Texas State Senator Judith Zaffirini presented "Paradigm Shifts: A brighter future for higher education in Texas?" for the Texas Politics Speaker Series on November 8, 2006.

Dr. James Henson: I am very happy to have, after some effort on my part anyway I think they tried really hard, but their schedule's a lot tougher than mine Senator Judith Zaffirini, who represents the 21st senatorial district and will shortly begin her 20th year in the Texas Senate.

Senator Zaffirini: Thank you.

Dr. James Henson: These days very deserving of applause. Though Senator Zaffirini is in the midst of an accomplished career, she is already a figure of some historical significance. And I say in the midst of an accomplished career, because we don't want you to say we're relegating you to history.

But it's very historic. In 2004 she was reelected with 79 percent of the district-wide vote, her sixth landslide victory in which she carried all counties in her very large and very diverse district. So it's something that nobody else has ever done.

Senator Zaffirini is the first Hispanic woman senator in Texas. Since 1987 and this amazes me maybe, since I'm absent so much she has also maintained her 100 percent voting record, casting more than 34,000 consecutive votes.

She has served three consecutive terms as chair of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, six terms on the Appropriations Conference Committee, seven terms on the Senate Committee on Finance and nine consecutive terms on the Senate Committee on Education, which has included service on the Subcommittee on Higher Education.

And you'll note that there are no lightweight committees there. Of particular interest to us, in May 2006 Senator Zaffirini sponsored and passed HB 135, which authorized Texas universities to issue $1.9 billion in tuition revenue bonds for capital improvements for nice room, sort of like this.

She holds B.S., M.A. and PhD degrees from the University of Texas at Austin and remains very much a member of the UT community, as you see, complete with symbolism, performative. I was in the audience for a taping of Evan Smith's interview with UT President Bill Powers, shortly after President Powers was named president last year.

In an off camera Q&A with the audience, someone asked the president if he would name some of the university's most important supporters in the Texas Legislature. This is probably supposed to be off the record, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Now, this seemed like a bit of a trick question to me. And one of the thing that our president was named president for is because he sees those things coming. And I think it seemed that way a bit to him as well.

So he responds with something of a smile, that it would really be unwise to name anybody specific or to provide a list, because then of course automatically some people get left out, some people are unhappy with you. And you've created more problems, or at least as many problems as you've solved.

But he paused for just the slightest moment and then said, Even allowing for that, I will say this: the University of Texas at Austin has no better friend than Senator Judith Zaffirini. I think this is a widely held sentiment across this campus.

So please join me in welcoming the Senator from the 21st district, Dr. Judith Zaffirini.

Senator Zaffirini: Thank you. Very nice. Thank you so much. Thank you so very, very much for such a warm and generous introduction, and especially for inviting me back home to the UT campus. I truly am proud to bleed orange. [ holds hand in the sign of the Longhorns. ]

And I'm so proud of my three degrees from here. And I will tell you that every time that someone asks me about my success in the Senate, I attribute everything that I have done in the Senate to what I learned from professors here at the University of Texas at Austin and to the Ursuline nuns.

What a combination. Right? From the Ursuline nuns I learned to be on time, to have high ethical standards, to practice the highest and to reflect the highest moral values. And at UT I learned critical thinking skills.

I remember so well when I was campaigning for the Texas Senate in 1986 and I went to an editorial board meeting. And one of the first questions was about tort reform, and another one was about pro-life, and another one was about state income tax, and all of these difficult questions.

And I answered each one calmly and thoroughly because I was prepared. When we walked out the consultant who went with me said, I can't believe that you were so calm and so collected and so cool. I can't believe you even drank your coffee.

And I said, Why not? And he said, I've never been with a candidate who touched the coffee. And everybody was a nervous wreck and couldn't answer questions. And there you were with the publisher and the editors of the whole editorial board.

And I said, This is nothing compared to defending a doctoral dissertation. Can you imagine it? So the critical thinking skills that I learned here at UT Austin have helped me excel in the Texas Senate and to do a good job.

And for that I am ever so grateful and always so proud to say that I hold three degrees from UT Austin. I still remember the first time that I stepped foot on this campus. I still remember the first time that I went to a football game, the first time that saw that wonderful band playing.

Couldn't believe how wonderful the band was. But what I remember most distinctly was the beautiful words emblazoned on the tower, Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. And when I looked at it, it had a tremendous impact on me.

And I knew that here was a university where truth was the ultimate standard, where they understood that understanding the truth was related to liberty, to freedom, to everything that our soldiers and that our veterans have fought for.

What could be more perfect than that wonderful, wonderful scriptural word emblazoned on our UT tower, especially when it symbolizes so much. I also thought about the UT tower when I heard Elspeth Rostow receive her distinguish service degree.

I believe you were there, Dr. Livingston. And I believe, Gwen, you were there, too.

And she quoted Disraeli who said that a university should be a place for life, liberty and learning. And then she added, He can be forgiven for not including football perfect of course.

In the Texas Senate I am delighted to be your champion, your champion for the University of Texas at Austin, for the system, but most especially for higher education throughout Texas, because it's easy to champion your alma mater, especially if you love your alma mater the way I do.

It's easy to champion your hometown institution, especially if you love your hometown institution the way I do. And it is part, by the way, of the A&M system. So I support both UT and A&M.

But every time that we have had a new Lieutenant Governor for Texas, I have told each one, If you were to ask me to choose one issue and one only issue and do only work toward that issue in the Texas Senate, that issue would be higher education.

Why? Because it is so important for the State of Texas. And that is why I champion not only my alma mater and my hometown institution, but higher education for everyone at every level in every area of the state, every system, every university.

All of them are in my heart. And I care about each and every institution of higher learning. So I was delighted when Governor Dewhurst, Governor David Dewhurst, called me one day and said, You're going to love this. I knew good news was coming.

And he said, I am creating a committee on capital funding for higher education, and you're going to chair it. I thought I was going to die. I was in heaven senatorial heaven, mind you.

And I realized that what he meant was, we're going to pass this bill, because capital funding has been such a critical issue for the State of Texas. And we tried to pass a bill in 2005, and it died. Someone else was carrying the bill, not I.

And then we had the special session that Governor Rick Perry called. And at the very end of the special session on a Thursday before the session was to adjourn on a Tuesday, Governor Perry opened the call to tuition revenue bonds.

Mind you Thursday night, Mother's Day weekend Sunday was the last day to pass a bill under the rules. Tuesday was adjournment. And a senator turned to me and said, This bill is dead. And I said, It is not. He said, We can't pass a billion-dollar bill from Thursday to Sunday.

I said, I'll give it my best short. Now, why was it my shot? Because Governor Dewhurst created the Committee and named me chair. Don't think that we started on that day. We started working with UT representatives, with representatives of every institution of higher education, and most especially with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

And what we did was address the issue and get ready for it just in case it was added to the call. And basically at that point in time what we focused on was a paradigm shift. And I believe that as we look at higher education in Texas, we need paradigm shifts in every area, not only in the area of capital funding.

We work so closely with Warren Vanetian Bach [phonetic], who's on my staff and with me today, has a PhD from UT Austin, and is the director of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and the Subcommittee on Capitol Funding. Nikel Manza [phonetic], who's with me today, joined us later.

But he hears the stories. Don't you, Nick? Before every time that we passed a tuition revenue bond, people like Gwen Grigsby and other involved, and everyone was negotiating and using pressure and influencing playing politics to see who would get what tuition revenue bond and how much.

What we did was indeed a paradigm shift. With the help of the Coordinating Board we developed a framework based on criteria. Criteria that were essential to the process; criteria that including space deficiencies, enrollment, closing the gap all the things that we talk about in higher education.

Did we rate them? Absolutely not. I learned a long time ago not to be the judge of any contest, including this one, tuition revenue bonds. We asked the Coordinating Board to rank them and to rate them. And then what we did was establish the threshold for what would be recommended and what would not.

We developed three categories: highly recommended, recommended and lesser priority. Why lesser priority? Do you think that I would tell any senator or any representative, Your project is not worthy. So we used lesser priority, a relative term.

And in the end, from Thursday to Sunday, we worked literally day and night. Saturday I remember I had breakfast bar for breakfast. And all I had during the day until midnight was baby carrots, because I couldn't sit down to eat. Mother's Day we were the only ones in the entire Texas Senate.

My staff and I worked feverishly. Meanwhile I was supposed to host a part near Cancun, because my niece was getting married on Friday. Didn't go. On Saturday she was getting married. Didn't go. And Sunday was Mother's Day.

But we were in the Texas Senate working feverishly to pass this bill and to develop it accordingly. And one person came up to me and said, Don't you think this could be somewhat hypocritical? And I said, What do you mean?

He said, From the time you ran you have been ssaying that faith and family are your highest priorities. This is Mother's Day weekend. Why aren't you with your family? And I said, What could be more important for the families of Texas not just my own than to pass this bill for capital funding for higher education.

And I really felt that way. I felt that this was something important to the families of Texas. And when we passed the bill I made reference to this being the best Mother's Day gift that we could give the families of Texas on Mother's Day.

I went back to that senator. And we passed the bill. Ladies and gentlemen, from Thursday to Sunday we passed a $1.9 billion bill with $105 million for UT Austin. Incredible, truly incredible. But what it took was discipline and hard work and an understanding of the issues.

The ability to deal with issues, not at the lowest level of abstraction, of knowledge and comprehension, but at the highest level of abstraction, of synthesizing and evaluation, doing everything that we learned how to do here at UT Austin.

And it was that training at the doctoral level, that education at the doctoral level that helps me and helps my staff analyze issues fairly and consistently and uniformly. It makes all the difference in the world. So the paradigm shift was impressive.

We moved from basically a political process to an objective process that worked. Had we not had that process in mind, and had we not implemented it timely, we wouldn't have passed that bill. Unbelievable.

But we also need a paradigm shift in the area of accessibility to higher education, because the dividing line for many of us who address these issues is simply this: Is higher education is public education a right or a privilege. You tell me.

I happen to believe that it is a right. I also believe that health care is a right, not a privilege. But that is the dividing line.

So as we talk about accessibility for higher education for all people, basically we need that paradigm shift to ensure that we have the right programs, the right services, the right educational opportunities to make higher education accessible to everyone who is interested and qualified.

And for those who are not, let us use them as an example of what we need to do to ensure that more people are qualified for higher education. An impressive goal. But what do we need? A paradigm shift. Just as we have needed a paradigm shift in terms of the diversity of students, the diversity of our faculty, the diversity of our administrators.

We should reflect the diversity of Texas at all levels of higher education. And I say that because I believe it. What do we mean when we talk about diversity? For too many people diversity means strictly race or ethnicity.

I believe that diversity covers more than that. It covers race and ethnicity certainly. It certainly does. But it also covers gender and age and religion and disabilities. And on a different level it covers geography and social economic levels and many, many areas that differentiate us one from another.

We need a paradigm shift to ensure that higher education in general and the University of Texas at Austin reflects the diversity that is the State of Texas. When I talk about higher education I talk about graduation rates. And that's very important.

It's also related to accessibility and to diversity. I have been most chagrined over the years to understand thoroughly that there is no four-year institution of higher education in Texas. I'll repeat. There is no four-year institution of higher education in Texas.

At best we have six-year institutions of higher education in Texas at best. And some institutions have a better graduation rate than others. And I think that is wrong. I believe that all of us who care about higher education, including students, have to address that issue head on, and that we need a paradigm shift to ensure that more students can be graduated timely.

How do I do it? How do we do it? In many, many ways. And I hope that some of you will have better ideas to share with us. You'll notice that Warren and Nick are taking notes. So we hope to learn from you today.

But one of the things that I believe and I'm glad we have advisors here today is that advisors need to be more involved and more accountable for the graduation rates that we have for respective institutions. I also believe very strongly that we need different types of graduation rates for different types of students.

If for example we have a student who is in the top 10 percent of the class, is totally supported by parents, is single and is going to school full time, that student perhaps can complete degree requirement in four years.

Suppose then that we have a student who is 35 years old, single parent, three children to support and has to work. Should that student be held to the same graduation rate standard? I don't think so. So what we need then is a paradigm shift in this area, too.

It's also closely related to accessibility. We go back to that point because as we ensure that more students complete their degrees timely, we also create new vacancies for additional students.

If you realize how many students we have holding on to a position at this university for six and ten and 12 years and more, then you realize those are students being kept out. Everybody wants to come to UT. Lots of people want to come to UT.

And yet we don't have a focus that we should have on graduation rates. And if we increase our efforts to ensure that more students are graduated timely, then we will open new opportunities for additional students. Of course we in the Legislature should fund higher education adequately.

And I feel very strongly that we in the Legislature must fund higher education at a significantly higher level. I will tell you that I have vivid memories of being at this institution and worried to death that tuition would be raised $25 worried to death.

Had tuition been raised $25 when I was at UT Austin, either my husband would have had to drop out of law school, or I would have had to drop out of undergraduate. I was already married and already holding as many as three part-time jobs.

We couldn't not afford another $25. When I ran for the Senate in 1986 one of my major platform issues was tuition rates. And I said we had to fight increased tuition. I hate to tell you, but when the issue of tuition deregulation came up, I was one of the senators who voted for it.

And I couldn't believe that I was voting for it. UT did not pressure for me. Every time that someone from UT came and asked me to vote for higher tuition rates I would say, no. I remember one time a chancellor came into my office a former chancellor and said, I want to talk to you about raising tuition. [ holds fingers in sign of a cross ]

I went like this. He said, next subject very quickly. Why did I vote for it? Because I knew that the Legislature was not going to fund higher education adequately. We have to be responsible.

We either have to provide more money and obviously we don't have the votes to do that or we have to provide higher education in general with other avenues to do so. And in addition to that so many students were supporting the tuition increase.

And that was very impressive or at least tuition deregulation, and saying that this was necessary. I will also tell you something related to that. No president, no chancellor, no governmental relations person, no friend who ever talked to me about tuition increases or tuition deregulation ever opened my tightly shut brain on this issue.

I would not consider it. The subject was off the record. You wouldn't believe who did my son. My son, a student at the UT School of Business at the time said, Mom, UT Austin and higher education in Texas is the best bang for the buck.

Tuition increases are supported by the students because we want the best. It was my son who opened my mind didn't persuade me opened my mind to consider the issue. And then I talked to the powers that be in higher education, not only UT Austin but elsewhere.

And then I voted for it, much to my chagrin, because I would much rather vote for higher funding. But if we don't have the votes, what in the world are we supposed to do? So again we need that paradigm shift.

And unfortunately I hate to tell you, but for years and years I have had the feeling that for many, many people there is an anti-intellectual and an anti-scholar attitude in Texas. I'm not talking about the Legislature. I'm talking about in Texas.

And that worries me, because we have to fund higher education; we have to focus on instruction; we have to focus on what the students need; we have to focus on graduate education, not only undergraduate, and especially on research.

These are all the things that would be so good for the State of Texas. Will we get there? I believe that if we engage in paradigm shifts and help more people change their way of thinking about higher education, that we can succeed.

I am delighted to be the champion, not only of higher education, but of UT Austin in the Texas Senate and in the Texas Legislature. And my pledge to you is that I would love to continue to work, not by myself and with my staff and the people that who are already working with us, but with all of you, so that together we can make a difference.

You know perhaps better than I the beautiful words that were uttered first by Lamar when he said, A cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy. You have that on your UT seal. And it so very true.

So you who are in the midst of developing cultivated minds, and you who are in the midst of developing those cultivated minds will and should make a difference for higher education.

My pledge to you is to be there for you as you do. Thank you so very much for this wonderful opportunity to be with you. Thank you. I'd be delighted to answer some questions.

Dr. James Henson: And please, if you have questions, if you could just give us one second, we've got somebody with a microphone back here. So if you'll raise your hand and give them a second to get to you, that'll help everybody hear your question.

Woman 1 : Thank you. My question was about the higher education funding. If by any chance a big bill came through that provided a lot of funding for higher education, would tuition go back down, if we didn't have to foot the bill, that the Legislature didn't want to.

Senator Zaffirini: I would hope so. But don't hold your breath, because I don't see significantly higher funding at any time soon. Now, the Legislature has been funding higher education at a higher level. But the expense of higher education has also been increasing.

So while we can look to documents and to figures and show you that we have increased our funding and the level of funding, it's just not enough. It's not enough because of the changes that have been made, the expenses that we have to deal with.

The fact of the matter is that the state is now paying for a lower percentage of the total cost of educating a student than we did in the past. I believe that we are now paying for 17 percent. That's unthinkable. It's unacceptable.

So what do we need to do? Elect people to the Texas Legislature and to statewide office who will champion higher education. I believe that our best friend in higher education at the statewide level is Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst.

He cares. And in fact someone told me today I don't know if you've heard this, Warren that last night he was interviewed right after his election, right after his victory. And one of the things focused on was higher education.

I was delighted. And I hope that he does. And I believe that he will, because Governor Dewhurst has made all the difference in the world in many areas. In fact in May I was the graduation speaker at the law school here. I was delighted. My son was in the audience.

And my theme at the time was: who lives, who dies, who decides? And I asked the question, and then I answered. I said, Who lives, who dies, who decides? We do. We in the Texas Legislature decide who lives, who dies and who decides.

And I gave specific examples, including the example of my chairing a subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee that included three Republicans and me I'm a Democrat. Three times I lost the vote to fund programs that included AIDS medication three times; twice, three to one; and once, two to two.

Did I give up? If you think I did you don't know me. Right, Gwen Grigsby? So I went to the Lieutenant Governor. And I said, Governor Dewhurst, if we fund AIDS medication, Texans who have AIDS will work and live productive lives and pay their taxes.

But if we do not, they will get sicker and sicker and sicker, costing the state increasing amounts of money. And then they will die. Ladies and gentlemen, because of the intervention of Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, I prevailed in the Finance Committee.

And 15,000 Texans with AIDS will live, not die. Isn't that amazing? And of course I gave them examples of how in the future they will make those decisions. And to cause them to think about their future and to ask a thought-provoking question, I repeated the question at the end.

And I said that my prayer for the UT Law School graduates waS that in the future the Lord would inspire them with the words and the actions they needed, and that they would develop the courage they needed to be thoroughly prepared for the day that somebody would ask the inevitable question of their profession: who lives, who dies and who decides.

And you must answer: I do, I will. They have to be ready. And so will you, because people involved in education at the highest level are making those decisions every day by preparing students who will be in decision-making positions, such as prosecutors and doctors and healthcare professionals and others.

Those decisions are made every day through education. A part of the answer to the question who lives, who dies, who decides is being answered daily in higher education in Texas. And I believe that very strongly. Other question?

Woman 2: I have two quick questions. One is what specific strategies would you like to pursue to raise the graduation rate. And the other is what are your thoughts about the top 10 percent rule.

Senator Zaffirini: Well, let me take the first one first. What specific strategies do I have to increase the graduation rate? Quite a few, actually. We already passed some very significant legislation. And the significant legislation that we passed in 2005 is modeled on the Texas Tech Graduate On Time Program.

And basically it offers institutions the opportunity to offer incentives to students, incentives to graduate more timely. I also have a lot of anecdotal information about students who were encouraged to take 12 hours only or nine hours.

And there's no way that you can get a 120-hour degree in four years if you take nine or 12 hours. So I also went to look at the paradigm shift of the different rates for different groups of students, and believe that that will make a difference.

I also went to look at limiting the number of hours above each degree that the state will fund. And we have already done that at the doctoral level. Did you know that years ago there were so many students and the University of Houston was the biggest culprit in this who were taking 140 hours above a master's degree toward a doctoral degree.

Give me a break. You do not need 140 hours above a master degree toward doctoral degree.

Warren, how many hours did you take above a master's toward your doctorate? Sixty?

Dr. Henson? You don't remember. So why would anybody need 140. I'll tell you why. Because many of the graduate students, many of the doctoral students were simply going to class every summer. So every summer they would take three hours or six hours or maybe nine, but usually six.

You know, if you know anything about graduate education, that at UT Austin for example, if you're working toward a doctorate, only the courses taken during the most recent six years are counted. How were those students going to get a doctoral degree taking three or six hours every summer?

It wasn't going to happen. But you see the Legislature funds doctoral courses at a higher level, at a significantly higher level than undergraduate.

Did I remember taking courses here where all I did was meet with a professor one time, agree on the subject of study, went back home to Laredo, wrote my paper, worked with a student who worked with me I paid her minimum wage to make copies for me and take out books from the library and send them by bus.

And I'd write the paper and send it by bus to her, and she would turn it in. And you know why I did that? Because I didn't have a wife. And every man and they were all men in my study groups had a wife doing that work.

Do you think my husband was going to do that for me? I don't think so. He was practicing law. So I hired someone. And that person would go to the library, make my copies and do all those things that all these other people in the same group with me had their wives do.

Unfortunately the saddest news of all, in my immediate study group today, so many years later, I'm the only one who's still married. What can I tell you? So you see, I knew about courses like that. I would take the subject at hand, go home, write the paper and turn it into the professor and then maybe meet with the professor.

That course was funded at a higher level than an undergraduate course. But I knew from experience that that's not right. And I knew that there were many, many students out there who were not going to get that degree but were working toward that.

Equally important those graduate students were taking up a space a space. And your graduate dean from this institution went to my office to lobby me against that bill. And she said, You don't understand when you want to irritate me, tell you me, You don't understand.

She said, You don't understand. Some of these dissertations take eight and nine and ten years. I said, I do understand. A doctoral dissertation should take one year or two. And she said, No, no, no, no. This research takes a lot more years.

I said, Then it should be post-graduate research, not doctoral dissertation research. And so we placed a cap on the number of hours above a master's degree that we would fund toward a doctoral degree. And now graduate rates have improved.

And who benefits the most? The students. And UT students came to lobby me against it. And I said, This will help you. But they didn't quite understand at the beginning. Today at UT Austin and at other institutions of higher education more students are completing their doctoral degrees more timely, especially their doctoral dissertations.

And we have more vacancies for other students who want that slot. So there are many ideas that we have many ideas. Another bill that I passed has to do with combining educational or academic programs with work study and with mentoring, so that the students who are having a difficult time completing their degree requirements timely will have assistance.

We also want to use work study programs to create positions for tutors, who will then tutor the students who need the help. So we're tying everything in. And we have a number of different programs like that.

Warren, do you have any to add that I didn't cover?

Warren: We streamlined the financial aid so that...[inaudible]

Senator Zaffirini: Yes. Tying it into financial aid, because for some programs there's no accountability. And that's not right. And then in terms your second question was about the top 10 percent rule.

The top 10 percent rule is working very well in many ways improving diversity: in rural areas and in other areas of the state and to a questionable extent, among minorities. And there is major disagreement about whether the top 10 percent rule has helped minorities significantly or not.

And you'll have to look at the data to judge for yourself, because there is a disagreement. And UT Austin it has caused a problem, because so many of the students here are being admitted by single criteria. I believe very strongly that the best thing for students is to have a portfolio approach.

How, for example, do you judge the qualifications of someone who's majoring in business versus someone who's majoring in music? You have to look at the whole portfolio. You have to consider the qualifications that we're addressing and the barriers that people have crossed, and the ability and the potential of students who have a passion for higher education and a passion to succeed.

Whenever you have one single criteria I believe you're asking for trouble. So we have to look at it very, very carefully. However I will keep an open mind about everyone's suggestion.

Because I now chair not only the Subcommittee on Capital Funding, but also the Subcommittee on Higher Education, I will keep an open mind and work with everyone who has any opinion about the issue, and will not take a position.

I learned a long time ago to use time to advantage and to use that time to listen to people and to learn from people in developing ideas. I hope you think that answered your question.

Other questions. Yes, ma'am.

Woman 3: Excuse my voice. [ slighlty hoarse ] My question today is, as you're looking at some of these issues in graduation rates, is there a thought that you'll have time to bring all the stakeholders to the table to discuss the issues that you're facing, and as other legislators are facing them also.

Will you be able to bring the students, the parents, the administration, the universities to the table to discuss these issues?

Senator Zaffirini: Well, she wants to know if I have time to bring the stakeholders to the table. Actually we've been doing it for years. So it's not anything new. For years and years, in fact for as long as I have been in the Senate, we have been inviting students and parents and faculty members and administrators to work with us in the area of higher education.

We in the Legislature are not experts about every issue. And while higher education is my passion and I have taught at the higher education level, I realize that there are experts in this room and experts throughout the state and even beyond, who know more than I do and better than I.

So it's my pleasure to work with them and to listen not only to those who agree with my perspective, but especially with those who disagree. So do we have time? We're not starting at this point. We started a long, long time ago.

So everyone who wants to get involved will have an opportunity to do so. We also have a strategy in my office for involving people. And that is, that we create workgroups and task forces. Just as the example I gave you about the TRB bill the Tuition Revenue Bond bill I didn't start when the Governor opened the call.

I got ready. We were ready. And because of all the work that we had done, we passed that bill. So this is not something that we're just starting. And then we learn from others. The Graduate On Time Bill Texas Tech simply testified about their program.

We loved it. We immediately grasped their idea and extended it. Flat-rate tuition my legislation that I sponsored with a House member created the flat-rate tuition pilot project here at UT Austin. And then it was so successful that the next session we came back, and we extended it statewide.

Is it working? Absolutely. Will it help improve graduation rates? Absolutely. Why? Because students know that whatever the institution rule is at that institution in some cases it may be 15, for example that as many courses they will take will vary in terms of tuition.

But that anything above a certain number like say, 15 would cost the same. So whether you take 15 hours or 18 hours you're paying the same tuition. Is that a motivation? I think so. And what could be more significant for a student or for a family in terms of saving money, than to cut off a year or two or three from going to college?

We complain about tuition rates. But compare that to the cost of another year. Now, my son, Carlos Zaffirini, Jr., completed his degree from UT Austin in business and one from the law school in six years flat.

And what did I do? I promised him a bonus if he graduated in three years. I promised him a bonus of $2,000. He got his $2,000. How much do you think I saved by his getting that degree in three years? But you see, incentives matter, incentives work.

And that's what we need. So the students who work hard and who excel need to be rewarded. They need incentives. We also passed a different bill that was sponsored by a friend in the House and supported strongly by Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst Be On Time.

And it's a wonderful financial aid program. Are some of you aware of it? It's basically not need based. But it's aimed at families that have several children going to college and are perhaps struggling with it and don't qualify for financial aid.

But persons who have a financial need can also qualify. And what it means is that you can apply for the Be On Time Program, get an interest-free loan while you are at the college. And if you are graduated timely, within four years for a four-year degree, within five years for five-year degree, with at least a B average, the loan is forgiven.

It's free. If you don't, then you have to pay back the loan when you get your degree, but at a low interest rate. Now, that's an incentive. That's definitely an incentive. There's so many more out there. So we're just full of ideas.

And where do we get these ideas? From people like you. So please share some of your best ideas with me.

Did you have question, ma'am?

Woman 4: Yes. It was a question about accountability because we've learned at the secondary school level that accountability is now measured in the standardized tests. And there is talk about that same kind of accountability at a higher education level. And I was wondering whether you

Senator Zaffirini: A standardized test? That's my reaction. Is that specific enough? Other questions. Anyone else have a question?

(No response.)

Senator Zaffirini: Well, thank you so much. Yes, sir?

Man 1: You spoke earlier about advisory accountability as well. Obviously this is a process with students. And I'm speaking from experience as an advisor here on campus. What are our thoughts on that exactly, on advisor accountability, in the case especially of a student who chooses a major later let's say.

And it does kind of throw the four-year plan off track a little bit.

Senator Zaffirini: How many of you are advisors? I'm inviting all of you specifically to meet with us. And I believe some of you have already met with Warren. I'd really like your input about this, because you will know better than I.

And what I know is largely anecdotal. But boy, do I have anecdotal information, including from my son, including from my own days as an undergraduate and even a graduate student here at UT Austin.

And basically in many, many, many instances that I have heard of and that we have heard of over the years there are advisors who are suggesting to students that they take only nine hours or only 12. For example, my son came here as a freshman.

I advised him to take 15 hours, or if he thought he could handle it, 18. He was advised not to. He was advised to take 12. And then when he was about to wrap up his degree in his three years, he could not get approval to take a class that he needed for graduation.

His advisor would not allow him to take that particular course because the advisor I don't know if it was a man or woman said, You're just a junior. Those are for seniors. He said, But I'm getting my degree this year.

So he could not get into that class. Of course he knew what to do, and he knew how to get in. But not everybody does. And I won't go into the details of what he did. But he didn't run to mama. He handled it on his own, and he got in that class.

Had that advisor prevailed, he would not have gotten his degree at the end of that third year, at the end of that summer. So there are some advisors who I believe are advising students inaccurately or inappropriately, and they're not doing their best.

There may be reasons to ask students to take only nine hours or 12 hours, as the case may be. And that's fine. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about across the board telling students, Take only 12 hours, don't take more than that.

And so they're many, many areas of accountability. But I want to work with advisors in terms of how to address this particular issue. And sometimes advisors just have these weird ideas.

I got my degree in less than three years, because I dropped out sophomore year because I was very, very ill, and then dropped out and went back to school and completed my degree actual time at the university in less than three years, but including summers.

When I got to graduate school at UT Austin, and I had already been to the class for potential graduate students in my department, and I had done everything the advisor had suggested that we do as undergraduates if we wanted to pursue a master's everything I did to the letter.

Had a 3.97 GPA, which I have in all three degrees here at UT. So I go to the advisor my first semester as a master's degree student. And he said, You railroaded your education. And he gave me a six-hour deficiency in undergraduate courses.

So I had to go back and take undergraduate courses, six more hours while being a graduate student. Why? Just because he thought that I went through too fast. And I believe that there are some advisors who think that way and do things like that.

And the anecdotal evidence is incredible incredible, what we hear constantly. So we have to address the issue. And I'm sure that there are many, many, many excellent advisors who are doing a wonderful job in advising the students.

We have to make sure that the standards that those advisors use are learned and internalized by other advisors, too.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to be with you. I really appreciate your invitation. Thank you so much.

Dr. James Henson: Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming. I should mention also we'll have one last event. Senator Zaffirini is calling Senator Averitt will be here November 30.