Unfortunately, many working students do not finish within 4 years, and roughly 77% of undergraduates at four-year colleges have jobs and about 26% of students work full time. Only 16.8 percent of TEXAS Grant students graduate within four years. With the stringent requirements of graduating in exactly 4 years and maintaining a 3.0 GPA, state leaders estimate that proposals like HB 3000 and SB 31 would cut approximately 75 percent of TEXAS Grant participants.

UT Watch supports this provision: The Tuition Equalization Grant (TEG) is a state-subsidized grant for private universities in Texas. SB 31 would apply the same qualifications for TEXAS Grants to recipients of the TEG, which has never been regulated. The TEG needs regulations it is a state grant program.

Similar to SB 934. Any student could apply for the position of student regent, and that application would be filtered first through the university's student government, then through the chancellor of the university system, for recommendations to the Governor, who would be able to choose any applicant for the position.

HB 1968 would place a student on the board of regents for a two year term, and two student regents would serve at the same time but on stagnating terms - meaning the first year of one student regent's term would be the second year of the other student regent's term. During the first year of the term, that student would only observe the other student serving as a voting student regent. During the second year of the term, that student who was only observing would become the voting student regent and a new student regent would come in to fill the position of the observing student regent.

Would provide for a regent to be a voting faculty member by having the faculty senate of each institution in a university system would solicit names for the position, then turn around and send their recommendations to the governor, who would appoint the member for a full six year term, starting in February 2007.

Similar to SJR 26: Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing a student member of the board of regents of a state institution of higher education or state university system to serve a term that differs from the terms served by the other members of the board.

SB 934 would place a student on the board of regents for a two year term, and two student regents would serve at the same time but on stagnating terms - meaning the first year of one student regent's term would be the second year of the other student regent's term. During the first year of the term, that student would only observe the other student serving as a voting student regent. During the second year of the term, that student who was only observing would become the voting student regent and a new student regent would come in to fill the position of the observing student regent.

SB 121 would require governmental bodies to disclose information relating to investments of public monies, including the name of any fund which the governmental entity is invested in, the year the fund was created, the dollar amount invested in the fund, and the return on the investment. The bill would also require the disclosure of board members' possible conflicts of interest and the disclosure of the fee expenses assessed.

Various states, included West Virginia and Kansas, have already adopted such legislation.

Various states, included West Virginia and Kansas, have already adopted such legislation.

UT Watch finds the following bills questionable:

Appropriations to the Emerging Technology Fund would be better suited for the TEXAS Grants program, which provides access to a college education for many Texans.

This provision is similar to HB 3075, by Fred Brown: Would eliminate the requirements of government and history as part of the core curriculum; would make the core curriculum between 36 and 42 hours.

Universities would be able to charge students a fee of $150 for dropping more than three classes counting toward their major.