UC Admissions Testing Debate Intensifies Amid Claims of 'Junk Science' in Influential Analysis

A prominent psychometric analysis shaping University of California (UC) admissions policy has drawn sharp criticism, with a recent social media post alleging that the research is "junk science" based on "serious errors" and "cherry-picked stats." The critique targets the work of Saul Geiser, a research associate at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley, whose findings have been instrumental in the UC system's decision to phase out standardized tests.

Garry Tan, a notable figure, stated in a tweet, "> Critics rip Geiser for cherry-picking stats and ignoring basic psychometrics. Real experts say his analysis has serious errors and omits key evidence—but UC uses it to justify bad policy. Total junk science." This public condemnation highlights a growing divide regarding the methodological soundness of the research underpinning UC's admissions reforms. Geiser's work has consistently argued that standardized tests like the SAT and ACT possess limited predictive validity for student success at UC and disproportionately disadvantage underrepresented minority and low-income applicants.

Geiser, a former director of admissions research for the UC system, has published extensive analyses detailing how SAT/ACT scores are strongly correlated with socioeconomic background and race. His research has cited psychometric concerns such as "differential prediction," where tests predict academic performance less accurately for certain demographic groups, and "differential item functioning," indicating test questions may perform differently across groups. These findings contributed to the UC Regents' 2020 decision to phase out the SAT and ACT in university admissions.

The controversy underscores the complex challenges faced by the UC system, particularly in light of Proposition 209, which prohibits race-conscious admissions. Geiser has previously contended that "race-blind implies test-blind admissions," suggesting that without the ability to consider race as a contextual factor, the university should not rely on tests that exhibit racial disparities. The recent criticism, however, suggests that not all experts agree with Geiser's interpretation or methodology, implying an ongoing academic and policy debate over the future of admissions testing.