A recent report on admissions at University of California, San Diego (UCSD) delivered a jolt to anyone who assumes elite university credentials guarantee baseline academic skills. According to the report, the number of freshmen entering UCSD with math skills below high-school level has increased by nearly 3,000% over the past five years. In the 2025 incoming class, roughly one in eight students falls into this category. Even more concerning, one in twelve demonstrates math skills below middle-school level—unable to answer a question like:
Antonio has 32 stuffed animals and his little brother has 24 stuffed animals. How many more stuffed animals does Antonio have? (8, in case you’re a recent UCSD grad).
UCSD is no marginal institution. It ranks #6 nationally among public universities and sits within the top 30 overall in the United States. The decline, moreover, isn’t confined to math. The same report flags erosion in writing and language skills, raising a broader alarm about academic preparedness at the very top of the public higher-education system.
So how did we get here—and what does it mean for employers who still treat a UC degree as a reliable proxy for competence?
Test-Optional Admissions and the Rise of “Holistic Review”
The proximate cause is not especially mysterious. In 2021, the University of California system eliminated standardized test scores from admissions decisions, becoming permanently test-optional and then test-blind. Scores from the SAT and ACT were no longer considered.
In their place, UC campuses rely on a “holistic review” process emphasizing:
- High school GPA
- Course rigor (as reported by schools)
- Extracurricular activities
- Personal qualities and achievements
- Responses to “personal insight questions”
On paper, holistic review aims to reduce bias, recognize context, and broaden access. In practice, it has introduced a serious measurement problem.
Students admitted to UCSD still present competitive GPAs and, on average, receive “A” grades in high-school math courses. Yet a sizable fraction arrive unable to perform basic arithmetic. That discrepancy suggests not a sudden collapse in student potential, but a breakdown in signal integrity across the pipeline—from grading standards in secondary education to admissions criteria at elite universities.
Grades have become inflated. Essays are often coached, polished, or assisted. Personal narratives reward storytelling and resilience—but do not reliably measure cognitive mastery. And without standardized benchmarks, admissions offices lose an objective check on whether applicants can actually do the work implied by their transcripts.
What Does a UC Degree Now Represent?
This is the uncomfortable question employers are increasingly forced to confront.
For decades, a degree from a UC campus functioned as a shorthand:
- Baseline quantitative literacy
- Functional writing and reasoning skills
- Ability to learn complex material independently
That shorthand no longer holds uniformly true.
To be clear, many UC graduates remain exceptional—brilliant, motivated, and highly capable. But the variance has widened. The credential no longer guarantees minimum proficiency, even in areas as fundamental as numeracy and written communication.
This isn’t merely an academic concern. Employers are already feeling the downstream effects:
- Entry-level hires struggling with basic quantitative tasks
- Managers informally reteaching skills once assumed
- Increased training costs and longer ramp-up times
- Quiet frustration when degrees fail to predict performance
When elite universities admit students who cannot meet middle-school benchmarks, the signaling function of higher education breaks down. Employers are left holding the risk.
The Pipeline Problem (Not Just a UC Problem)
It would be a mistake to treat UCSD as an outlier. UCSD admissions are broadly representative of the UC system—and the UC system, in turn, influences national norms.
The problem spans multiple layers:
- K-12 grading standards that no longer correlate with mastery
- College admissions frameworks that prioritize narrative over measurement
- Institutional incentives that favor access and optics over outcomes
- Employer assumptions that have not kept pace with these changes
Universities can remediate, but remediation at scale is expensive, politically fraught, and often hidden. Many students are quietly routed into non-credit math courses, extended degree timelines, or watered-down requirements—while the diploma remains unchanged.
What Employers Should Do Now
If a UC degree can no longer be treated as proof of baseline skills, employers need to adapt—quickly and deliberately.
- Stop Using Degrees as Skill Proxies. A degree should indicate exposure, not competence. Employers should decouple credentialing from capability and stop assuming that elite school names equal job readiness.
- Reintroduce Skills-Based Assessment. Pre-hire evaluations don’t need to be punitive or excessive, but they do need to be real:
- Short math or logic exercises relevant to the role
- Writing samples evaluated for clarity and structure
- Scenario-based problem solving
These assessments protect both the employer and the candidate by aligning expectations early.
- Audit Hiring Tools for False Confidence. Many AI-driven screening systems still overweight education signals. Employers should review whether their ATS filters, ranking algorithms, or resume parsers are quietly assuming “UC degree = high ability.” That assumption is now demonstrably unsafe.
- Invest in Onboarding Diagnostics. Instead of discovering gaps months later, employers should assess core skills during onboarding and tailor early training accordingly. This is cheaper than performance management after the fact.
- Update Job Descriptions to Specify Skills. Replace vague requirements like “strong analytical skills” with explicit expectations:
“Comfortable with ratios, percentages, and basic statistics”
“Able to write a clear one-page summary without AI assistance”
Precision reduces mismatch.
The Bottom Line
“Would you hire a UC grad?” is no longer a rhetorical question.
The safer question is: Would you hire this UC grad—based on verified skills rather than assumptions?
Elite degrees still open doors. But they no longer guarantee what employers think they do. Until universities restore trust in their signals, employers must protect themselves with evidence, not prestige.
In today’s labor market, hiring on reputation alone isn’t just outdated—it’s a risk management failure.