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 disciplines or degree names were explicitly listed as non-professional by the 2025 Department of Education guidance?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated proposal for defining “professional degree” narrows eligibility to a short list of fields—11 explicit professions plus closely linked CIP-coded programs—and in doing so excludes many graduate programs that had previously been treated as professional, including nursing, social work, public health (MPH/DrPH), physician assistant, occupational therapy, audiology, clinical psychology variations, and others reported by professional associations and outlets [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting and organizational statements show the change would cut the universe of programs considered “professional” from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600, with consequential effects on higher federal loan limits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act [4] [6] [1].
1. What the Department actually proposed — a tight list anchored to 11 fields
The Department’s draft rule would recognize a limited set of explicit professions (about 11) as “professional degree” fields and treat other programs as professional only if they share the same four‑digit CIP code as those listed professions; programs must also meet other criteria (e.g., signaling readiness for practice and often doctoral‑level/length requirements) to qualify [6] [1]. NewAmerica and Inside Higher Ed describe this as a narrowing relative to earlier, broader definitions and to alternative proposals on the table at the RISE committee [1] [6].
2. Which disciplines organizations say were excluded or likely excluded
Professional groups and reporting identify multiple health and service fields that professional associations say were left out of the Department’s list: nursing and advanced nursing degrees (e.g., nurse practitioners), public health degrees including MPH and DrPH, physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, audiology, social work (MSW), and some clinical psychology tracks—each flagged by stakeholder statements as excluded or threatened by the new definition [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing and the Council on Social Work Education explicitly said the Department’s proposed definition would exclude nursing and social work from the “professional” category [2] [5]. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health warned the draft excludes MPH and DrPH [3].
3. How reporters summarized the change and its scale
Multiple outlets and analysts say the draft trims the number of programs counted as professional from about 2,000 to under 600, a reduction that would shift which graduate students can access the higher $50,000/year ($200,000 aggregate) professional loan limits under OBBBA [4] [1] [6]. Inside Higher Ed notes the Department’s draft imposes length and degree‑level criteria (e.g., doctoral level or long program lengths) and a tie to the 4‑digit CIP codes for the 11 enumerated professions [6].
4. Conflicting views and policy rationale
Supporters of the narrower definition, including some policy analysts, argue it targets higher loan limits toward fields with historically high borrowing and tuition (for example, medicine and dentistry) and excludes programs where most students already borrow within standard limits (e.g., Ed.D., MSW), a point AEI emphasized in favor of exclusion for some degrees [7]. By contrast, professional associations argue the exclusion underestimates workforce needs and would make essential graduate training less affordable thereby threatening supply in health and social care [2] [3] [5].
5. What is explicit in the texts vs. what stakeholders report
The Department’s drafting process and coverage make clear the rule explicitly lists roughly 11 professional fields and uses CIP‑code matching and program‑length/degree criteria to extend or restrict coverage [6] [1]. Specific exclusions—like nursing, MPH/DrPH, PA, OT, audiology, and MSW—are reported by professional groups and news outlets as being left out or at risk; however, the negotiated text itself is described as tying status to CIP codes and length, so the practical inclusion/exclusion of any single program could depend on how its CIP code aligns with the enumerated list [3] [2] [4] [6].
6. Limitations and next steps to verify exact text
Available sources summarize the Department’s approach and stakeholder reactions but do not quote a finalized regulatory text in full here; NewAmerica and Inside Higher Ed describe the framework and the 11 fields, and associations list specific programs they say are excluded, but the precise, line‑by‑line regulatory language and full enumerated list are not reproduced in these sources [1] [6] [2] [3]. The Department planned a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a 30‑day comment period, which would be the authoritative place to confirm exactly which program names and CIP codes are included or excluded [3] [6].
If you want, I can pull together a concise checklist of the specific professions named in the Department/coverage and map common graduate program CIP codes to that list so you can see likely inclusions and exclusions based on current reporting (sources above).