STTF Report
The STTF offered a series of recommendations about the overall role of standardized testing in
UC undergraduate admissions. The Academic Council made its recommendation to the
Assembly after finding strong and consistent support across campus reviewers for the STTF
report. As you can see from the campus reviews, the Academic Senate is committed to the
undergraduate mission and greater access for applicants who have not been able to access the
University in the past. The Senate is also sensitive to public concerns and assumptions that
standardized tests are intrinsically discriminatory and advantage higher income students. It also
understands that data-based decision-making about academic promise should be balanced by a
broad consideration of how the University’s purpose, goals, and missions are best served.
The Assembly was persuaded by the analyses conducted by members of the STTF which
demonstrated, perhaps counter-intuitively, that UC’s use of standardized test scores within
their local context protects the admission eligibility of the very populations about whom
there is concern, and ensures that under-represented, low-income, historically minoritized,
and other similar populations are eligible for admission at UC.
Assembly members were convinced by the report’s conclusion that the University uses
standardized tests responsibly and appropriately by considering scores in context, through an
inclusive review process that embraces a broad definition of academic promise. Assembly was
also persuaded by evidence that standardized tests have value above and beyond other metrics;
that other pre-college factors – including availability and fulfillment of A-G subject requirements
– explain the substantial variance in the eligibility of applicants, and their success at UC
thereafter; and that the major barrier to college access is not the SAT/ACT, but access to quality
education and resources at the K-12 level. In addition, in light of the compelling evidence in the
report about the value of UC’s holistic approach for undergraduate admissions, there was a keen
sentiment that all campuses should adopt holistic review in their admissions processes.
The STTF Recommendation (#2) to expand the ELC (Eligibility in the Local Context) pathway
suggests a need for the University to boost its post-matriculation support, particularly in light of
the fact that ELC students are more likely to be members of underrepresented groups. Alongside
their support for this recommendation, Assembly members were simultaneously concerned that
an enrollment increase could over-burden campuses, many of whom are already beyond their
enrollment capacity. To that end, Assembly feels that if the University is to serve
disadvantaged students with the high-quality education for which it is renowned, it is
critically important for the state to support all enrollment increases with additional
funding.
Recommendation #3 calls on UC to further examine factors central that account for the:
disproportionate declines in representation of students who belong to populations
that have historically been excluded from higher education opportunity… [For
example] differences in A-G completion rates across schools … reduce the yield
of students through ELC. (STTF Report January 2020: p.6)
Assembly welcomed this recommendation to achieve greater equity of access to UC, because
such analysis could offer ideas for further modifications to the UC admissions process.
STTF recommendation (#4) to expand student academic support services for students who would
benefit from such support, and to obtain updated item-level data to test for bias (#5) received
broad support at Assembly. The former is particularly important given UC’s role, as a public