[ Music ]
>> I am very happy to have after
some effort on my part anyway--
I think that they
tried really hard
but their schedule's a
lot tougher than mine,
Senator Judith Zaffirini
who represents the 21st
Senatorial District
and will surely begin her
20th year in the Texas Senate.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you.
Thank you.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you very
much, thank you.
>> These days and very
deserving of applause.
Though Senator Zaffirini
is in the midst
of an accomplished career,
she is already a figure
of some historic 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 re-elected with
79% of the district-wide vote,
her sixth landslide victory in
which she carried all counties
in her very large and
very diverse district.
So that'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 because I'm absent
so much, she has also maintained
her 100% 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 there are no
lightweight committees there.
Of particular interest
to us, in May 2006,
Senator Zaffirini sponsored
and passed the HB 135
which authorized
Texas universities
to issue $1.9 billion
in tuition revenue bonds
for capital improvements for
nice rooms sort of like this.
She holds a B.S., M.A. and
PhD degrees in the University
of Texas at Austin and
remains very much a member
of the UT community, as you see,
complete with symbolism
[laughter], performative.
I was in the Austin [laughter]--
I was in the audience for a
taping of Evan Smith's interview
with UT President Bill Powers.
So this was shortly
after President Powers was
named president last year.
In an off-camera Q and
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 seem like a bit
of a trick question to me
and you know, one of the things
that our President
was named president
for 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."
Now I think this is a
widely held sentiment.
[ Applause ]
This is a widely held
sentiment across this campus
so please join me in
welcoming the Senator
from the 21st District,
Dr. Judith Zaffirini.
>> Thank you, very nice!
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
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 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 [laughter].
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 very 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.
He said, "And there you were
with a publisher and the editors
and the whole editorial board."
And I said, "This
is nothing compared
to defending a doctoral
dissertation."
[Laughter] Can you imagine?
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 I saw that
wonderful band playing, can't--
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 Distinguished
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."
[Laughter] 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 and M System.
So I support both UT and
A and 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 only one
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 this
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 the 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 shot."
Now why wasn't it my shot?
Because Governor Dewhurst
created the committee
and named me to be 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 von Eschenbach,
who's on my staff
and with me today.
He has a PhD from UT Austin and
is Director of the Subcommittee
on Higher Education and the
Subcommittee on Capital Funding.
Nick Almanza 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 [inaudible] 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 included 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 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 party 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 saying 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 evaluating, 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 socioeconomic
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 learning in Texas.
I'll repeat.
There is no four-year
institution
of higher learning 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%
of the class, is totally
supported by parents, is single
and is going to school
full time,
that student perhaps can
complete degree requirements
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 10 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.
And I was already married
and already holding as many
as three part-time jobs.
We could 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."
I went like this.
He said, "Next subject,"
you know, 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
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 is 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.
[Applause] Thank you.
Thank you, thank you very much.
Thank you.
I'd be delighted to
answer some questions.
>> 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.
>> Hi, 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?
>> Well, I would hope so.
But don't hold your
breath [laughter].
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.
And 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%.
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 he
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?
[ Applause ]
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, 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?
Yes, ma'am.
They need the microphone,
I believe.
>> Oh probably not.
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% rule?
>> 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 want 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 want 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's degree
toward a doctoral degree.
Warren, how many
hours did you take
above a master's
toward your doctorate?
>> Sixty.
>> Sixty? Dr. Henson?
>> I don't remember--
>> You don't remember.
>> What the ballpark is at.
>> Right, 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 doctoral,
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 would 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 [laughter].
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 [laughter].
What can I tell you?
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 me, "You don't understand."
She said, "You don't understand.
Some of these dissertations take
eight and nine and 10 years."
I said, "I do understand.
A doctoral dissertation
should take one year or two."
And she said, "No,
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 graduation
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 learning,
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?
>> We streamlined the
financial aid programs.
>> That's right.
We streamed-- go ahead.
>> The students would have
to complete 24 semesters
in hours as an academic here.
>> Yes. Tying it in
to 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% rule.
The top 10% 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%
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.
At UT Austin, it has caused
a problem because so many
of the students here are being
admitted by a single criterion.
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 criterion,
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.
>> Yeah.
>> Good. Other questions?
Yes, ma'am.
>> Excuse my voice.
My question to you 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?"
>> 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
work groups 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 learned 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 $2000.
He got his $2000.
How much do you think I saved
[laughter] 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 a 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 a question, ma'am?
>> Yeah, 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 would you comment.
>> A standardized test?
[ Applause ]
That's my reaction.
Is that specific enough?
Other questions.
Yes, ma'am.
Anyone else have a question?
Well, thank you so much.
Yes, sir?
>> You spoke earlier about
adviser accountability as well.
And obviously this is a process
with students and I'm speaking
from experience as an
adviser here on campus.
What are your 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.
>> How many of you are advisers?
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 advisers 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
can 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 three years, he could not
get approval to take a class
that he needed for graduation.
His adviser would not allow him
to take that particular course
because the adviser, I
don't know if it was a man
or a woman said,
"You're just a junior.
Those are for seniors."
And 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 the class.
Had that adviser 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 advisers
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 there are many, many
areas of accountability.
But I want to work with
advisers in terms of how
to address this particular
issue.
And sometimes advisers just
have these weird ideas.
I got my degree in less than
three years because I dropped
out in 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 degrees
but including summers.
When I got to graduate school at
UT Austin and I had already been
to the potential class for--
you know, to the class for
potential graduate students
in my department, and I had
done everything the adviser had
suggested that we do as
undergraduates if we wanted
to pursue a master's,
everything I did to the letter.
I had a 3.97 GPA, which I have
in all three degrees here at UT.
So I go to the adviser
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 advisers 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 advisers who
are doing a wonderful job
in advising the students.
We have to make sure
that the standards
that those advisers use are
learned and internalized
by other advisers, too.
Okay, thank you so much
for the opportunity
to be with you [applause].
I really appreciate
your invitation.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
And thank you all for coming.
And I should mention also
we'll have one last event.
Senator Zaffirini's colleague,
Senator Averitt will
be here November 30th.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you very
much and thanks again.
>> Thank you.
[ Music ]
