Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which degrees were reclassified as non-professional in 2025 and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s RISE committee proposed narrowing the regulatory definition of “professional degree,” reducing programs counted from roughly 2,000 to under 600 and thereby excluding many health, education, and social‑service master’s and non‑doctoral programs from higher loan limits (ED’s draft would recognize only 11 primary programs plus some doctoral programs) [1] [2]. Reporting and advocacy groups list nursing (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA, CNM), physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW/DSW), education master’s, audiology, speech‑language pathology, many counseling/therapy fields, business and engineering master’s, and others as effectively reclassified under the draft rules, with widespread concern about impacts on loan access and workforce pipelines [3] [4] [5].
1. What the rule change actually says — a narrower “professional degree” definition
The draft regulations emerging from the Department of Education’s Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee would sharply narrow which programs count as “professional” for post‑bachelor loan limits and related aid rules, cutting recognized programs from around 2,000 to fewer than 600 and formally designating only 11 primary fields plus select doctoral programs as professional under the new text [1] [2]. NASFAA explains that this approach ties inclusion to specific 4‑digit CIP codes: programs that do not share those codes with the eleven designated fields would be excluded even if they otherwise meet licensure or doctoral‑level criteria [6].
2. Who is on the reclassification lists reported on social media and advocacy outlets
Multiple posts and advocacy emails circulating since the RISE consensus list surfaced identify a long roster of affected degrees: nursing (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA, CNM, entry BSN/ADN references in some reporting), physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (BSW, MSW, DSW), education master’s, counseling/therapy fields, audiology, speech‑language pathology, business and engineering master’s, and related programs [3] [4] [5]. Journalists and organizations have echoed that advanced nursing and several allied‑health programs would no longer be treated as “professional” under the draft [7] [1].
3. Why programs are being reclassified — mechanics, not an evaluation of profession
The change stems from a regulatory implementation of H.R.1 / the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) that creates different loan caps for students in programs defined as professional; ED’s negotiated draft narrows inclusion largely by mapping to specific CIP codes and the 11 fields it will explicitly recognize, rather than by reassessing whether a job is a profession in the abstract [2] [6]. NASFAA emphasizes the technical mechanism: programs outside those CIP code groupings would be excluded from the professional‑degree loan category even if they meet licensure or doctoral education standards [6].
4. Immediate policy consequence highlighted by reporting: loan limits and program affordability
Under OBBBA changes, Grad PLUS is eliminated and separate loan caps and a new Repayment Assistance Plan are created; being excluded from the professional‑degree designation can limit students’ access to higher annual borrowing amounts and aggregate caps previously available to many graduate/professional students, which advocates warn will make advanced programs less affordable [8] [6]. Newsweek and nursing organizations warned the nursing pipeline could be constrained because graduate nursing students would lose access to higher federal loan limits [7] [8].
5. Competing perspectives and official pushback
Advocates—including the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health and the AAU—say excluding fields like MPH/DrPH, nursing, and allied‑health threatens workforce capacity and ignores precedent that long classified many of these degrees as professional [9] [2]. The Department of Education’s press office, according to Newsweek, called claims that this is a novel redefinition “fake news” and argued that the consensus language aligns with historical precedent [7]. That illustrates the central dispute: critics see a policy that will shrink loan access and harm public services, while ED maintains the language reflects longstanding regulation [7].
6. What reporting does and does not show — limits of current coverage
Available reporting and social posts provide lists of programs flagged for exclusion and explain the CIP‑code mechanism and loan‑limit consequences, but available sources do not publish the full, final regulatory text or a definitive official list that conclusively names every program to be excluded; much of the circulating lists come from draft language, negotiated rulemaking summaries, and social reporting rather than a single ED final rule document [3] [5] [2]. Some claims on social media conflate Department of Labor occupational reclassifications from 2024–2025 with ED’s regulatory work; the threads note that mixing those processes is an error [3].
7. What stakeholders should watch next
Watch for the Department of Education to publish the full proposed rule and its list of recognized CIP codes, the negotiated‑rulemaking report from RISE, formal public comments from professional associations (ASPPH, AAU, nursing groups), and any legal or Congressional responses; those filings will clarify which programs are finally excluded and whether ED or Congress amends the policy before it becomes final [2] [9] [8].