<p> An overhaul of the unified university entrance examination in Japan was scheduled for the 2020 academic year. A number of changes were to be made, but the two considered the major pillars of the reform were the “active use of private sector examinations such as TOEFL” and “introduction of written questions for Japanese and mathematics.” As 2019 drew to an end, however, the postponements of these two proposals were announced in close succession. As this was immediately prior to the switchover to the new system, those involved with university entrance exams were shaken to the core.</p><p> How did this situation come about? University entrance examinations are a matter of interest to most Japanese people, and thus far the following reasons have been given for the postponements. “It's because the difference between academic achievement tests and examinations for screening applicants is not properly understood,” “The period for preparation is too short,” “It's a mistake to attempt to reform education through tests,” “Universities did not actively participate in the reform discussions,” etc., etc. One further reason given was that “The views of researchers were not addressed.”</p><p> The purpose of this paper is to consider why university entrance examination reform has come to drift aimlessly in this way. Further, the paper also discusses the problems apparent in both the proponents of the reform and the researchers who criticized the reform.</p><p> The recent university entrance examination reform was pushed forward under the control of politicians and corporate officials, as well as university officials without professional expertise in education. The goal of the reform was, by changing the entrance examinations, to bring high school education more in line with the global era and to introduce changes that would enhance thinking and expressive capabilities. However, policy decision-making by those lacking the necessary professional knowledge left much to be desired. The cause of the current aimless drifting can be found, above all, in this ill-informed decision-making, but at the same time it should also be pointed out that there were problems with the methods used by the researchers who criticized the ineptitude of the discussions. The arguments of these researchers had the following three characteristics: (1) they focused criticisms of the reform on points that were easy to refute, (2) they criticized the reform without a good grasp of the realities, and (3) they shifted their arguments and criticized the reform without facing up squarely to the claims of the proponents. We can now look back and see that the result was that, without listening to what the researchers had to say, the proponents continued with their reform attempt until just before the two pillars were abandoned.</p><p> This paper describes these circumstances in detail and concludes with a consideration of the matters requiring more care from the researchers when approaching the reform issue.</p>