# Who teaches UT undergraduates?

## The tenure-line share of lower-division credit hours fell. Understanding the cost requires following the whole teaching team.

Research checked 2 November 2026 • Aggregate findings • No individual rankings

# What this research establishes

UT Austin’s reported share of lower-division student credit hours taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty was 38.65% in fall 2024, compared with 41.90% in fall 2013. It peaked at 45.87% in 2015. These are official Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) observations, recovered from its interactive accountability system and preserved with the original exports. They measure fall lower-division credit hours; they do not provide a three-way count of all undergraduate sections. [S01](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/InteractiveReport/AddReport)

A second official series points in the same broad direction: from fall 2013 to fall 2024, reported tenure-line faculty teaching FTE fell from 1,720 to 1,622, while non-tenure-track faculty teaching FTE rose from 734 to 954. This series covers teaching responsibility across course levels and excludes teaching assistants. It establishes a change in reported effort, without identifying how many people were hired, replaced or reassigned. [S01](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/InteractiveReport/AddReport) [S02](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/Measures/ManageMeasures?instTypeID=1)

The research also reconstructs an earlier department baseline from UT System’s 2011 faculty-course release. Across academic year 2009–2010, 46.83% of recorded undergraduate credit-hour responsibility was assigned to tenure-line faculty, 42.26% to other non-tenure-track faculty, and 10.90% to graduate instructors/assistants classified in THECB rank 6. The workbook contains all 83 home-college/home-department pairs, including four with no undergraduate credit hours. This is a separate historical benchmark, not the starting point of the fall lower-division series. [S03](https://www.utsystem.edu/documents/docs/2011/faculty-course-data)

The full commission remains evidence-incomplete: the supplied description of 147,857 sections since 2011 could not be matched to an accessible raw file. The public course explorer and grade-patterns export expose aggregates, without the historical section-to-instructor-to-appointment join required here. Current department-level section shares, a fifteen-year three-way series, matched lecturer/practice pay, and instructor-type grade comparisons are therefore unresolved. No substitutes, imputed results or individual rankings have been presented as those findings. [S27](https://reports.utexas.edu/spotlight-data/ut-course-grade-distributions) [S28](https://sulayman-bowles.tech/research/texas/ut-grade-patterns)

# The frame: a course has a roster, a labor force and a bill

Three ledgers answer three different questions. The course roster records responsibility: who is listed as instructor, and how responsibility is divided in team teaching. The labor ledger records paid work: lectures, discussion sections, labs, assessment, preparation and supervision. The student bill records access to a semester of study under a tuition plan. The ledgers overlap, but none can stand in for the other two.

UT’s own rules make the distinction concrete. An Assistant Instructor (AI) is a graduate student who may be instructor of record. A Teaching Assistant (TA) may lead instructional activities but cannot be instructor of record. Public syllabus disclosure excludes TA information and exempts some associated labs and discussions. A clean join of the public schedule to faculty titles would consequently measure recorded leadership while missing part of the teaching labor. [S09](https://secure4.compliancebridge.com/utexas/public/getdoc.php?file=9-2010) [S10](https://secure4.compliancebridge.com/utexas/public/getdoc.php?file=9-2020) [S11](https://provost.utexas.edu/the-office/academic-affairs/your-syllabus-at-ut-austin/)

English illustrates the difference. Its E 316 literature courses commonly combine a large lecture with weekly graduate-led discussions. Its small RHE 306 writing sections are taught by graduate Assistant Instructors. The department reports an AI assignment averaging about 25 students in one course per semester; a TA assignment covers no more than two discussion sections and averages about 50 students across the semester. Both arrangements involve graduate teaching, but their costs and student contact cannot be compared by counting only the name on the lecture roster. [S12](https://cla.utexas.edu/english/graduate-programs/english-ph-d/funding/)

The stronger investigation asks how undergraduate teaching is divided among these roles, what changes when student demand grows, and what each arrangement costs per student served. It also asks whether small classes, stable professional appointments or access to research faculty offer different benefits. A single cheap-versus-expensive teacher ranking would obscure those choices.

# Where the existing work stops

AAUP’s national workforce series establishes the growth of contingent appointments. Its fall 2023 snapshot places 68% of nonmedical faculty appointments in contingent categories and treats graduate employees separately. That is an employment denominator, not a measure of UT students’ exposure to different instructors. It is useful context, not a local answer. [S04](https://www.aaup.org/academe/issues/spring-2025/data-snapshot-tenure-and-contingency-us-higher-education-fall-2023)

The Delta Cost Project/AIR analysis finds an association between greater use of part-time contingent faculty and lower instructional salary-and-benefit spending. Savings in compensation for the whole institution were more modest. It supports testing a cost-shifting mechanism, while leaving open whether savings reduced tuition, funded other activities, or reflected changes in the courses offered. [S05](https://www.air.org/resource/brief/cost-savings-or-cost-shifting-relationship-between-part-time-contingent-faculty-and)

UT has already had a major argument about faculty productivity. Its 2011 response used teaching and research revenue together to contest salary-only comparisons. The historical release underlying that debate is valuable enough to recover, but it cannot establish what happened after 2011. This project should acknowledge that predecessor and contribute a longitudinal, department-level account with explicit denominators. [S03](https://www.utsystem.edu/documents/docs/2011/faculty-course-data) [S06](https://news.utexas.edu/2011/11/14/defining-teaching-by-more-than-mere-numbers/)

The Daily Texan’s reporting on Underpaid@UT and the graduate workers’ own campaign history document an affordability dispute and attempts to collect decentralized stipend information. The 2023 coverage describes a survey of roughly 818 graduate students. That evidence establishes experiences and organizing demands; it does not supply a representative annual payroll census or teaching-share series. Precise current pay in this report comes from official schedules. No verified Faculty Council analysis of the requested three-way panel was located. [S32](https://thedailytexan.com/2023/02/20/graduate-students-continue-fight-for-better-wages-despite-pushback/) [S33](https://utgwu.com/pages/history)

The original pay lead needs correcting: the Texas Tribune’s current salary database removed university employees in May 2020, and its FAQ says the old data are not available for download. Historical Tribune coverage can document the public debate; it is not a ready source for a current fifteen-year UT payroll panel. The replacement sources are official salary summaries, UT pay policies and an effective-dated payroll extract if made available. [S07](https://salaries.texastribune.org/faq/)

UT’s statistical handbooks, current faculty dashboard and IPEDS describe workforce composition. Official grade distributions describe course outcomes. Schedules describe assignments. None of the located sources supplies the complete historical join between course offering, appointment category, teaching support and instructional cost. The research gap is the connection among these records, not an absence of numbers about UT. [S27](https://reports.utexas.edu/spotlight-data/ut-course-grade-distributions) [S30](https://reports.utexas.edu/statistical-handbook)

# The verified trend

Table 1. Tenured/tenure-track share of lower-division student credit hours. Fall observations only; THECB measure 250, UT Austin institution 21. Percentages are the reported values, rounded here to two decimal places. [S01](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/InteractiveReport/AddReport)

| Fall | Share |
| :---- | :---- |
| 2013 | 41.90% |
| 2014 | 45.58% |
| 2015 | 45.87% |
| 2016 | 41.62% |
| 2017 | 40.56% |
| 2018 | 40.94% |
| 2019 | 40.57% |
| 2020 | 40.60% |
| 2021 | 38.64% |
| 2022 | 37.17% |
| 2023 | 38.37% |
| 2024 | 38.65% |

The endpoint decline is 3.25 percentage points. The peak-to-latest decline is 7.22 points. The pattern is uneven: an early increase, a substantial fall after 2015, and a recovery of 1.48 points after the 2022 low. Fall 2024 is essentially level with fall 2021. Choosing the 2015 peak without showing the full series would overstate a smooth deterioration. These are calculations from the preserved official export. [S01](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/InteractiveReport/AddReport)

THECB retired the old CBM004 class report starting spring 2022, replacing it with a revised census reporting structure. The precise measure-250 crosswalk should be obtained before interpreting the trough as a behavioral change. Most of the fall from the 2015 peak had already occurred by 2021: 7.23 points, before that transition. A reporting change in 2022 therefore cannot explain the earlier decline. The export itself contains no methodological footnote; the best located detailed definition is an official university handbook reproducing THECB’s fall lower-level SCH definition. [S24](https://texaserc.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/PU-Manual-2024.pdf) [S31](https://cdn.web.uta.edu/-/media/project/website/administration/university-analytics/documents/statistical-handbook-final-draft---05132022.ashx)

Table 2. Reported faculty teaching FTE, all course levels, excluding teaching assistants. This is THECB measure 132/X08U. Whole FTE figures are reported values; changes are calculated. [S01](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/InteractiveReport/AddReport) [S02](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/Measures/ManageMeasures?instTypeID=1)

| Category | Fall 2013 | Fall 2024 | Change |
| :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- |
| Tenured/tenure-track | 1,720 | 1,622 | −5.7% |
| Non-tenure-track | 734 | 954 | +30.0% |
| Total | 2,454 | 2,576 | +5.0% |
| Tenure-line share | 70.09% | 62.97% | −7.12 points |

The gap between a 62.97% tenure-line share of faculty teaching FTE and a 38.65% tenure-line share of lower-division credit hours is informative about how different the denominators are. The FTE measure excludes teaching assistants and includes teaching at other levels; it also reflects assignment conventions rather than a count of sections. Neither series alone proves that a particular lecturer replaced a particular professor, or that undergraduate enrollment growth caused the shift. [S01](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/InteractiveReport/AddReport) [S02](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/Measures/ManageMeasures?instTypeID=1)

# A recovered department picture, before the panel begins

The 2009–2010 source contains 4,361 records across instructional and noninstructional tabs; 3,317 have positive undergraduate SCH. Summing all credited instruction yields 1,046,324 undergraduate SCH. There are no negative or missing undergraduate SCH and no unclassified tenure/rank category in the reconstructed totals. Including every credited record avoids dropping teaching performed by people whose primary assignment was elsewhere. Restricting to the instructional tab changes the tenure-line share to 47.27%, a 0.43-point sensitivity. These are original calculations from the official release. [S03](https://www.utsystem.edu/documents/docs/2011/faculty-course-data)

Table 3. Selected faculty home departments, academic year 2009–2010. Shares of responsibility-weighted undergraduate SCH. Department names follow the historical source. These examples are illustrative, not a ranking. [S03](https://www.utsystem.edu/documents/docs/2011/faculty-course-data)

| Home department | Tenure-line | Other non-TT | Graduate rank 6 |
| :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- |
| Mathematics | 29.8% | 63.1% | 7.1% |
| Biological Sciences | 35.6% | 64.4% | 0.0% |
| Chemistry & Biochemistry | 40.5% | 59.5% | 0.0% |
| English | 75.2% | 19.0% | 5.8% |
| Spanish & Portuguese | 19.2% | 17.1% | 63.6% |
| Art & Art History | 59.9% | 24.2% | 15.9% |
| All recorded departments | 46.8% | 42.3% | 10.9% |

The clearest implication is that departments entered the period with very different teaching arrangements. Growth in a field already relying heavily on professional or graduate instructors could lower the university-wide tenure-line share even if no department changed its staffing mix. Conversely, a stable university total could conceal substantial changes within departments. That is why a department panel is necessary: university totals alone cannot distinguish substitution within a department from enrollment moving among departments.

The historical classification must stay broad. Other non-tenure-track includes more than lecturers and professors of practice. THECB rank 6 includes graduate instructors/assistants credited with teaching or assisting a class or laboratory; it is not equivalent to UT’s current TA job title. The department field is the employee’s primary administrative home, which may differ from the department offering a course. Small record groups are flagged in the workbook, and small salary groups are suppressed. The source’s section count spans course levels, so it has not been relabeled as undergraduate sections. [S03](https://www.utsystem.edu/documents/docs/2011/faculty-course-data)

# Four mechanisms the final panel must distinguish

## 1. A title change can manufacture a staffing trend

Liberal Arts provided for lateral reclassification from Lecturer to Assistant Professor of Instruction, Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor of Instruction, and Distinguished Senior Lecturer to Professor of Instruction in 2021–2022. The reclassification itself carried no salary increase. A literal search for “lecturer” and “professor” can therefore suggest a workforce transformation where the same professional-track appointment received a different title. [S08](https://cloud.wikis.utexas.edu/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/1316618268/Faculty%2BTitles%2BPolicies)

The classification should use the tenure flag, job family and effective date, with Professors of Instruction grouped with other professional-track teaching faculty. Current titles must never be projected backward. This issue does not, by itself, invalidate THECB’s tenure-status series: the state reports tenure separately from local title. It is primarily a hazard for the proposed schedule-to-title join. [S24](https://texaserc.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/PU-Manual-2024.pdf)

## 2. Graduate teaching is tied to graduate funding commitments

Liberal Arts’ instructional allocation rules distinguish graduate cohort accounts, regular TA/AI accounts and professional-faculty accounts, and restrict transfers among them. Graduate cohort support covers instructional assignments and fellowship support. Its current student-employment guidance routes standard funded PhD TA/AI appointments through the student’s home department and cohort account. [S15](https://utexas.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/75241069/Soft%2BMoney%2BInstructional%2BFunds%2BAllocation%2BGuidelines) [S13](https://cloud.wikis.utexas.edu/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/75241282/Upcoming%2BSemester%2BStudent%2BGuidance)

That creates a testable alternative to “hire the cheapest teacher.” Some graduate teaching may assign an existing doctoral funding commitment to undergraduate instruction. The relevant counterfactual could be a fellowship, research appointment or different teaching assignment. Departmental cash pressure, doctoral cohort size, cohort guarantees and undergraduate course demand should therefore be measured together. This is an inference from the budget rules, not a demonstrated explanation of the observed trend.

## 3. Large lectures and small seminars purchase different amounts of contact

A professor-led lecture with several graduate-led discussions is a teaching team. An AI-led writing section is another arrangement. A cost per section can favor the small section’s lower payroll while a cost per student favors the larger class. Both calculations need the teaching assistants, supervisors and linked sections included. The data product should publish cost per section, per enrolled student and per student credit hour together, alongside a separate measure of graduate-supported student exposure.

## 4. Tenure-line teaching carries a state formula incentive

For the 2026–2027 biennium, Texas’s Teaching Experience Supplement adds 10% to the formula weight of eligible lower- and upper-division credit hours taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty. The current instruction-and-operations rate is $60.67 per weighted SCH. The appropriation uses a prior base period, summer 2024 through spring 2025, so a later staffing change does not immediately reprice the current appropriation. This is a formula allocation incentive, not a tuition surcharge. [S34](https://reportcenter.highered.texas.gov/meeting/advisory-committee-agendas/formula-advisory-committee-gai-agenda-materials-september-5-2025/)

The LBB’s final program listing identifies $4,387,216 per year for UT Austin’s supplement in FY2026 and FY2027: $8,774,432 across the biennium. Of that total, $6,222,924 is General Revenue and $2,551,508 is estimated Other Educational and General income. Treating the entire supplement as new state tax money and then separately counting all tuition would risk double-counting revenue. The source is an informational financing breakdown, not itself the appropriation law. [S35](https://www.lbb.texas.gov/Documents/Appropriations_Bills/89/Final/Info_ProgramListing_89R.pdf)

This complicates the cheapest-teacher hypothesis in a concrete way. Changing instructional assignments can affect a future funding-formula input as well as payroll. The net effect depends on eligible hours, team-teaching attribution, the future legislative rate and statewide allocations. This report does not assign a realized funding loss to any section or use the historical financing proportions as a marginal revenue rate.

# What can be said about pay and section cost now

The State Auditor’s official salary summaries provide rank context: the reported average for professors rose from $141,820 in FY2012 to $216,759 in FY2024; associate professors from $90,025 to $149,094; assistant professors from $84,008 to $126,796. These are nominal institutional averages from the cited fiscal-year reports, not matched department salaries, inflation-adjusted changes, or prices for one undergraduate class. Research, service, graduate teaching and other assigned work must be separated before allocating compensation to a section. [S19](https://hr.sao.texas.gov/Publications/WFSummaries/WorkforceAnalysis/2016/721-2016.pdf) [S20](https://hr.sao.texas.gov/Publications/WFSummaries/WorkforceAnalysis/2024/721-2024.pdf)

For graduate instructors, current published rates allow a more concrete example. Liberal Arts’ fall 2026 guidance lists an actual fall stipend of $12,025.28 for a standard COLA AI and $10,856.40 for a COLA TA. It also lists larger annualized full-time rates used for payroll entry; those should not be mistaken for a half-time student’s actual gross nine-month stipend. English separately publishes nine-month 2026–2027 stipends of $23,924 for AIs and $21,599 for TAs, with summer support described separately. [S13](https://cloud.wikis.utexas.edu/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/75241282/Upcoming%2BSemester%2BStudent%2BGuidance) [S12](https://cla.utexas.edu/english/graduate-programs/english-ph-d/funding/)

Table 4. An eligible, standard COLA AI assigned to one fall 2026 course. This is a documented compensation example with an explicit tuition-benefit valuation; it is not UT-wide audited section cost. [S13](https://cloud.wikis.utexas.edu/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/75241282/Upcoming%2BSemester%2BStudent%2BGuidance) [S16](https://graduate.utexas.edu/funding/student-employment/academic/tuition-benefit) [S17](https://catalog.utexas.edu/general-information/registration-tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees/tables-tuition-for-fall-and-spring/) The per-student illustrations use 25 students, matching English’s reported average AI assignment; this is not a COLA-wide class-size estimate. [S12](https://cla.utexas.edu/english/graduate-programs/english-ph-d/funding/)

| Component | Amount | Interpretation |
| :---- | :---- | :---- |
| Published fall AI stipend | $12,025.28 | Cash compensation |
| Nine resident graduate credits | $4,464.00 | Tuition-benefit face value if eligible |
| Combined | $16,489.28 | Before fringe, supervision and other support |
| At 25 students | $659.57 per student | Illustrative division of combined amount |
| Cash alone at 25 students | $481.01 per student | Illustrative division of stipend |

Eligible half-time TA/AI appointments receive a tuition reduction benefit covering nine resident graduate credit hours in fall or spring. The benefit reduces the tuition bill and should not be added to the gross cash stipend used for a housing comparison. Its face value also differs from the university’s marginal expense of educating the graduate student. Actual account charges, eligibility and any overlapping waivers must be checked before treating it as a cash cost. [S16](https://graduate.utexas.edu/funding/student-employment/academic/tuition-benefit) [S17](https://catalog.utexas.edu/general-information/registration-tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees/tables-tuition-for-fall-and-spring/)

Fringe costs remain a documented uncertainty. UT’s payroll page displays an 11.9% graduate benefits-eligible rate for FY2026–2027 but labels the new rates pending approval; the preceding year’s rate is 14.5%, and another note on the page is inconsistent with the separate graduate category. Applying 11.9% to the stipend and then adding tuition gives $17,920.29; applying 14.5% gives $18,232.95. These are scenarios, not audited charges. The fall appointment also spans a fiscal-year boundary. The main example consequently stops before fringe. [S18](https://afm.utexas.edu/payroll-services/payroll-info/fringe-benefits)

A particularly useful benchmark is Liberal Arts’ professional-track overload policy: an extra course is typically compensated at one-sixth of the faculty member’s nine-month academic rate. At an academic rate of $72,151.68, that cash payment equals the published $12,025.28 AI fall stipend. Below that threshold, the policy’s cash-only overload price would be lower; above it, higher. This is algebra applied to a rule, not an observed lecturer salary or a recommendation to use overloads. It shows why “a graduate course costs a small fraction of a lecturer course” cannot be assumed. [S14](https://cloud.wikis.utexas.edu/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/1316683789/Faculty%2BWorkload%2BPolicies) [S13](https://cloud.wikis.utexas.edu/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/75241282/Upcoming%2BSemester%2BStudent%2BGuidance)

Ordinary assigned teaching needs a different calculation. For each instructor and term, allocate salary to the instructional portion of the appointment, distribute it using documented teaching responsibility or workload credits, and then add linked graduate support, benefits, supervision and other direct instructional costs. Reconcile allocations back to the person-term payroll total. Faculty salary divided only by undergraduate sections would charge research, advising and graduate teaching entirely to undergraduates and would distort departments with different missions.

# What the student pays

For 2026–2027, a Texas-resident Liberal Arts undergraduate on traditional flat-rate tuition pays $5,429 for a semester at 12 or more credit hours. Holding college, residency, tuition plan and load fixed, the published table does not vary the bill by instructor category. A three-credit allocation of that bill is $1,085.80 at a 15-credit load or $1,357.25 at a 12-credit load. Those are accounting allocations: adding a course from 12 to 15 credits leaves the listed flat tuition unchanged. Aid and applicable additional charges affect actual net payment. [S17](https://catalog.utexas.edu/general-information/registration-tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees/tables-tuition-for-fall-and-spring/)

This gives the student-side answer a precise scope: instructor substitution ordinarily does not change the listed tuition price under a given plan, while class format, contact time and support can change. It does not follow that tuition allocated to one course minus its instructor’s stipend equals profit. Shared facilities, advising, financial aid, academic support, other teaching labor and the treatment of state funding sit outside that subtraction.

# Grades, class size and the hypotheses

There is no justified UT instructor-type grade result in this release. The public grade aggregates can describe departments and courses, but they do not establish which historical appointment type taught each observation. The 147,857-section file remains the essential missing input. Even with it, grade distributions measure grading outcomes; claims about learning require additional evidence.

Existing academic research gives reasons to test both directions. The Northwestern study found better subsequent subject enrollment and performance after introductory courses with non-tenure-line instructors, who generally had longer-term university relationships. The federal What Works Clearinghouse accepted the evidence with reservations because assignment was not random. A different study using two- and four-year institutions found higher initial grades but worse subsequent outcomes with adjuncts, particularly temporary ones. Stable professional faculty, temporary adjuncts and graduate instructors should therefore be analyzed separately when the data permit. [S21](https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/working-papers/2013/IPR-WP-13-18.pdf) [S22](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/SingleStudyReviews/wwc_tenuretrack_040814.pdf) [S23](https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/how-and-why-do-adjunct-instructors-affect-students-academic-outcomes.html)

| Proposed angle | Current disposition | Evidence that could change it |
| :---- | :---- | :---- |
| Fast-growing departments shifted most to cheaper teaching | Keep as untested; separate within-department change from growth among departments | Linked department-term teaching shares, UG SCH served, doctoral cohorts and assigned costs |
| Graduate sections cost a small fraction of tenure-line sections | Replace universal ratio with matched teaching-team cost comparisons | Same course/format, same term, complete salary allocation, TA and supervision costs |
| Stipends fell behind West Campus rent | Open; U5 rent series not located | Comparable rent per bed and actual stipend/summer-support histories |
| Lecturer gateway grading is equivalent to tenure-line grading | Keep as an equivalence test, not a null-result claim | Same-course same-term comparisons and confidence intervals inside a prespecified practical margin |
| 2025 governance changes caused the observed decline | Reject for the 2013–2024 evidence | A post-2025 panel is needed to study later changes |

The first growth test should use undergraduate SCH served by a department, including service courses taken by other majors. Decompose the university-wide share change into change inside departments and change in departments’ enrollment weights. If the aggregate decline disappears after holding department weights fixed, the evidence favors changing demand composition over within-department substitution. If fast-growing departments retain or increase tenure-line exposure, the simple growth-to-cheap-labor story is weakened.

The grade analysis should compare sections within the same course and term, accounting for topic, honors status, modality and scheduling where observed. Publish class-size differences first, then models with and without size: size may be part of the staffing mechanism, not merely a nuisance control. Show uncertainty and common support. A nonsignificant difference does not establish equivalence; choose a meaningful margin before looking at the result.

Use only the grade granularity actually present. An export that combines plus/minus marks into A/B/C/D/F cannot support an exact GPA reconstruction. Separate withdrawals, credit/no-credit and other categories where recorded. UT allowed COVID-era pass/fail exceptions in fall 2020 and spring 2021 after grades were visible; changes in who retained a letter grade can affect averages. Show sensitivity analyses excluding affected terms. [S29](https://catalog.utexas.edu/archive/2020-21/general-information/addendum/)

# Governance is a new setting, not an explanation for an older series

Texas Senate Bill 37 took effect on September 1, 2025 and altered the governance of curriculum and faculty senates. Its core-curriculum review provisions and UT’s subsequent changes make responsibility for undergraduate instruction a live policy question. All observations in the recovered THECB series precede the law, so none estimates its effect. [S25](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00037F.htm)

UT announced a University College on October 22, 2026, to begin in January 2027, with new core requirements phased in and first required for the fall 2028 entering class. The announced appointment structure makes it especially important to retain both a faculty member’s home department and the unit offering a course. A future teaching panel should mark these dates and follow the new structure without forcing a false historical department match. [S26](https://news.utexas.edu/2026/10/22/ut-establishes-university-college-to-anchor-new-core-curriculum-names-founding-dean/)

# Sources and reproducibility

[[S01] THECB Accountability System interactive reports: UT Austin institution 21, measures 250 and 132; original exports and receipts in evidence ZIP](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/InteractiveReport/AddReport)

[[S02] THECB Measures and Definitions, X08U faculty teaching FTE](https://www.txhigheredaccountability.org/AcctPublic/Measures/ManageMeasures?instTypeID=1)

[[S03] UT System, Faculty Course Data release, June 28, 2011; AY2009–2010 workbook and codebook](https://www.utsystem.edu/documents/docs/2011/faculty-course-data)

[[S04] AAUP, Data Snapshot: Tenure and Contingency in US Higher Education, Fall 2023](https://www.aaup.org/academe/issues/spring-2025/data-snapshot-tenure-and-contingency-us-higher-education-fall-2023)

[[S05] AIR / Delta Cost Project, Cost Savings or Cost Shifting?, November 30, 2016](https://www.air.org/resource/brief/cost-savings-or-cost-shifting-relationship-between-part-time-contingent-faculty-and)

[[S06] UT News, Defining teaching by more than mere numbers, November 14, 2011](https://news.utexas.edu/2011/11/14/defining-teaching-by-more-than-mere-numbers/)

[[S07] Texas Tribune Government Salaries Explorer FAQ, university data scope](https://salaries.texastribune.org/faq/)

[[S08] UT Liberal Arts, Faculty Titles Policies](https://cloud.wikis.utexas.edu/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/1316618268/Faculty%2BTitles%2BPolicies)

[[S09] UT Handbook of Operating Procedures 9-2010, Assistant Instructors](https://secure4.compliancebridge.com/utexas/public/getdoc.php?file=9-2010)

[[S10] UT Handbook of Operating Procedures 9-2020, Teaching Assistants](https://secure4.compliancebridge.com/utexas/public/getdoc.php?file=9-2020)

[[S11] UT Provost, Your Syllabus at UT Austin, disclosure scope](https://provost.utexas.edu/the-office/academic-affairs/your-syllabus-at-ut-austin/)

[[S12] UT English PhD funding, 2026–2027 stipends and teaching assignments](https://cla.utexas.edu/english/graduate-programs/english-ph-d/funding/)

[[S13] UT Liberal Arts, Upcoming Semester Student Guidance, fall 2026 rates](https://cloud.wikis.utexas.edu/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/75241282/Upcoming%2BSemester%2BStudent%2BGuidance)

[[S14] UT Liberal Arts, Faculty Workload Policies](https://cloud.wikis.utexas.edu/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/1316683789/Faculty%2BWorkload%2BPolicies)

[[S15] UT Liberal Arts, Soft Money Instructional Funds Allocation Guidelines](https://utexas.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/larc/pages/75241069/Soft%2BMoney%2BInstructional%2BFunds%2BAllocation%2BGuidelines)

[[S16] UT Graduate School, Tuition Reduction Benefit](https://graduate.utexas.edu/funding/student-employment/academic/tuition-benefit)

[[S17] UT General Information Catalog 2026–2027, tuition tables](https://catalog.utexas.edu/general-information/registration-tuition-and-fees/tuition-and-fees/tables-tuition-for-fall-and-spring/)

[[S18] UT Accounting and Financial Management, Fringe Benefits](https://afm.utexas.edu/payroll-services/payroll-info/fringe-benefits)

[[S19] Texas State Auditor, UT Austin Workforce Summary FY2016, including FY2012 salary context](https://hr.sao.texas.gov/Publications/WFSummaries/WorkforceAnalysis/2016/721-2016.pdf)

[[S20] Texas State Auditor, UT Austin Workforce Summary FY2024](https://hr.sao.texas.gov/Publications/WFSummaries/WorkforceAnalysis/2024/721-2024.pdf)

[[S21] Figlio, Schapiro and Soter, Are Tenure Track Professors Better Teachers?, Northwestern working paper](https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/working-papers/2013/IPR-WP-13-18.pdf)

[[S22] US Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse review of the Northwestern study, April 2014](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/SingleStudyReviews/wwc_tenuretrack_040814.pdf)

[[S23] Ran and Xu, How and Why Do Adjunct Instructors Affect Students’ Academic Outcomes?, CCRC/CAPSEE](https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/how-and-why-do-adjunct-instructors-affect-students-academic-outcomes.html)

[[S24] THECB Reporting and Procedures Manual for Public Universities, summer 2024](https://texaserc.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/PU-Manual-2024.pdf)

[[S25] Texas Senate Bill 37, enrolled text, 89th Legislature](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00037F.htm)

[[S26] UT News, University College announcement, October 22, 2026](https://news.utexas.edu/2026/10/22/ut-establishes-university-college-to-anchor-new-core-curriculum-names-founding-dean/)

[[S27] UT IRRIS, UT Course Grade Distributions](https://reports.utexas.edu/spotlight-data/ut-course-grade-distributions)

[[S28] Existing UT grade-patterns research page and linked public aggregates; not the raw section panel](https://sulayman-bowles.tech/research/texas/ut-grade-patterns)

[[S29] UT 2020–2021 General Information Catalog addendum, COVID pass/fail exceptions](https://catalog.utexas.edu/archive/2020-21/general-information/addendum/)

[[S30] UT Austin statistical handbook archive](https://reports.utexas.edu/statistical-handbook)

[[S31] UT Arlington May2022 statistical handbook reproducing THECB lower-division measure definitions; definition source only, not Austin values](https://cdn.web.uta.edu/-/media/project/website/administration/university-analytics/documents/statistical-handbook-final-draft---05132022.ashx)

[[S32] Daily Texan, Graduate students continue fight for better wages despite pushback, February 20, 2023](https://thedailytexan.com/2023/02/20/graduate-students-continue-fight-for-better-wages-despite-pushback/)

[[S33] UT Graduate Workers Union campaign history; organizers’ account](https://utgwu.com/pages/history)

[[S34] THECB Formula Advisory Committee materials, September 5, 2025: current rate, 10% supplement and base-period timing](https://reportcenter.highered.texas.gov/meeting/advisory-committee-agendas/formula-advisory-committee-gai-agenda-materials-september-5-2025/)

[[S35] LBB Informational Program Listing of the 2026–2027 General Appropriations Act, UT Austin, printed III-82](https://www.lbb.texas.gov/Documents/Appropriations_Bills/89/Final/Info_ProgramListing_89R.pdf)


## Supporting data downloads

The public package contains curated, dated aggregate snapshots, dataset definitions and source notes. Its Excel workbook contains values, rather than the original editable formulas. The source and formula notes describe the reproducible scope.

- [Curated data, definitions and source notes (ZIP)](/research/deep-research/data/who-teaches-ut-intro-courses-support.zip)
- [Curated tables, values only (Excel)](/research/deep-research/data/who-teaches-ut-intro-courses/support.xlsx)
- [Primary comparison table (CSV)](/research/deep-research/data/who-teaches-ut-intro-courses/teaching-trend.csv)
- [Dataset definitions (JSON)](/research/deep-research/data/who-teaches-ut-intro-courses/definitions.json)