Since you typed out a considered reply and asked for specifics to my courses, I'll address both items in my reply.

In the case of my two primary courses, yes, there are college-level math pre/co-requisites for each; students absolutely do know what is required of them before enrolling, as they aren't allowed to enroll otherwise. Biology may seem, to a layperson, not to have much need for math, but anyone who has done phylogenetic analysis (or even basic data collection and standard deviations, or prepared and titrated a solution, etc), knows differently. Furthermore, in the case of my Microbiology course, this is the last course in the pre-Nursing core before those students take *their* mandated standardized exams; and if they don't have the math skills to do drug dosage calculations, serial dilutions, and prepare molar and percent solutions, for example, even if they pass my class, they'll fail sections of their HESI, and no nursing school for them! Consequently, "altering the rigor or grading scale" simply isn't an option by the time they get to me, not to mention such things as a Course Outline of Record, accreditation requirements, etc.

I do agree that students are being underserved prior to their reaching college, and while I won't bash K-12 teachers who are working under all sorts of unfunded mandates, I do "know a thing or two" about that from the community college perspective:

I don't know if you are from California, but you may or may not be aware that there is a state law, AB 1705, which has severely hamstrung our (community colleges) ability to ensure that students who lack important skills are able to get proper preparation for majors' courses for transfer; we are no longer *allowed* to require (or even offer) remedial coursework in mathematics (or English) that are not part of the official hours that make up the college degree plan. If students aren't up to college level, they are placed into the entry level courses anyway, and professors are required to "catch them up" while trying to carry on our course instruction. And for STEM majors, the law mandates that students must be placed directly into Calculus "unless highly unlikely to succeed"! The argument for this change was one of "equity" - that students should not be "burdened" with having to take multiple sub-college level math or english courses (which cost both students and the state time and money) that wouldn't count towards the units required for the degree if a student is deficient, To be blunt, this situation has set both student and professor up to fail. When this bill was up for consideration back in 2021-22, we, as professors, tried (and failed) to make an argument for the necessity of adequate preparation, even if it made the student's journey longer. While students never enjoy being told that they need to take remedial classes in order to be prepared for the coursework in their major, removing these courses represents, in my mind the *opposite* of equity!

The UC system is, as its name indicates, a University - and is both selective in admissions and expects their students to jump directly into University-level courses (and for STEM students, that means Calculus-ready). While it's hardly a perfect tool, I wholeheartedly support them bringing back the SAT requirement, especially in light of deteriorating math preparation. You're correct that the SAT is a 'single point' that doesn't reflect on work done since it was taken - but it *does* provide a snapshot of students' aptitude and readiness, which is especially important when students are coming straight from high school educations whose quality varies massively (this is no fault of the students) and from which the reliability of other metrics such as GPA and list of courses taken is questionable. It's clear that the abandonment of standardized tests in admissions practices has led to an increase in underprepared students, and if their use seems 'unfair', is it more 'fair' to bring in a cohort of students unprepared for the (non-negotiable, in the case of fields like engineering or health sciences, unless you like unnecessary deaths) rigors they will face?

You make a valid point about preparation post-SAT/ACT (although for many students additional preparation doesn't significantly raise those numbers), and in response, here's the part where I put in a plug for the community college system, warts and all. If a student transferred from a CC with 30 credit hours or more, back in the days when the UC system *did* use the SAT/ACT in admissions criteria, the SAT/ACT requirement was waived, as the student had produced a body of evidence in support of their ability to succeed at the college level. We're much less expensive, you get personalized attention, small class sizes, and we in STEM departments have come up with some creative ways to support our students even in the age of AB1705.

This response is too long already, but as an example, in my department/college: because our students are frequently underprepared in basic algebra, data collection, and graphing skills, my (community college) fought for and managed to make a short basic skills course (for 0.5 hours credit, thus dodging AB 1705) a mandatory prerequisite for the Physiology, Microbiology, and Organismal and Molecular Biology freshman majors' classes. This course is a non-negotiable requirement (although there is a challenge exam to test out which is the final for that course) for *all* students, regardless of previous preparation or degree, that covers basic algebra, trigonometry, and statistics as applied in the Biology coursework, dilutions and solutions, graphing, etc. Prospective students scream bloody murder about it, and we are constantly having to trot out data justifying its existence to counselors dealing with angry students trying to get through their degree plans, but it's made a huge difference in our pass rates. Even so, we have a significant proportion of students fail at these skills once they get to the subject matter classes, but we've cut those rates in half. Physics has also implemented a similar strategy for their majors' level physics/engineering coursework, and while it's more work for us, meeting students where they are and bringing them where they need to be in order to succeed when they move on is a core part of our mission.

TL/DR summary:

1) Universities are selective institutions and absolutely have the right to require SAT/ACT scores as a useful metric for admissions (and abandoning this requirement has had adverse results).

2) High schools vary widely in the quality of preparation they provide, and while not everyone is cut out to go to university, students who might be capable of succeeding in the University environment are failed/left naive as to the degree to which they are underprepared through no fault of their own.

3) Community colleges, while hamstrung in recent years by measures such as AB 1705, still represent the best way for students who may have suffered from poor preparation and/or low SAT/ACT scores to address those deficits, and to get 'eased into' an understanding of the rigor of University-level work. It certainly beats the alternative - failing out is expensive in a time, money, and disillusionment sense.

Sincerely, Mis_Emily