The recent news about plummeting math preparation among University of California, San Diego, students was startling: Over five years, the number of incoming students deemed to need remedial math courses before taking calculus had risen from 32 in 2020 to more than 900 last fall. Math achievement declines across the country are real, but data from a single campus is not representative, even if it makes national news. In fact, UCSD offers a poor reference point for policy discussions in California and most other states, given how unique its approach to math proficiency has been.
First, since the campus requires calculus for the vast majority—up to 80 percent—of its graduates, students whose educational goals don’t even require knowledge of calculus can nevertheless be waylaid by a battery of calculus-prep courses. Nationwide, 54 percent of students at R-1 universities graduate in majors that require calculus, according to Transforming Postsecondary Education in Math. Even taking into account UCSD’s relatively high proportion of STEM majors, TPSE estimates that only 59 percent of students there actually need calculus.
Why the discrepancy? One reason is that one of the campus’s residential colleges requires every student—even those majoring in art—to take calculus. Plus the departments of psychology (for a B.S.) and biology require two calculus courses. The role of calculus in these two majors is narrow, yet a report from a UCSD Academic Senate working group notes that they account for the majority of the students UCSD requires to take its lowest-level remedial math course.
Second, UCSD focuses on a lengthy prerequisite sequence rather than just-in-time strategies to support students with preparation gaps. Not only is UCSD alone among UC campuses in offering a course covering middle school math, as the campus’s report notes, it also appears to be anomalous within California public higher education over all.
The California State University and community college systems—both far less selective than UC campuses—have eschewed placement tests, which have been found to have limited validity. Both have also largely eliminated remedial math courses, based on a body of research showing that such courses were deterring students with the potential to succeed from proceeding toward a degree. In fact, research suggests that shorter math sequences support student success.
Driven by its assessment of declining student preparation, UCSD has implemented a three-course calculus preparatory sequence: Besides precalculus, it offers two lower-level courses that explicitly cover high school and middle school math content and collectively enrolled more than 900 students last fall. Another 362 students enrolled in precalculus. By contrast, at the University of California, Los Angeles—another highly selective, research-intensive campus—the lowest math course is precalculus. Enrollments in that course have dropped to fewer than 200 students from 769 in 2012.
There is no question that declining math preparation is a real concern nationally, but UCSD’s situation provides a myopic perspective at best. Viewing it solely through the lens of admissions testing, as many recent opinion pieces have done, also misses the big picture. It penalizes students with a testing gate for lacking preparation that the system inequitably provides. The experiences of other California institutions point to a range of directions, including additional research, for strengthening success in college:
- Redesigning math placement and prerequisite sequences using evidence-based approaches. Institutions around the state are addressing weak math preparation through approaches such as just-in-time corequisite support, stretching one semester of material over two semesters, summer bridge courses and proactive advising. At least two campuses that serve students far less prepared than those at the UC—Cuyamaca College in San Diego County and Sonoma State University—have reported success with placing STEM majors directly into calculus, providing additional support instead of prerequisite courses. Proposals to expand these kinds of approaches have prompted intense pushback from skeptical math faculty. That is precisely why more research and cross-system conversations are necessary to better understand the most effective paths to calculus success for aspiring STEM majors.
- Revisiting calculus as a college graduation requirement. Calculus is an important foundation for certain STEM majors, such as engineering or physics. It is also a notorious weed-out course. Requiring it for students in majors that don’t truly rely on calculus constitutes an arbitrary barrier. It also interferes with students taking math courses such as statistics that are more applicable to their majors and discourages them from continuing in their studies.
- Reimagining calculus for those who do require it. UCLA has shown that biology students can thrive in subsequent courses without a standard calculus class: In the redesigned Mathematics for Life Sciences sequence, UCLA biology majors develop quantitative and computational skills by learning how to model biological systems. In subsequent science courses, students who took the redesigned curriculum outperformed those who took traditional calculus. The redesign also helped narrow the achievement gap and increased students’ interest in quantitative analyses. UC Riverside’s Principles of Calculus course, another promising redesign, uses spatial learning strategies, adaptive technology and culturally relevant content.
- Clarifying the math content and level expected for higher education success. A recent joint statement from math faculty across California’s three higher education systems is an important start. The statement has specific guidance about high school math sequences—including the importance of competencies such as conceptual understanding and mathematical modeling. It outlines critical content within high school algebra and geometry, creating an opportunity for reimagining those courses. Lastly, it highlights the most helpful math preparation across six discipline areas ranging from arts and humanities to STEM.
Realizing the potential of these steps necessitates deeper collaboration between K–12 schools and higher education, efforts California’s newly established interagency council is well positioned to lead. It also entails continued investment. Lastly, ensuring that math policies are aligned and transparent across systems is in the interest of students, but success depends on a willingness to reconsider long-standing practices and learn from efforts around the state and across the country—beyond the UC system and certainly beyond a single campus.