Apodaca: The unwelcome return of the SAT. And bias.

When I think about the SAT, I’m tempted to resort to analogies used to describe things we imagine will survive in a post-apocalyptic world: Zombies. Cockroaches. Toenail fungus.

Too harsh? Consider that the longstanding king of college admissions tests at one point in the not-so-distant past appeared to be headed for extinction.

But no matter how many wounds were inflicted, the SAT has recovered to the point that the UC system — a huge and influential holdout among top-tier universities — is now engaged in a will-they-or-won’t-they drama over a push to bring back the requirement for undergraduate applicants to submit scores from the SAT or the rival ACT.

It remains unclear how this will be decided. But it appears likely the UCs will bow to pressure and restore the requirement, a move that would be of consequence to thousands of high school students throughout Orange County who have their sights set on a UC education.

As a longtime critic of the SAT, I would consider that a sad outcome — not because standardized testing lacks usefulness, but because it would be an attempt at a quick fix that would do nothing to address the underlying problems in education.

Let’s examine how we got to this point. First, a brief delve into the long and tortuous history of the SAT.

The emergence of standardized college entrance exams in the United States can be traced to the earliest days of the 20th century, a development that was motivated by a desire to encourage boarding schools to adopt uniform curriculum. It was soon followed by the invention of “IQ” tests, which purportedly measured innate intelligence and which had overtly racist and elitist foundations.

That led to an effort in the 1920s to develop a new test for screening college applicants. Thus was born what we know of today as the SAT, which was promoted as a means to test college readiness in a meritocratic way, but again, was actually riddled with bias. The test’s founder even said he believed white people were naturally smarter.

The Ivy League colleges began requiring the SAT in the 1930s, but the big boost, ironically, came in 1960 when the UCs, the heavyweights among public universities, adopted the requirement. Thus, the SAT became a mainstay of the college admissions process, and its parent, the College Board, gained enormous power.

Also ironic is that the SAT has undergone many iterations and conflicting rationale for what the test is supposed to measure. There were sections removed, reinstated and rethought; essays were in and out, and various attempts to address bias have ensued. Even some of its staunchest backers eventually conceded that it wasn’t an intelligence test, a point that became glaringly evident when students who could afford it improved their scores through prep classes and private tutoring.

The name itself reeks of irony. SAT once stood for Scholastic Aptitude Test, but when it became apparent it didn’t measure innate intelligence, it became the Scholastic Assessment Test. In the 1990s, that name was dropped. Now it’s just “SAT,” an acronym for nothing.

That dubious history, along with rising concerns over the SAT’s outsized importance in college admissions, led to calls to reduce its influence or ditch it entirely. The ACT was a rising competitor, and more universities chose to go test-optional. As the 2000s progressed, the SAT’s relevance was increasingly questioned.

Then, in 2020, the UC system delivered a heavy blow when it controversially ended its SAT/ACT requirement, a decision that rocked higher education and stoked speculation that the SAT’s reign was finally coming to an end. UC’s intention was to develop its own admissions test — a good idea which, unfortunately, hasn’t happened.

Now thousands of UC faculty are agitating to bring the tests back, arguing that students have been arriving on campus with deficient math skills. The UC Board of Regents recently said it would decide by next June whether to reinstate the SAT and ACT requirement.

If it does, it might be looked at as a way to address the math problem. But in truth, it wouldn’t fix anything. It would only exacerbate inequality by bringing back a means of excluding applicants through a test with a long history of elitist and racist underpinnings.

Instead of looking for ways to screen out students who haven’t been given a solid educational foundation, greater effort must be made to address the deeper, more difficult issues. Too many kids live in poverty, instability, and under-resourced communities. They go to schools that are demonstrably inferior to those in more affluent areas.

They are also the ones that were most damaged by the COVID pandemic’s learning losses. They need support, not another way to stack the deck against them.

More recently, the UCs indicated they would also reevaluate course requirements to address the issue of college readiness. That make sense, but it raises an important question: Will all students have ready access to those classes, and will they be the same level of quality?

As for standardized testing, there’s no doubt that it has value. But these tests should be used in an affirmative manner, to identify learning gaps and better target resources, extend access to educational pathways, and expand opportunities, not limit them.

But that’s hard work. Bringing back a test that no one really likes is easy.

SAT, we just can’t seem to quit you.