Updated (5:34 p.m.):  According to Kevin Hegarty, the University's executive vice president and chief financial officer, the UT System extended the deadline for the tuition proposal after students and UT administrators formally requested the extension. The proposal, originally due Wednesday, is now due Friday, Hegarty said.

Original story: One day before student leaders were required to submit a tuition proposal to President William Powers Jr., administrators at the UT System extended the deadline, according to Andrew Clark, Senate of College Councils president.

The committee of student leaders, including Clark, student government president Horacio Villarreal, and Columbia Mishra, president of the graduate student assembly, was charged with recommending up to a  2.6 percent increase for in-state undergraduate tuition and a 3.6 increase for out-of-state tuition. 

"We heard from UT System that the campuses have a little more flexibility on when it's due," Clark said. "I don't have a date right now, all I heard at this point is that we have some extra time to discuss the proposal."

Clark said he was not told when the new proposal will be due, but the group will plan to complete it sometime in the next few weeks, regardless. 

Typically, tuition advisory committees are formed every two years around August to create a proposal for setting tuition, following directives from the UT System Board of Regents. This year, the regents issued a directive halfway through the fall semester that forbade tuition increases for in-state students. As a result, a smaller-than-typical advisory committee — composed of three people — recommended a 3.6 percent tuition increase for out of state students.

On Feb. 25, the regents issued new instructions that a full committe should be formed to consider an in-state tuition increase of up to 2.6 percent. 

The UT System and the tuition advisory committee have both received significant student criticism — the System for not allowing enough time for a proposal to be developed, and the committee for failing to provide avenues for broader student input.

 The group is working to create a new proposal for a one-year cycle, rather than the traditional two-year cycle tuition is set on.