The Return of Testing: Why Schools and Programs Should Prepare for Tighter SAT/ACT Policies

The biggest testing story in college admissions right now is not that another Ivy League school has brought back the SAT or ACT.

It is that the University of California is formally revisiting the role of standardized testing.

That does not mean the UC has changed its admissions policy. It has not. The UC remains test free for admissions: the system states that it no longer considers SAT or ACT scores when making admissions decisions or awarding scholarships, although scores may still be used after enrollment for eligibility or placement purposes.

But in June 2026, the UC Academic Senate announced a formal process to review admissions policies, including whether standardized tests should play a role in first-year admissions. The same review will also examine the UC’s A-G course requirements, with UC leadership citing college readiness as a growing concern. Any actual policy change would still require faculty review, stakeholder consultation, UC leadership consideration, and approval by the UC Board of Regents.

For families, the takeaway is not “UC requires testing.” It does not.

The takeaway is more important: even the most prominent test-free university system in the country is now asking whether admissions offices have enough reliable academic information without standardized testing.

That does not mean UC testing is back. It does mean that testing policy is not settled.

The likely direction: continued tightening

The prudent institutional assumption is that testing policies will continue tightening over the next several admissions cycles.

That tightening will not be universal. Most colleges remain test optional or test free. FairTest reports that more than 90% of ranked U.S. four-year colleges and universities will not require ACT or SAT scores for Fall 2026.

But a “mostly test optional” landscape is not the same as a “testing does not matter” landscape.

The more likely future is fragmented. Some colleges will remain test free. Many will remain test optional. Selective institutions, STEM-heavy programs, flagship publics, honors colleges, scholarship programs, and direct-admit majors may increasingly require, recommend, or reward strong test scores.

That is already happening.

Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Penn, Caltech, Stanford, and UT Austin have reinstated or announced SAT/ACT requirements in some form. Princeton and Columbia have announced future returns to required testing.

For institutions serving students at scale, the operational risk is clear: if schools and programs assume testing is irrelevant, students with private counseling will still prepare, while students without that support may lose options.

Why UC’s review matters for equity and access

UC’s scale makes this issue especially consequential.

For Fall 2025, UC reported nearly 250,000 total applications, including more than 205,000 first-year applications. Among first-year California applicants, 41.4% were from low-income backgrounds and 42.2% were first-generation college applicants.

A change in UC policy would affect a large and diverse applicant pool. But even without a policy change, UC’s review reflects a broader institutional concern: how should colleges evaluate academic readiness when students come from thousands of high schools with different grading practices, course offerings, academic supports, and levels of college counseling?

The issue is not theoretical. At UC San Diego, a faculty-administration working group reported a steep decline in academic preparation over a five-year period, especially in math. The report stated that the number of incoming students assessed below high-school-level math rose sharply between 2020 and 2025 and recommended that UC San Diego’s representative to the systemwide admissions committee advocate for a reexamination of standardized testing across UC.

That kind of finding is exactly why testing is reentering the policy conversation.

Admissions offices are being asked to admit broad, diverse, academically prepared classes in an environment where high school grades are harder to interpret, course rigor varies substantially, and many students have uneven access to advanced coursework.

The evidence base is shifting the conversation

The return of testing is not simply nostalgia for the pre-pandemic admissions model.

Many institutions are making data-driven arguments that test scores, when read in context, can improve academic evaluation.

Dartmouth reinstated testing after internal research found that high school grades paired with standardized testing were the most reliable indicators of success in Dartmouth’s curriculum.

Dartmouth also argued that testing could help identify high-achieving students from low- and middle-income backgrounds, first-generation students, and students from rural or under-resourced schools.

Brown returned to required testing after a review of its admissions data and stated that test scores can provide useful information when considered in context rather than used as a mechanical cutoff.

UT Austin reinstated testing after four years of test-optional admissions. The university’s president cited the large number of applicants with high GPAs and argued that standardized scores, considered with GPA, improve early identification of academically prepared students.

External research is pointing in the same direction. A 2025 Opportunity Insights paper studying Ivy-Plus colleges found that SAT and ACT scores had substantial predictive power for first-year college GPA. A 2025 ACT research report found that high school GPA remains important but that grade inflation can weaken its usefulness as a predictor, especially when GPAs are interpreted without additional measures.

A 2025 College Board Admissions Research Consortium report also found that test scores were strong predictors of first-year college outcomes, including grades, credit accumulation, and retention, and that the relationship persisted even after controlling for high school GPA.

For institutional leaders, the implication is not that tests should dominate admissions. The implication is that students need access to testing strategy because many colleges are again treating scores as meaningful academic evidence.

Student behavior is changing before policies fully change

Formal requirements are only part of the story. Applicant behavior is already shifting.

Common App reported more than 10 million applications in the 2024–25 season, the first time its application volume exceeded that threshold. In that same cycle, the number of applicants reporting test scores increased by 12%, while the number not reporting scores decreased by less than 1%. Common App also noted that this was the first season since 2021–22 in which score reporters grew faster than non-reporters.

SAT and ACT participation also remain substantial. College Board reported that more than 2 million students in the Class of 2025 took the SAT, with 97% testing digitally and 68% testing through school-day administrations. ACT reported that 1.4 million students in the Class of 2025 took the ACT, representing 36% of the graduating class.

The market signal is clear: even in a test-optional environment, large numbers of students are still testing, and more applicants are choosing to report scores.

Students with strong advising understand why. Scores may be required at some institutions, useful at others, irrelevant at test-free schools, and strategically valuable for scholarships, honors programs, direct-admit majors, or selective public flagships.

That is a complicated message. It is also exactly the kind of message institutions need to make clear for students and families.

The institutional risk: letting testing become hidden curriculum again

The danger is not simply that some students will test and others will not.

The danger is that testing strategy will become another hidden curriculum.

Students with private resources will know when to test, which test to take, how to prepare, whether to retest, how to interpret superscoring, and when to submit scores. Students without those resources may hear “test optional” and reasonably conclude that testing can be ignored.

That conclusion may close doors.

For a student applying only to test-free institutions, skipping the SAT or ACT may be appropriate. But for a student applying to selective colleges, honors programs, competitive majors, merit scholarships, or colleges that may change policies during the student’s high school career, the absence of a testing plan can become a liability.

Schools and programs should not tell every student to test in the same way. They should build systems that allow every student to make an informed decision.

What a modern SAT/ACT strategy should include

A strong institutional testing model should begin with policy literacy.

Students and families need to understand the difference between test required, test optional, test flexible, and test free. Those categories have different consequences. They also change by institution, application cycle, program, and sometimes applicant type.

The next layer is diagnostic infrastructure. A full-length diagnostic helps students determine whether the SAT or ACT is the better fit, establishes a baseline, identifies skill gaps, and gives counselors more useful advising data. For schools and programs, diagnostics also provide aggregate insight into cohort readiness.

Instruction should then be targeted rather than generic. The SAT is now digital and administered through College Board’s Bluebook platform. The ACT is also changing, with the enhanced ACT moving to a Composite score based on English, math, and reading while science is reported separately. Current test prep needs to reflect the current exams.

Finally, institutions need a retesting and advising protocol. Students should know when a first score is strong enough, when a retake is justified, how to use superscoring where available, and how to make submission decisions in a test-optional environment.

A scalable institutional calendar

A practical model can begin in sophomore year with student and family education. The goal is not intensive test prep. The goal is awareness: what testing is, how policies are changing, and why students should not wait until senior fall to think about the SAT or ACT.

Junior year should include diagnostics, test selection, targeted instruction, and at least one official testing opportunity before the spring rush. Students applying to selective colleges, direct-admit programs, honors colleges, or scholarship-heavy lists may need a second official attempt before senior year begins.

Summer before senior year should focus on score review, college-list alignment, policy verification, and final preparation where appropriate.

Senior fall should not be the moment when a student discovers that a target institution requires a score.

Equity requires access, not avoidance

There is a real equity concern around testing. Test preparation, registration logistics, transportation, fee waivers, accommodations, and advising access are all unevenly distributed.

But the solution is not to pretend testing no longer matters.

The solution is to make testing strategy accessible.

That means school-day diagnostics where possible, clear family communication, fee-waiver guidance, test-date planning, accommodations support, differentiated instruction, and advising that helps students decide whether a score strengthens an application.

When testing is ignored institutionally, families with private advising fill the gap. When testing is addressed systematically, more students get access to the same strategic information.

How Tried & True Education supports this work

Tried & True Education is built to help schools and programs respond to this changing landscape.

For institutional SAT and ACT programs, Tried & True Education offers presentations for first-time college-bound students and families, diagnostic tests with detailed reports, SAT and ACT classes customized to program needs, refresher courses, and foundational pre-test-prep support. Tried & True Education’s SAT and ACT courses can also be tailored to student score levels, with diagnostics used to identify needs and customize instruction.

That flexibility matters. Some cohorts need policy education. Some need a diagnostic day. Some need a six-week SAT course. Some need ACT instruction. Some need math or reading foundations before formal test prep begins. Some need a senior-year refresher before one final official test date.

The right institutional response is not one-size-fits-all testing.

It is a clear, data-informed, equitable system that helps students preserve options.

The bottom line

The return of testing is not a simple return to the old admissions model.

The UC has not reinstated testing. Most colleges are still test optional or test free. But the direction of travel is changing. UC is formally reviewing testing. Highly selective colleges are reinstating requirements. Major public institutions are reconsidering the role of scores. Applicants are reporting scores at higher rates. Research is renewing the argument that test scores, used contextually, can add meaningful academic information.

For schools and programs, the responsible prediction is that testing policies will continue tightening over the next few years.

That does not call for panic.

It calls for infrastructure.

Students need accurate information. Families need clear guidance. Counselors need usable data. Programs need scalable models. And students without private advising need institutional support so that testing does not become another hidden advantage.

Testing is returning. The question now is whether schools and programs will prepare students for that reality before policy changes force the issue