Beyond the Numbers: Placing Math Preparation in Context

Statistics are powerful, but context is crucial. Without it, numbers can be meaningless at best, misleading at worst. Unfortunately, the latter has prevailed when it comes to recent media coverage about math preparation at UC San Diego. 

The news itself is concerning, to be sure: a stunning increase in the proportion of entering students with math skills considered below college level, with more than 600 in last fall’s incoming class deemed to need elementary and middle school math. The data were part of a lengthy campus report that included some thoughtful suggestions. But the overwrought media response—from headlines about idiocracy and horror shows to former Senator Ben Sasse’s call for federal investigations—plucked statistics in ways that failed to correctly diagnose the problem and fixated on reinstating admissions tests as the primary solution. 

Inaccurate statistics from the campus’ November report that made their way into outlets such as Fox News and Newsweek didn’t help. (The January revision clarified, for example, that one-twelfth of students were deemed to be below high school level—still concerning, but not the one-eighth that was initially stated. It also included a lower estimate of the proportion of UCSD students coming from the state’s lowest-resourced schools.)

More comprehensive reporting placed San Diego’s statistics in the context of declines in math achievement nationwide—worldwide, even—with the COVID-19 pandemic and the effects of social media widely cited as key factors. 

Those nationwide trends were the jumping-off point for my recent commentary in EdSource, which focused on the importance of better aligning math instruction between high school and college. Below is an excerpt from that piece, followed by some incisive responses from other writers. 

When math expectations are not transparent and aligned across a state’s schools, colleges and universities—which has long been true in California—students’ paths through mathematics become much harder. So does the job of math teachers. 

Fortunately, as Just Equations’ new report highlights, California is among several states that have begun bridging divides to ensure high school students can take modernized math courses that are relevant to them while developing the skills that prepare them for college. Doubling down on these efforts is the best response to the warning signals from UCSD. 

California’s move in this direction began earlier this year, when a joint committee of faculty from the UC, California State University and California Community Colleges published common guidance on math preparation for incoming college students. The unified statement garnered instant support. The California Department of Education signed off on it. So did BOARS—UC’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, which determines the courses required for admission to both public universities.

But guidance is just the first step. Prior joint statements from the same committee (ICAS—the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates) were not widely utilized. Recent history is replete with conflicting signals about math preparation: Students can graduate from some high schools with only two years of math, including Algebra I. Other districts require three or four years. Both public university systems require at least three years of math, with more competitive campuses expecting more: Nearly two-thirds of UC admits have taken an Advanced Placement math course. 

UCSD’s predicament is weighty: At one of the state’s most selective campuses, about 8% of students—and 1 out of 3 from underresourced high schools—struggle with middle school math, requiring three calculus prerequisites. But it reflects longstanding inequities. According to PACE, about a quarter of California students graduate without Algebra II, a quarter take no math as seniors, and nearly half never take an advanced math course beyond Algebra II. Those taking advanced courses are more likely to be Asian, white and higher-income. 

Some San Diego students performed poorly on elementary math questions despite having taken advanced high school math. Correcting this problem requires high-quality instruction, but that is not merely a job for the students’ high schools. “To truly expand opportunity in STEM, California must treat early math recovery not as a K–12 issue, but as a shared responsibility across educational systems,” noted a recent UC report.

Though UCSD’s dilemma is concerning, it arose from a campus commitment to enrolling more students from lower-resourced schools. For a public university, abandoning that commitment is not an option, as UCSD acknowledges. Merely adjusting admissions standards would lessen the need for remedial courses, while reducing access for disadvantaged students. 

Our state cannot forget the greatest challenge posed by the UCSD report: not deciding who will attend one campus next year, but ensuring that education systems collectively improve quantitative literacy for the next generation of Californians. 

A few other writers have also raised important dimensions of the UCSD predicament that question the kneejerk push for standardized tests: 

Matt Barnum at Chalkbeat highlights Princeton economist Zachary Bleemer’s research showing that underprepared students are not harmed by attending selective universities. In fact, they are better off than if they had attended less competitive colleges. “Selective universities like UCSD aren’t helping underprepared students by rejecting them, even though that might be the easier option for professors and administrators,” writes Barnum. 

And, in his quarterly MAA Values blog, Dave Kung points out that the vast majority of UCSD students are doing just fine: Eighty-eight percent of entering students did not require remedial math courses, and more than 60 percent went directly to traditional calculus (61.5 percent, down from 65.6 percent five years earlier). 

This additional context, and more, is necessary to properly understand the data presented by UCSD and the campus’ own nuanced evaluation. Any policy responses need to be intentional and based on a thorough set of evidence. Why? Because the stakes are too high for the next generation of students, who deserve the opportunity to benefit from our state’s most selective institutions.