MEMORANDUM

TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:

Provost and Executive Vice President Brown
Academic Senate Chair Gauvain
BOARS Chair Comeaux
Academic Senate Vice Chair Horwitz
December 4, 2020
Feasibility of a new UC admissions test

Dear Provost Brown and Chair Gauvain,
On behalf of the Feasibility Study Work Group (FSWG), we respectfully submit arecommendation to the Feasibility Study Steering Committee (FSSC) on the viability of a new
UC test for use in freshman admissions in accordance with the Regents’ May 21, 2020 action.
The FSWG was charged with determining “whether it is possible to develop a new UC
standardized admissions test for use in freshman admission and selection that aligns with thecontent that UC expects students should have mastered and that can be implemented within theallotted timeframe [i.e., spring 2024].” The Work Group was asked to “submit arecommendation and supporting evidence to the Feasibility Study Steering Committee to informthe Committee’s recommendation to the UC President to (1) pursue a new standardized test for
use in UC freshman admissions and selection or (2) eliminate standardized testing as arequirement at UC beginning with fall 2025 admission.”
It bears noting that the context in which the FSWG carried out this charge included new
pandemic-related developments in the educational testing world. A legal injunction required all
UC campuses to immediately transition to test-free admissions for fall 2021 applicants. The State
Board of Education approved a short form of the Smarter Balanced (SB) assessment for
California’s public school students to be administered in spring 2021. These examples made the
FSWG mindful of the potential short- and long-term consequences of the pandemic on students,
particularly those with limited educational and personal resources. That said, equity concerns
were central to our discussions.
After nearly three months of deliberation, the FSWG concluded that it is feasible to modify anexisting test for use in UC freshman admissions under the parameters specified by the
Regents, President Emeritus Napolitano and Provost Brown. The FSWG recommends that UC
pursue the modification of an existing assessment — with conditions, to ensure fairness andequity.
Specifically, the FSWG recommends further exploration of the Smarter Balanced (SB)assessment for admissions purposes. Though it is outside the scope of the workgroup, it isimportant to note that about half of the members were opposed to using SB for admissions
selection. The FSWG envisions that this exploration would bring together representatives fromthe different educational segments in California as well as members of the Smarter Balanced

Assessment Consortium (SBAC) to examine the test to determine whether the instrument andoutcomes are fair and equitable for all students. To achieve this, the FSWG includes three
conditions to this exploration, which include (1) analysis of item-level data to identify bias anddisparity, (2) implementation of bias-reduction and disparity-reduction procedures, including but
not limited to the “Golden Rule” procedure, if the item-level analysis reveals significant bias anddisparity (3) continued monitoring of the effect of SB on equity and admissions outcomes if it isused in admissions and becomes a high-stakes test. Care should be taken so that a disconnect
with curriculum standards does not result. As part of its recommendation, if the conditions are
not met, then UC should not further pursue the possibility of SB for use in admissions and therecommendation would be that UC not have a standardized test for undergraduate admissions.
The following report describes the FSWG’s process, testing options considered and rationale forselection or non-selection of options, and it elaborates on the FSWG recommendation.
Additionally, the report touches briefly upon issues for further exploration and inquiry that theWork Group was unable to delve into due to the specific charge, time constraints of the study,
and the timing (spring 2024) for the implementation of any new test.
In closing, the FSWG co-chairs would like to recognize the contributions of the Work Group
members, who devoted their invaluable expertise and countless precious hours to this effort.
They actively approached the process with a deep sense of responsibility, creativity and open
minds. The co-chairs also express deep gratitude to the FSWG staff. On behalf of the FSWG, wewould also like to express our appreciation to you for serving as a resource and for theopportunity to contribute to this important decision-making process for UC admissions that could
have an impact on educational equity in California for years to come.
Respectfully,

Eddie Comeaux

Robert Horwitz

2

Report of the Feasibility Study Work Group: Feasibility of a New UC Admissions Test

FSWG process
The 18-person Feasibility Study Work Group (FSWG) met weekly for a total of 10 meetings
between September and December. Underlying the FSWG’s deliberations were criteria set by the
Regents, President Emeritus Napolitano and Provost Brown. For the purpose of the study, the
FSWG defined “feasibility” as meeting — or, with modification, the potential to meet — thesecriteria.
Feasibility Study Criteria
Fair and equitable“Reliable measurement that provides uniform assessment and should be fair acrossdemographic groups” (UC Principles for Admissions Testing)
Aligns with UC college preparation goals;
Provides feedback to students, families and schools“Measures levels of mastery of content in UC-approved high school preparatory courseworkand should provide information to students, parents and educators, enabling them to identify
academic strengths and weaknesses” (UC Principles for Admissions Testing)
Predictive of student success;Source of information not available elsewhere“Demonstrably useful in predicting student success at UC and [should] provide information
beyond that which is contained in other parts of the application” (UC Principles for Admissions
Testing)
Benefits outweigh the costs“Useful in a way that justifies its social and monetary costs” (UC Principles for Admissions
Testing)
Available for fall 2025 applicants“The new test will be implemented on an accelerated timeline so that it is in place for fall 2025
applicants.” (Regents’ action)
The FSWG consulted a variety of scholarly resources to inform its discussions and decisionmaking. Members reviewed research studies on standardized testing and technical documentsfrom existing assessments. Work Group member experts gave presentations on their research andexpertise related to specific standardized tests. The Work Group also solicited additional
information from the FSSC (e.g., College Board Landscape materials) and the Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC; e.g., preliminary cost estimates). These resources were
instrumental in guiding discussions and providing information that members needed to determine
feasibility.
3Testing options under consideration
Given the tight timeline, the group quickly narrowed the focus of the feasibility study to threetest options:
1. New UC-developed admissions test
2. No admissions test
3. An existing test in its current form or with modifications
1. New UC-developed admissions test
The Work Group eliminated the option of a new UC-developed test early on. The mostcompelling reason for removing this option was time. The Regents’ action specified that a new
test must be made available to fall 2025 applicants, necessitating implementation by spring 2024.
The Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF) estimated that it would take at least nine years todevelop a new UC assessment for admissions. As such, the FSWG concluded that it would not
be possible to develop a rigorous, large-scale admissions test that meets the BOARS testing
principles (2009) and follows the recommendations of the STTF by spring 2024.
2. No admissions test
The FSWG identified several benefits in having information available from a standardized test at
UC. The promise of aligning K–12 with UC through a standardized test that could serve a morecomprehensive process in the admission and support of high school students to UC, assesscollege and career readiness in K–12 and create the conditions for better educational preparationin California high schools was compelling.
A minority of FSWG members expressed concerns that without a test, qualified students who
test well, yet have lower GPAs, would not have the opportunity to showcase their abilities.
Additionally, in the absence of a test, admissions professionals could become over-reliant on
GPA as one of the only academic indicators in comprehensive review. Some FSWG members
worried that over-reliance on GPA could exacerbate grade inflation within K–12 schools.
Further, since grades and GPA vary from school to school, they do not provide a standardized
measurement across students of college readiness in the absence of a test. Some members of the
FSWG saw value in having an additional quantitative data point in admissions and believed that
opting not to pursue a test might be a missed opportunity.
3. An existing test in its current form or with modifications
The Work Group revisited the use of the SAT/ACT as standardized tests in admissions, but
eliminated them as viable options. The recommendation in the Regents’ Action Item specificallyphased out the SAT/ACT and indicated that if a new test is not feasible by 2025, “considerationof the SAT/ACT would still be eliminated for California students.”
While the FSWG understood that the selection of any particular test was beyond its scope,
members determined that the use of the Smarter Balanced 11th-grade summative assessment was
the most logical option for an already existing test for modification. Smarter Balanced (SB) isaligned with state curriculum standards and A-G requirements and is already administered free4

of charge to all 11th graders attending California public schools. As such, the Work Group used
SB as a case study to examine the feasibility of modifying an existing test.
SB is designed to measure cumulative knowledge and proficiency in math and English Language
Arts. Outcomes from the SB test have revealed large and persistent racial and ethnic disparitiesin scores, which are usually said to reflect inequities in K–12 schooling: under-resourced schools
in underrepresented communities which afford students relatively little access to high-quality
curriculum and teaching. The FSWG acknowledged these realities of the test and sought toexplore potential ways to mitigate these disparities.
One proposal to address the disparities problem within the framework of a test was to develop a
set of standardized performance tasks that would simulate what college demands: grasping andusing new information in academic subjects. The FSWG as a whole did not have an opportunity
to explore this proposal further with SBAC representatives. However, the SBAC representatives
did make it clear that modifications to performance tasks would be prohibitive to deliver for thefall 2025 cohort. With this constraint, one-third of FSWG members voted against recommending
use of a modified SB in the UC admission process. Their vote against further exploring SB wasin part due to the elimination of modifying performance tasks, without which it was unclear how
much of the intergroup disparities would be minimized.
The FSWG considered a range of benefits and costs associated with modifying SB for use in UC
admissions:Benefits• SB might help achieve a dual purpose: admissions support and high quality K–12 educational
preparation.
• Research findings indicate that SB offers roughly the same predictive power as high school
GPA and SAT. 1• SB is aligned to the California state content standards being taught in California’s public K–
12 schools.
• Since public school students are already taking SB as part of California’s educationaccountability program, there would be no additional financial costs to students and families.
• SB is administered during the school day, thus eliminating the need for students and families
to set additional time aside during non-school hours to take the test.
• SB may provide additional information beyond GPA as a demonstration of academic content
mastery, thus adding incremental value to the admissions process. The SB test would thus
constitute one additional data point to be considered as part of the 14 criteria used in theholistic admissions process.
• SB is a criterion-referenced test, which measures students’ mastery of curricula content.
• SB is highly accessible with multiple levels of support to ensure that all students can take thetest, including students who are English learners and students with disabilities.

1

Kurlaender, M., & Cohen, K. (2019, March). Predicting college success: How do different high school assessments
measure up? Retrieved from the Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) website athttps://edpolicyinca.org/publications/predicting-college-success-how-do-different-high-school-assessmentsmeasure-2019

5

•
•

SB is computer adaptive, which means that as students respond to questions, the test adjusts
the next set of questions based on students’ correct/incorrect answers.
SB will provide another data point that is standardized across applicants for UC campuses touse in their respective comprehensive review processes, which may provide students with anadditional opportunity to demonstrate college readiness.

Costs• The original purpose of SB was to provide aggregate-level data for local education agency(LEAs; such as schools and districts) accountability and improvement purposes at the schoollevel, not individual student achievement. Because SB was not designed as an admissions
test, its use for this purpose is potentially misaligned.
• There are clear educational inequities — e.g., resources, quality of teaching — acrossschools. Adequate funding and attention to ongoing forms of oppression in vulnerable
communities will be required.
• SB scores in grade 11 show persistent disparities between students in different racial or
ethnic categories, often presumed to reflect inequities in K–12 schooling. For instance, inmathematics, about 70 percent of students classified as Asian meet or exceed the standard,but only about 20 percent of students classified as Black or Latinx. Around 45 percent ofstudents classified as White meet the math standard.
• Augmenting or modifying the assessment to meet admissions purposes would require aheavy administrative burden that would involve multiple stakeholders and education entities.
• Augmentations or modifications would be expensive to develop and administer, potentially
increasing the time needed for schools to administer and students to complete the assessment.
Currently, the length of the 11th-grade summative assessment is 7.5 hours.
• Augmentations or modifications would require significant time to develop, pilot and fieldtest.
• If SB is used in UC admissions, it could become a high-stakes test, thus leading to the samestresses and anxiety that students experienced under the previous test regime.
• Shifting SB to a high-stakes test may lead to a new market of private, for-profit test
preparation that could further exacerbate inequity in terms of who has access to these
additional resources. This is a similar argument made in opposition to the use of the
SAT/ACT.
• Not all students have access to SB, including international students and most out-of-state
students. Private school students in California are prohibited by law from taking SB. 2 If SB
were to be adopted as a test for admission to UC, test requirements would differ for different
applicants, i.e., those from California public schools, out-of-state and international schools,
and California private schools.
• Since only public school students in California have access to SB, the incremental utility inhaving a standardized test across all applicants is diminished.
• It is unclear if SB is more equitable than previous admissions tests (SAT/ACT). Additional
item-level analyses of possible disparities due to bias across race/ethnicity and gender areadvised.
• Students can only take SB 11th-grade summative assessment once, thus foreclosing any
opportunity to retake the test and improve scores, making it more high-stakes than the
SAT/ACT, which students can retake.
2

California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). https://www.caaspp.org/faqs/all-faqs.html

6•

With UC proceeding test-free for the next few years, returning to an admissions test in 2025
could lead to additional public confusion and lack of clarity on UC admissions requirements.

Ultimately, considering the costs and benefits, the majority of the FSWG determined that it was
feasible to explore modification of an existing test, specifically SB. The opportunity to furtheralign K–12 instruction and UC preparation was compelling, and SBAC expressed willingness topartner with UC to further strengthen the test to achieve greater equity. Finally, since California
public school students already take the test, it would neither require an additional test foradmissions purposes nor cost students more money.
Use of an admissions test
While use of an admissions test exists under the ultimate purview of BOARS, the FSWG was
asked to consider what might be the appropriate use of a new or modified test in admissions. It
bears noting that, while the majority of the FSWG determined that it was feasible to modify anexisting test, there was concern about the potential application of the test exacerbating inequities
in the admissions process. As such, the use of a test in UC admissions was a topic that the groupreturned to time and again. The conversation often included low- versus high-stakes testing in an
attempt to better define what is low-stakes, what is high-stakes, how to differentiate the two, andhow an admissions test fits into this spectrum. With UC admissions, there are three ways a test
could be used, which have varying levels of low- or high-stakes:a) Taking a test (regardless of score) to be minimally eligible to apply (i.e., meetrequirements to apply)b) Taking a test, earning a score (combined with one’s high school GPA) to rank within the
top nine percent of California students according to the admissions index, andsubsequently earning guaranteed admission to UC (a.k.a. statewide guarantee)c) Taking a test and earning a score to be competitive for admission to a particular campus(i.e., selection)
The FSWG identified many different uses for an admissions test, according to the UC
admissions process. Using the SB assessment as an example, the various uses, rationales andconcerns are outlined below.
Minimum eligibility• Simply taking SB would qualify students to meet minimum eligibility. SAT/ACT-taking
were previously used in this manner.
o One concern is that test-taking, in and of itself, does not provide any data aboutcollege readiness.
• SB scores as a threshold for meeting minimum eligibility
o This would provide students and families with clearly articulated admissions
requirements.
o One concern is that this is more stringent than the previous admissions test forminimum eligibility, thus potentially creating additional barriers for students.
Statewide guarantee• Students would receive an index score based on SB scores and GPA, qualifying students
for a statewide guarantee of admissions.
7

o Statewide guarantee facilitates greater incentive for students to take the test
seriously.
o One concern is that linking the guarantee to the test elevates it to a high-stakes
test.
Selection• SB scores as one factor in the comprehensive review process. However, a majority of the
FSWG concluded that this use was not feasible under the charge of the work group.
o This could be used as an additional academic data point in admissions and could
be used to validate the GPA.
o Aggregate SB averages at the school level could provide context andenvironmental data related to factors that enhance or impinge on student
opportunities.
o One concern is that using SB for admissions selection, a purpose for which it was
not originally designed, may decrease its usefulness as a data point.
o Another concern is the use of SB in selection shifts it to high-stakes.
Other potential uses
• SB scores as one of multiple measures for course placemento This would keep the test low-stakes but would be useful to UC, therefore
supporting K–12 and UC alignment.
o One concern was that SB was validated as an assessment instrument for a specificpurpose, thus using SB for a different purpose needs to be thoroughly evaluated.
o Another concern was that students enroll in classes on their own without
guidance, thus rendering the placement obsolete.
• SB scores as a way to identify students for opportunities and additional programming,such as Summer Bridgeo This would keep the test low-stakes but would help identify students who might
benefit from additional opportunities.
• SB scores to identify the types of supports students might need from UC to beacademically successfulo This would keep the test low-stakes but would support students and their success
at UC.
• SB scores to provide career and occupational advice, including high school course
planningo This would support students’ trajectory through and beyond UC and benefit
students’ future planning.
The group discussed the use of a test at length and in depth, yet there was disagreement on theappropriate utilization of a standardized test in admissions. In fact, while supportive of exploring
SB for use in admissions, about half of the Work Group members were steadfast in theiropposition to its use as a tool for selection.
Questions to inform future action
While the FSWG identified SB as the most logical assessment for modification because of thepromise of the dual purpose of admissions support and high-quality K–12 educational
preparation, there is much that is still unknown. To guide the continued exploration into using
SB for UC admissions, several questions and lines of inquiry should be pursued further:
8

•
•
•

Since SB was not developed for admissions purposes, there presently exist no data on
predictive validity in the context of admissions for college student success, thus
additional research would be needed over time.
The extent to which, if at all, the assessment is biased among different racial/ethnic andsocioeconomic groups overall and at the item level is also unclear and warrants further
investigation.
UC admissions is test free until fall 2025, and the implications of the loss of this factor
for consideration in admissions and in ultimate UC undergraduate student outcomes areunclear and should be examined as well.

These questions are not exhaustive, and additional thought should be given to other important
issues that would inform future exploration of SB as an admissions tool.
Issues for further consideration and inquiry
During the discussions, innovative ideas and suggestions arose that merit further consideration as
UC weighs the evidence for or against the use of a standardized test for undergraduate
admissions. The limited scope and timeframe of the Feasibility Study prevented further
investigation into these possibilities, but the opportunities are worth mentioning for future
consideration.
The FSWG expressed interest in developing measures that capture important student
characteristics beyond what is already examined in the admissions criteria. These characteristics
have important relationships with educational success and life outcomes. For instance, there wasinterest in measuring psychosocial factors such as intellectual curiosity, resilience andindependence. Additionally, members were interested in improved admissions tools as well, suchas revised letters of recommendation, situational judgment assessments, better measures ofstudent accomplishments and structured interviews. These types of measures have the potential
to lower disparate impact across groups while also serving to help admissions officers
understand the whole student.
The FSWG also explored the creation of computer-adaptive performance tasks on the SBassessment that measure students’ proficiency in grasping and using new information, given thestudents’ level of prior knowledge. It is possible that these redesigned performance tasks might
reduce intergroup disparities in scores, while simulating what college students must do: grasp
and use new information in academic domains.
Finally, working with SBAC, the CDE and the State Board of Education (SBE) provides UC
with an opportunity not only to align K–12 and UC curriculum with admissions, but also tocreate information and data pathways where UC could have access to valuable information on
California public school students. This type of information could be used to better serve K–12
students and facilitate smoother pathways to and through UC.
Recommendation
After determining that modifying an existing test was feasible, the FSWG developed arecommendation that incorporates the knowledge and information gained from this process and9group discussions. Since the group examined SB as an example of an already existing test, one
logical next step is to move forward in considering this assessment for UC admissions.
The recommendation is for UC to move forward to explore the use of SB in admissions, withspecific conditions related to maintaining and increasing equity:• UC partners with SBAC and the California Department of Education to secure access toitem-level data in order to conduct independent analyses to determine if there are any
biases or disparities in the individual questions.
• UC implements bias-reduction and disparity-reduction procedures, such as the “Golden
Rule,” at the item level if significant bias or disparities are detected. 3• UC continues to monitor the effect of SB on equity and admissions outcomes if it is usedin admissions and becomes a high-stakes test.
As part of its recommendation, the FSWG indicated that if the conditions were not met, then UC
should not pursue the possibility of SB further. Instead, UC would eliminate the testing
requirement for freshman admissions altogether and adopt the third option — no admissions test
— in the Regents’ charge.

3

Golden Rule Life Ins. Co. v. Washburn, No. 419-76 (Cir. Ct. Sangamon County, Ill., settled Nov. 20, 1984);
Weiss, J. (1987). The Golden Rule bias reduction principle: A practical reform. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, 6(2), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1987.tb00408.x

10