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 2025 Department of Education memo classify as professional versus non-professional?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 proposal narrows which graduate programs qualify as “professional degrees,” explicitly keeping roughly 10–11 traditional fields (medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law, veterinary medicine, and related fields including clinical psychology) while excluding many health‑and‑education fields that had previously been treated as professional — notably nursing (MSN, DNP), physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, social work, public health, and some counseling fields [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows the change reduces the universe of programs classed as professional from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 and ties higher federal loan caps only to degrees that meet the new criteria [3] [4].
1. What the Education Department’s memo actually lists as “professional”
The department’s rulemaking keeps a core set of long‑recognized professional degrees — pharmacy (Pharm.D.), dentistry (D.D.S./D.M.D.), medicine (M.D./D.O.), law (J.D.), veterinary medicine, and adds clinical psychology (Psy.D./Ph.D.) as among the fields explicitly treated as professional — effectively a list of about 10 to 11 fields tied to specific CIP codes and historical regulatory language [3] [5]. Inside Higher Ed summarizes the department’s criteria: programs must signify readiness for practice in a profession, require a level of skill beyond a bachelor’s degree, be doctoral level (with a Master of Divinity exception in the proposal) and meet time/credit thresholds and CIP‑code alignment with those named professions [5].
2. Which degrees reporting says were removed or not included
Multiple outlets and fact‑checks report that nursing graduate degrees (MSN, DNP, NP tracks), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, many counseling and therapy degrees, public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW/DSW), and education master’s degrees were not placed on the department’s concise “professional” list — meaning they may no longer qualify for the higher graduate loan caps under the One Big Beautiful Bill framework [2] [1] [6]. Social media compilations and local reporting echo broad lists of affected programs but vary in completeness [4] [7].
3. Financial consequence tied to the classification
New limits in OBBBA and the Department’s implementation mean students in programs not classified as “professional” would face lower annual and aggregate federal loan caps (e.g., non‑professional grad limits cited at $20,500 annually/ $100,000 aggregate vs. $50,000/$200,000 for professional programs in New America’s summary) — a concrete fiscal reason this classification matters to affected students and institutions [3].
4. Department’s defense and the regulatory basis
The Department argues it is returning to a narrow, historically rooted regulatory definition of “professional degree” and aligning the NPRM with the existing CFR definition as of July 4, 2025; ED officials told negotiators they used long‑standing language and criteria rather than inventing new policy [2] [8]. Inside Higher Ed and NASFAA reporting show ED framed the change as applying criteria about doctoral level, credit/time thresholds, and CIP code alignment [5] [8].
5. Pushback from professional associations and stakeholders
Nursing organizations (AACN, American Nurses Association) and institutions have loudly criticized the exclusion of nursing and related fields, warning it will “severely restrict access to critical funding for graduate nursing education” and strain workforce pipelines — a direct clash between ED’s legal/regulatory reading and professional groups’ workforce and equity concerns [9] [1] [10].
6. Variations, limits, and areas of uncertainty
Coverage differs on the exact final list and whether the department’s language is exhaustive; some pieces note the definition is “not exhaustive” and that licensure remains a factor, while others and fact‑checks say the department’s interpretation will shrink program eligibility substantially [1] [3] [2]. Reporting shows the department’s final rules were expected in spring 2026 and that negotiators and commentators expected further debate over CIP‑code mapping and exceptions [2] [8]. Available sources do not provide a single, authoritative text listing every degree labeled professional vs. non‑professional in the final rule within the provided set; instead they report which fields were explicitly included and which prominent fields were omitted in the proposal and commentary [5] [3] [2].
7. How to read competing claims and next steps for readers
When outlets list dozens of fields “reclassified,” check whether they rely on the department’s NPRM, stakeholder summaries, or viral social posts — the authoritative determiner will be the department’s final regulatory text and corresponding CIP‑code tables. If you are a student or program leader, consult your institution’s financial aid office and watch for the Department’s final rule and CIP‑code mapping (expected spring 2026 per ED statements cited in reporting) to confirm whether a specific degree will be treated as professional [2] [8].
Sources cited: Department and reporting summarized above [5] [1] [2] [3] [6] [4].