At a time when American student loan debt has surpassed $1 trillion, U.S. Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Brian Schatz of Hawaii are calling for reform in higher education. On Wednesday, Dec. 4, Murphy briefed college reporters within the state in a press conference call, during which he discussed the Affordable College Costs Empower Student Success (ACCESS) Act of 2013, a bill to combat the rising cost of college tuition. Murphy and Schatz will introduce the bill next week in Washington, D.C.

“College affordability is the middle class issue of this generation, and federal policy in higher education can’t simply begin and end with a debate over the interest rate that students are paying on loans,” Murphy said.

Murphy pointed to the high cost and rate increase of college tuition as access barriers to higher education. The youngest member of the Senate, Murphy discussed his personal experience with the costs of higher education.

“I am one of the few members of Congress still paying back my student loans, and I am saving up for my kids’ college [tuitions],” Murphy said. “A good portion of our income comes to paying past and future college loans.”

The ACCESS Act seeks to address the issues of access and affordability by rewarding schools that develop programs to lower the cost and reduce the time for completion of a degree. These could include offering online courses, competency-based degrees, dual-enrollment programs, and accelerated degrees. Currently, institutions seeking to implement alternative models of higher education must acquire waivers from the Education Department on an individual basis. The ACCESS Act will allow institutions to clear those hurdles more easily.

In addition to encouraging institutions to adopt competency-based and accelerated degree programs, the bill will hold institutions accountable for delivering quality education through the creation of a system of standards of affordability, access, and value to low- and middle-income students. It calls for the creation of a panel of students, education experts, and other stakeholders to measure student outcomes with tuition affordability. Institutions must satisfy minimum standards for affordability and student graduation rates to remain eligible for federal funding such as Pell Grants and Stafford Loans. Murphy predicted the accountability portion of the bill will be controversial yet crucial.

“A lot of schools aren’t going to like the fact that they aren’t going to [automatically receive federal aid],” Murphy said. “We can’t accept the status quo.”

Murphy recognized, however, that no one standard for accountability can be universally applied to all institutions. As such, the legislation will devise different standards to be applied to different institutions.

“There are different types of students walking through the door at Yale than at Gateway Community College,” he said. “There are some factors…that are out of control of colleges when it comes to completion rate.”

Murphy predicted that the accountability standards will largely affect for-profit colleges and universities, which have a higher number of students defaulting on college loans in comparison to non-profit colleges. He stated that the legislation would not have a large effect on private non-profit institutions and acknowledged that the tuition at such institutions, including Wesleyan and its peer institutions, are high, but commended the financial aid opportunities provided to grant better access to middle- and lower-income institutions.

“There would be no standard that the bill can have that Wesleyan wouldn’t be able to meet,” Murphy said. “The benefit to a school like Wesleyan, who has thought of a three year program, would come from incentive funding from the federal government.”

At the University, the accelerated three-year option, which allows students to complete their credits and major and graduate in three years, is endorsed by President Michael Roth as a method to create greater access to students.

“We are trying to make education more affordable,” Roth wrote in an email to The Argus. “[The three-year option] can save families about 20 percent off the cost of a Wesleyan degree, and we are keeping tuition increases in line with inflation. We hope to offer more opportunities for low income students and veterans in the coming years.”

Jessica Seidman ’16 is currently on track to graduate in three years and reported an overall positive experience with her decision.

“[The three year program] puts more pressure on you in terms of managing requirements and expectations,” Seidman said. “But it definitely is worth it, and if you’re motivated enough, you will be able to make the most of your college experience.”

Yet not all students at the University agree with the direction of changes in higher education supported by Murphy and Roth: the accelerated three-year option has faced criticism as well as praise.

“If making education more affordable means squeezing it into shorter intervals and with an end-goal of molding students to be ‘prepared for the workforce,’ then it’s time to reevaluate our priorities,” Evan Bieder ’15 wrote in an email to The Argus. “If Murphy and Roth’s views on education are followed through completely, what’s stopping institutions of higher education from being stratified by class to an even greater extent than they already are? If we continue on this trend, before long poor students’ only option will be 1-2 years of highly intensive, workplace-applicable schooling while only wealthy students enjoy the luxuries of a 4 year liberal arts experience.”

Murphy explained that the legislation is not aimed at replacing the traditional undergraduate experience competency- and assessment-based degrees, but at opening up the option of accelerated education for students who wish to enter the workforce early or are unable to afford the traditional experience.

Higher education reform has garnered much attention as Congress gears up to debate the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which governs federal student aid. Murphy does not believe the ACCESS Act will pass as a standalone bill, but sees the opportunity to introduce its components to the renewed Higher Education Act.