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 graduate degrees did the Department of Education reclassify as non-professional in 2025 and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED) has proposed — and a department-convened committee has reached consensus on — a much narrower definition of “professional” graduate programs that would reduce eligible programs from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 and recognize only 11 primary professions (plus some doctoral programs) for higher loan caps; that process would exclude many degrees commonly considered professional, including nursing, public health, social work, physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, audiology and speech‑language pathology, among others [1] [2]. The new ED proposal ties “professional” status to criteria such as being generally doctoral-level and requiring at least six years of academic instruction, which is the core rationale driving these reclassifications [3] [4].
1. What the department and its RISE committee actually decided — a sharp narrowing of “professional”
A Department of Education convened committee (the RISE committee) negotiated draft regulations implementing H.R. 1 that limit which graduate programs count as “professional,” agreeing to recognize just 11 primary programs and some doctoral programs as professional degree programs — a change intended to make far fewer programs eligible for the higher $200,000 loan limit [2]. Observers summarize the change as reducing the universe of professional programs from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600, a numerical description that conveys the scale of the narrowing [1].
2. Which degrees are reported to be excluded from “professional” status
Multiple outlets and specialty advocacy organizations report that commonly cited exclusions include nursing (MSN, DNP, NP), physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), audiology and speech‑language pathology, many counseling and therapy degrees, and some education and business master’s programs — all of which have been reported in industry coverage and professional associations’ responses [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. The threads and trade-site lists reflect how practitioners and students perceive the practical impact; professional associations like the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health noted ED’s proposal would exclude public health degrees from the “professional degree” definition [8].
3. Why ED’s proposed definition reclassifies these programs
ED’s latest proposal requires several criteria for “professional” status: the program must signify completion of skills to begin practice in a profession, require a level of skill beyond a bachelor’s, generally be at the doctoral level (with the narrow exception of a Master’s in Divinity), and require at least six years of academic instruction including at least two post‑baccalaureate years; programs must also fall within the same four‑digit CIP code as one of 11 explicitly named professions [3]. Those structural, time‑based and CIP‑code rules are the formal reasons programs that are often masters‑level or have differing CIP codes would lose “professional” classification [3] [4].
4. Financial and policy motive: loan caps and OBBBA implementation
The background driver is implementation of the loan‑limit changes in H.R. 1 (nicknamed by some reporting as OBBBA), which sets new aggregate caps for graduate and professional loans and ends Graduate PLUS for new borrowers; narrowing the definition of “professional” limits which programs can access the larger $200,000 limit and therefore reduces federal exposure under the new law [2] [10]. Stakeholders argue this is intended to curb borrowing and federal liability; critics counter it will reduce access to advanced training in fields that already rely heavily on federal loans [2] [4].
5. Who’s pushing back — universities, professional groups, and student advocates
Research universities and specialty associations warned the narrower list threatens access to vital programs; the Association of American Universities flagged the potential curtailing of programs eligible for higher loan limits and urged public comment when ED publishes regulatory language [2]. NASFAA and other financial‑aid bodies raised concerns about practical effects for first‑generation, minority and second‑career students in fields such as nursing that rely on unsubsidized and PLUS loans [4].
6. What this reclassification does — and does not — mean for degrees and licensure
Multiple explainers emphasize that reclassification affects federal loan categorization and caps, not the existence of degrees, licensure, or occupational requirements: programs still exist and can qualify students for jobs and certification, but they may lose eligibility for the higher “professional” loan cap if they don’t meet ED’s criteria or CIP‑code mapping [5]. That distinction is central to understanding impacts: financial access changes, not academic accreditation per se [5] [4].
7. Gaps, next steps, and how to follow the rulemaking
ED plans to publish agreed‑upon regulatory language in the Federal Register and take public comment before finalizing rules, offering institutions and students a formal window to respond [2]. Available sources do not mention a final, department‑wide list published as an enforceable regulation yet; current reporting describes proposals, committee consensus drafts, and reaction from affected sectors [2] [3]. Watch the Federal Register notices and comment period for definitive listings and final regulatory text [2].