I doubt the Regents will go for it. Too many schools that are not test blind are test optional. With test optional and super score/ multiple sittings at the upper end of students it’s too easy to score in the 1500s. This inflates other schools perceived caliber of students. The students with low scores just apply test optional. There truly is no point to being test optional beyond trying to falsely market the strength of your students,

1. AOs aren’t passing over kids with 5s on multiple of the harder APs or honors DE because they couldn’t see their SAT scores! They aren’t thinking that the kid with the lower GPA and less competitive ECs and trauma story PIQ is academically more capable than the previous student just because they didn’t see SAT scores. AOs will at best treat it as a floor and set the floor as low as they can go, so they can pick who they want regardless of academic capability and skill.

2. If they require it, there will be screams from the public high schools. It’s expensive and a PITA for the schools to hold the tests. If it’s in schools, the school has to pay for proctors. Cheating on the SAT is a nightmare and rampant still. Schools do not want to deal with this multiple times a year. Our school didn’t even offer the PSAT for 10 th graders and no other school within an hour drive allowed outside students to attend their location. There were no private test sites offering the PSAT and we weren’t flying out of state for it, so kids only took it once junior year.

3. The faculty demand for SATs is most likely an attempt to gather more data to push back on the bigger issue of maintaining the UC research mission. You shouldn’t be going to a UC to become an accountant, marketing professional , teacher, nurse, business admin, dental hygienist, work in hospitality, run a small business, or do applied STEM. This is Cal states mission not UC. If you want to become a research scientist, go to medical, law or graduate school etc then UC is the right place. The AOs are admitting far too many kids who have zero interest in what the UCs offer and no ability to navigate it.

6/2 05:30 update: over 1,250 have signed, including
7 of the 9 Chairs of UC Mathematics Departments
Plus an additional 45 STEM department chairs

This is one area where I like how the UK system compares to the US. They evaluate you primarily on how you performed in subjects/tests based on your intended major. For STEM students, it makes absolute sense that there is a base level of proficiency in math skills. My DD (humanities major) had a large discrepancy in verbal and math portion (780 verbal, 690 math). She only took it once and did not want to prep more to increase her math score and we didn't really push it.

She went test optional to her competitive ED choice and was admitted but I seriously doubt that this will affect her performance in college bc she does not plan to take and is not required to take advanced math for her major.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standardized testing in the UC admissions process would have helped in my house!

1600 SAT score (single attempt) and 14 scores of 5 on AP exams (14/14) didnt enter the equation, so my UC kid was extremely lucky to get in with his 3.7 unweighted GPA.

Like California beaches at times, I see a red flag warning.

DP, but why is a 3.7 unweighted GPA a red flag? Perhaps his school grade deflates?

Extremely competitive and highly ranked public HS, but not necessarily a grade deflation environment. Instead, I chalked it up - mostly - to the circumstances I shared just prior to this post.

Regardless, it was a rude comment. I really don’t understand why people feel the need to bash others. I think your DC sounds great!

Thank you for the kind words.

I didn’t interpret the red flag comment as a rude reply because, honestly, I always worried that the disconnect between his standardized test results and GPA would be viewed as a red flag by some admissions committees.

I’m sure it was. He was very fortunate to land where he did, and he thankfully had a few other options, but it was a bit of a bloodbath, too. He aimed high, so the rejection letters / portal announcements were inevitable.

But it seems to have worked out in the end. So I’m ultimately thankful for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standardized testing in the UC admissions process would have helped in my house!

1600 SAT score (single attempt) and 14 scores of 5 on AP exams (14/14) didnt enter the equation, so my UC kid was extremely lucky to get in with his 3.7 unweighted GPA.

Like California beaches at times, I see a red flag warning.

DP, but why is a 3.7 unweighted GPA a red flag? Perhaps his school grade deflates?

Extremely competitive and highly ranked public HS, but not necessarily a grade deflation environment. Instead, I chalked it up - mostly - to the circumstances I shared just prior to this post.

Regardless, it was a rude comment. I really don’t understand why people feel the need to bash others. I think your DC sounds great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Standardized testing in the UC admissions process would have helped in my house!

1600 SAT score (single attempt) and 14 scores of 5 on AP exams (14/14) didnt enter the equation, so my UC kid was extremely lucky to get in with his 3.7 unweighted GPA.

Like California beaches at times, I see a red flag warning.

There were a couple of mitigating factors (boy, serious sports-related injuries that resulted in focus issues, irritability, photophobia, etc. as an underclassman), and I’ll also add that his GPA in those 14 AP classes was around 4.95 as his grades thankfully trended up after an imperfect start.

But yes, the overall u/w GPA wasn’t pretty. Thankfully, he ended up where he wanted to be.

You needn’t defend your DC’s 3.7 (albeit I did, haha). That comment was simply rude.