Relating to medical school admissions, coursework, academic standards, and employment decisions in this state.
HB 291 would impose new statewide requirements on Texas medical schools regarding grading, admissions, academic standards, and employment decisions. The bill defines “medical school” broadly to include traditional medical schools and other higher-education institutions that award medical degrees. It would require at least half of the coursework in a medical degree or certificate curriculum to use letter grades A-F or a tiered grading system with at least four designations, rather than pass/fail or other nontraditional grading formats for all coursework.
The bill also changes how medical schools may adjust admissions and academic standards. Before revising admissions standards or degree/certificate award standards, a medical school would have to submit the proposed changes, a concise explanation, and the effective date to both the Legislature and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, unless the change is required by state or federal law. For admissions, schools would also be required to consider an applicant’s performance on an appropriate standardized test focused on science and medical practice, though test scores could not be the sole criterion for admission.
In addition, HB 291 prohibits medical schools from granting preference in admissions or employment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The bill includes a narrow exception allowing bona fide sex-based qualifications that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a medical school. The bill’s provisions would apply beginning with the 2026 fall semester for admissions and coursework, with the new coursework grading requirement applying to students first enrolling in that term or later.
The bill would affect the Education Code by adding new sections governing medical school coursework, admissions, and employment practices, and by creating a notice-and-submission requirement before certain academic standards can be changed. It would also constrain medical schools’ discretion in designing grading systems, admissions criteria, and diversity-related preference policies, while giving the Legislature and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board advance visibility into proposed standards changes.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for more standardized grading and admissions practices and for limiting the use of race- or sex-based preferences in medical education and hiring. Likely points of contention would include institutional autonomy, diversity and equity policies, the role of standardized testing in admissions, and whether legislative review of academic standards is appropriate.
HB 291 would amend the Texas Education Code to regulate medical school grading practices, admissions criteria, changes to academic standards, and employment preferences. It would require at least 50 percent of medical-school coursework to be graded with letter grades or a comparable tiered system, require schools to consider standardized test scores in admissions, mandate advance notice to the Legislature and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board before certain standards changes, and prohibit preference based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions and employment, subject to a limited sex-based exception.
No votes or committee testimony were provided, so the record does not show measured support or opposition. From the bill’s structure, the sentiment appears to favor greater uniformity, transparency, and restrictions on race- and sex-based preferences in medical education. At the same time, the bill’s requirements would likely be viewed by some as a significant intrusion into medical schools’ academic and admissions autonomy.
The main likely points of contention are whether the state should dictate grading structures and admissions processes for medical schools, whether standardized tests should be required as part of admissions review, and whether legislative oversight of academic standards is appropriate. Another likely area of dispute is the prohibition on preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, which could be seen by supporters as a neutrality measure and by opponents as limiting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Medical schools and higher-education stakeholders may also object to the bill’s restrictions on their ability to revise curricula and standards without prior submission to state officials.