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 newly classified as non-professional by the Department of Education in 2025?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 rulemaking narrowed the list of degrees it counts as “professional,” and several widely reported fields—most prominently nursing (MSN, DNP) and education (including teaching master’s)—were said to be excluded from that category [1] [2]. Reporting and fact-checking sources list a broader set of credentials the department said it would no longer classify as professional, including social work, public health, physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, and counseling/therapy degrees [1] [3].
1. What the Department changed — the concrete list reporters circulated
Multiple fact‑checking and news outlets summarize the Education Department’s change by naming specific degree programs moved out of the “professional” bucket: education (including teaching master’s), nursing (MSN, DNP), social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology and counseling and therapy degrees [1] [3]. News organizations such as Newsweek and The Independent highlighted nursing as a high‑profile casualty of the reclassification [4] [2].
2. Why this classification matters for borrowers and programs
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and the Department’s implementing rules, the “professional degree” label determines who can access higher federal borrowing limits and certain programmatic loan benefits; graduate students in professional programs faced a higher cap (e.g., reporting shows professional students could borrow larger amounts under the plan) while non‑professional graduate programs faced lower caps or lost access to former channels like Grad PLUS [3] [5]. Fact‑checkers note OBBBA set new annual and lifetime caps tied to the professional designation, making classification consequential for students’ finances [1].
3. Who raised alarm — stakeholder reactions and why they matter
Professional associations and higher‑education groups publicly protested the exclusions. The American Nurses Association urged the Department to reverse course, warning that excluding nursing threatens workforce capacity and access to care [6]. University associations and research universities also warned the new rule would limit loan access for numerous advanced programs and cited negotiated rulemaking that narrowed recognized professional fields to a smaller set [7] [8].
4. How the Department defended the move — its stated basis
The Education Department told at least one outlet that it relied on a long‑standing regulatory definition (34 CFR 668.2) and argued the interpretation aligns with historical precedent, framing the list as consistent with federal definitions rather than an ad hoc exclusion [4] [1]. NewAmerica’s coverage of the rulemaking describes the department’s final language as including a set of core fields (about 11) plus clinical psychology and programs sharing the same CIP codes, reflecting a deliberate narrowing [9].
5. Disagreements and ambiguity in reporting
Coverage is not uniform about scope and permanence. Some outlets framed the change as a clear removal of nursing and several healthcare degrees from “professional” status [4] [10], while the Department and some explanations point to reliance on regulatory language and CIP‑code approaches that might preserve some related programs under certain codes [1] [9]. Fact‑checkers flagged online rumors and clarified which specific programs were cited by the Department versus what tweets and social posts amplified [1].
6. Broader context — regulatory mechanics and scale
Observers note the practical effect goes beyond labeling: negotiated rulemaking limited the number of fields counted as professional, shrinking program counts (reporting indicated a reduction from roughly 2,000 to under 600 program codes in social posts and that the RISE committee settled on recognizing about 11 primary fields) and thereby reducing the number of students eligible for larger loan caps [11] [7] [9]. Advocates warn this could disproportionately affect women, working nurses, rural students and others who rely on graduate funding [8].
7. What’s not resolved in current reporting
Available sources do not mention whether every institution‑level program in the named fields will uniformly lose access to higher borrowing, or how transition rules, grandfathering, or appeals processes will work in practice; federal rule text and implementation details (e.g., exact CIP‑code mappings and timeline) are summarized but not exhaustively listed in the articles provided [1] [9]. For precise, program‑level consequences, sources recommend consulting the Department’s final regulation in the Federal Register and institutional financial‑aid offices [12] [7].
Bottom line: multiple mainstream reports and a Snopes fact‑check identify a clear group of degrees the Education Department said it would no longer classify as “professional” in late 2025—most notably advanced nursing and several allied‑health and social‑service degrees—and stakeholders warn this will affect student loan access and workforce pipelines; the Department points to regulatory precedent and narrower CIP‑based definitions as its basis [1] [4] [6] [9].