate concerns how universities can assess applicants fairly while preparing students for degree-level study. It also raises questions about whether changing admissions rules can reduce racial disparities, which reflect broader differences in educational opportunity.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those advocating test restoration argue the policy has failed its primary objective of reducing racial disparities, suggesting a need to reconsider the approach. They contend that properly utilised test scores can help identify talented disadvantaged applicants who might otherwise be overlooked, whilst also providing universities with meaningful data about academic preparedness—a concern particularly voiced by STEM faculty who report students arriving insufficiently equipped for advanced coursework. This position rests on the idea that tests, when used as one component among many, offer objective information that can support rather than hinder equity goals.
The case against
Defenders of test-blind admissions argue that standardised tests have long exhibited systemic biases reflecting family resources, test-preparation access, and cultural factors—problems that cannot be solved by better usage of scores. They contend that attributing persistent disparities to the removal of tests misidentifies root causes lying in broader opportunity gaps and K-12 funding inequalities, which tests themselves did not address. From this view, restoring tests risks reintroducing barriers that disproportionately affect disadvantaged students, even if presented as tools to identify talent, and the policy deserves more time to demonstrate its effects.