California State University’s decision to drop SAT and ACT requirements has set off alarms on campus as professors report students arriving without basic skills. Faculty say inclusivity was used as the justification, but the result looks like higher dropout rates and students who are demoralized and unprepared for college work. The debate now centers on accountability, realistic measures of preparedness, and sensible alternatives like community college remediation.
One long-time professor describes a class of students who struggle with very basic math, saying “I teach a class that is offered for non-economics majors,” and that even a simple index card could list the math needed. Many of these students tell her directly, “I never learned this stuff, I don’t know how to calculate a percentage change.” Those are not anecdotes about a few isolated cases; department leaders report rising drop rates that are hard to ignore.
The professor reports the drop rate is up “phenomenally,” and chairs across departments confirm that roughly a quarter of students are abandoning classes. Math is highlighted as a recurring problem area, with students failing to meet expectations set by middle school curricula. When basic skills are missing, students arrive at university under false impressions and quickly confront tough realities.
“I can show them, but those are the students who are actually coming to me and asking me for help. There are lots of other students who are just too embarrassed even to do that, and who just end up dropping the class.” That admission captures the painful gap between perceived readiness and actual ability. Embarrassment and shame are quietly pushing students out, which is the opposite of what policy makers promised.
The rationale offered publicly for removing standardized tests was to be “inclusive” and to “level the playing field.” That language sounds good, but when inclusivity means admitting students who lack essential preparation, it becomes a hollow claim. One professor says plainly, “I am definitely for inclusivity on our campus,” and then challenges the idea that admitting unprepared students without clear supports equals opportunity.
There is real tension between access and readiness, and good intentions do not replace honest measurement. “Access without readiness is not opportunity,” the professor wrote, and that sentence cuts to the core of the argument conservatives are making: opportunity must come with accountability. If students are set up to fail, the campus has not widened a path to success so much as created a trap.
Admissions offices argued that high school GPA and course-taking provide enough signal about preparedness, but high schools vary enormously. Some students earn As in classes that do not actually teach the fundamentals, and then they hit university courses and cannot perform basic tasks. The result is students who believed they were ready and discover they are at the bottom of the ability distribution for critical subjects.
“Pretending preparation gaps do not exist is not equity,” the professor warned, and that warning echoes a practical, conservative view: equal treatment means measuring readiness and responding with real solutions. A blunt look at outcomes shows more students struggling, more withdrawals, and longer paths to degrees if there is no meaningful assessment that flags gaps early. Republicans who care about both access and results will press for policies that do both.
The community college system in California remains a practical tool to bridge these gaps, and the professor encourages it as a responsible first step. She urges students to “Go into the community system and take the lowest level English class you can so that you can write a sentence, you can write a paragraph, you could make an argument.” Conservative leaders should promote pathways that restore skills without throwing students into courses they are not ready for.
There is a simple, conservative case for measured standards: use diagnostics to identify gaps and require remediation before students are expected to succeed at four-year institutions. “There’s no reason not to use an SAT as a filter to let students know whether they’re prepared for college-level work or not,” the professor said, and that view aligns with practical accountability rather than ideological purity. A test should be one tool among several to protect students from avoidable failure.
Policymakers and university leaders who want genuine inclusion should fund and expand preparatory programs, not just lower entry requirements and hope for the best. Conservative policy favors clear signals, honest feedback, and routes that let students build the skills they lack without shame. If colleges truly want to serve students, they must measure preparedness and act to close gaps before students accrue debt and despair.
