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 specific degrees did the Department of Education reclassify as non-professional in 2025, and what definition did it apply?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 rulemaking process narrowed the category of “professional degree” programs to a short list of fields and applied a new definition tied to program length and licensure preparation; negotiators agreed to recognize 11 primary programs (including medicine, law, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, podiatry, chiropractic, theology, clinical psychology, and osteopathic medicine) as professional, with many other health and social‑service degrees excluded from that list [1]. Stakeholders — universities, nursing groups, and associations — say the change will limit higher federal loan caps for excluded fields [1] [2] [3].
1. What the Department proposed: a narrower, functional definition
The Department’s negotiated draft defines a “professional degree” by criteria including program structure (typically at least two years post‑baccalaureate or six years total) and demonstrable preparation for a licensed occupation; under the negotiated approach the Department and the RISE committee agreed to recognize a limited set of primary programs as professional and to treat other programs as non‑professional for loan‑limit purposes [4] [1] [5].
2. The specific list: 11 primary programs kept as “professional”
According to reporting and association statements, the Committee settled on 11 primary programs that will be treated as professional degrees: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology, and clinical psychology — with clinical psychology added to the ten programs listed in the underlying statute [1] [6].
3. Which degrees news outlets and advocacy groups say were reclassified as non‑professional
Multiple outlets and stakeholder groups report that nursing and many other advanced health and human‑service degrees were excluded from the professional list under the proposed definition — for example, nursing master’s and doctoral programs (including nurse practitioner tracks), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, and some public‑health degrees have been reported as falling outside the new professional designation [5] [7] [8] [9] [2]. Newsweek and Nurse.org explicitly report nursing excluded [10] [7].
4. Why this matters: loan caps and student financing
Under H.R.1 and the Department’s implementation plan, students in programs classified as professional can access much higher federal graduate loan limits (up to $50,000 per year / $200,000 aggregate), while other graduate students face the standard, lower limits (about $20,500 per year / $100,000 aggregate). Narrowing the professional list therefore reduces borrowing capacity for students in excluded fields, potentially affecting enrollment and workforce pipelines in those occupations [4] [1].
5. Competing perspectives: policy designers vs. affected professions
Advocates for the narrower definition — including some policy commentators who emphasize controlling excess borrowing and aligning loan limits with typical program borrowing — argue the Department’s criteria better target high‑cost, licensure‑focused programs and will restrain unnecessary student debt [4]. Opponents — including the American Association of Colleges of Nursing and nursing groups — say excluding nursing and related health fields ignores the licensure and clinical requirements of those professions and could undermine workforce supply [2] [3].
6. What the Department says and the state of rulemaking
The Department convened the RISE negotiated rulemaking committee and reached consensus language; reporting notes that the Department is preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and that stakeholders will have a public comment period before final rules — meaning the definition and list can still change through formal rulemaking and public input [6] [5] [11].
7. Evidence gaps and limits in current reporting
Available sources report the 11 retained program categories and multiple examples of excluded fields (notably nursing and some public‑health degrees), but full, authoritative agency publication of the final regulatory text or a single consolidated list of every reclassified degree program is not present in the provided materials; a complete catalogue of all specific degree programs removed from “professional” status is not found in current reporting [1] [3] [10].
8. Practical next steps for affected students and institutions
Stakeholders should monitor the Department’s forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, submit comments during the public‑comment period, and consult institutional financial‑aid offices and accrediting bodies about transitional legacy rules and any temporary protections for current students [6] [5]. Associations like AACN are already publicly lobbying the Department, indicating organized advocacy will continue [2].
Sources cited: RISE committee reporting and analyses, AAU and association statements, and coverage of nursing exclusion [1] [6] [5] [4] [10] [7] [2] [3].