UC system can’t consider SAT, ACT results, judge rules
University of California schools can no longer use SAT and ACT test results in deciding undergraduate admissions as the school system’s “test optional” policy at some of its campuses may unfairly benefit those who can access a test amid the COVID-19 pandemic, a judge ruled.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman said that “test optional” policy at some UC campuses denies students who do not submit standardized test results a “second look” during the admissions process that those who do submit the tests are afforded.
The UC system, one of the nation’s largest and most prestigious university systems, had planned to phase out its use of the SAT and ACT, announcing in May that it suspended the testing requirement for its applicants through 2024 as it looked to create its own standardized test.
The system allowed for a “test optional” policy at some campuses, which permitted students who wanted to take the SAT and ACT to submit their scores in hopes of boosting their admission chances.
Seligman said attorneys for the UC system showed that by submitting their scores, students at the “test optional” campuses “can only help, and never hurt an applicant.”
“Put another way,” Seligman wrote, “the tests are treated as a plus factor, and thus test-submitters are given a second opportunity for admission consideration.”
This “second look” unfairly harms students with disabilities who cannot access SAT and ACT tests or fair accommodations, argued lawyers seeking to eliminate the use of standardized tests.
Students with disabilities have long faced challenges in getting access to testing accommodations, Seligman noted, and the COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated those obstacles.
Though all students have had their access to testing disrupted by the pandemic, students with disabilities face greater barriers, Seligman said.
They “do not have the option to submit test scores; even if they did, their chances of obtaining necessary test accommodations are virtually non-existent. They get no second look or ‘plusfactor’ that non-disabled students are afforded in the admissions process,” Seligman wrote.
He issued a preliminary injunction in the case, barring the consideration of SAT and ACT results for all students’ admissions.
Several UC schools already had eliminated SAT and ACT scores from their admissions process, including Berkeley, Santa Cruz and Irvine. Others, including Riverside, San Diego and Los Angeles, opted for the “test optional” policy.
According to the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, an education nonprofit group, more than 60% of colleges and universities in the USA won’t require SAT and ACT test results as part of their admissions process for fall 2021. Fifty-seven campuses are “test blind,” meaning test results won’t factor into admissions decisions. Bob Schaeffer, the center’s interim executive director, said these numbers could grow as the new admissions season gets underway, and he noted some schools that require tests do not consider them when reviewing applications.
A lawsuit against the UC system was brought by five individual students and six organizations. Lawyers for the group argued that access to standardized tests discriminated based on race and class, but they primarily focused their challenge on the issue of disability.
“Judge Seligman’s historic decision puts an end to racist tests that deprived countless California students of color, students with disabilities and students from low-income families of a fair shot at admissions to the UC system,” Mark Rosenbaum, director of Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project, said in a statement. Lawyers from Public Counsel represented the group that sued.
“There’s never been such a thing as a level playing field to admissions for our most underrepresented students, but this ruling at least evened that field a significant bit,” Rosenbaum said.
In a statement provided by spokeswoman Claire Doan, the University of California system said it “respectfully disagrees” with the ruling and would consider further legal action.