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 degree programs or fields were most commonly classified as non-professional in the 2025 DOE criteria?
Executive summary
Available reporting on the Department of Education’s 2025 redefinition of “professional degree” shows the RISE committee and DOE limited the list of fields that count as professional, explicitly excluding nursing, many public‑health and allied‑health fields, and a broader set of programs that had previously been treated as professional; the DOE/RISE consensus recognized only about 11 primary programs and some doctoral programs as “professional” [1] [2]. Nursing leaders say this will remove higher federal loan caps for many graduate and entry programs and could reduce loan eligibility from roughly $50,000 to about $20,000 annually for affected nursing tracks [3] [4].
1. What the DOE’s new definition actually does — and who decided it
A Department of Education convened panel (the RISE committee) negotiated draft regulations to implement student‑loan provisions of H.R.1 and reached preliminary consensus that sharply narrows which degree programs qualify as “professional,” limiting that designation to roughly 11 primary fields and some doctoral programs rather than the broader list used previously [1]. Committee materials and reporting say the draft ties professional classification to narrow criteria — doctoral‑level timelines, CIP groupings and direct entry‑to‑practice definitions — which excludes many programs that previously accessed higher loan limits [4] [1].
2. Degrees most commonly reported as reclassified out of “professional” status
Multiple outlets and advocacy groups report nursing as a principal field excluded by the DOE’s draft definition, affecting BSN/ADN enrollment cohorts and graduate nursing tracks such as MSN, DNP and nurse practitioner programs [5] [6] [3] [2]. Reporting and committee summaries also highlight public health programs, many allied‑health fields and certain education, social‑work and therapy disciplines being left out of the narrow professional list [7] [8] [4].
3. Specific lists cited by reporting and advocates
Newsweek, Yahoo/Blavity and Nurse.org summarize that the DOE’s narrowed definition keeps medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, optometry, law, veterinary medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, theology and clinical psychology as professional — implicitly excluding many other health‑ and service‑oriented degrees [2] [3]. Other reporting and social posts list an even larger set of affected programs — nursing (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA), physician assistant, occupational/physical therapy, counseling and therapy, public health (MPH, DrPH), health administration, education specialties, social work (BSW/MSW), IT/cybersecurity, engineering, business (MBA/accounting), arts and architecture, audiology and speech‑language pathology — though some of that is circulating on social platforms and flagged as not coming directly from an official DOE notice [8] [2].
4. Financial mechanics: how loan access would change
Advocates and reporting say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and the DOE’s implementing rules would cap undergraduate lending, eliminate GRAD PLUS, and create new caps that leave only narrowly defined “professional” students eligible for higher annual and aggregate limits; nursing graduate students could see their graduate loan caps fall from about $50,000 annually under previous rules to closer to $20,000 annually under the proposed definition [3] [4]. The AAU and nursing groups warn this materially reduces borrowing capacity for students in excluded fields [1] [9].
5. Arguments from both sides and implicit agendas
Nursing and public‑health organizations (AACN, ANA, ASPPH) argue exclusion of their fields will shrink pipelines for clinicians, faculty and public‑health leaders and worsen workforce shortages [9] [7] [4]. The DOE/RISE committee’s stated agenda in reporting is to limit the number of degree programs eligible for enhanced loan support in line with H.R.1’s affordability goals; proponents argue narrowing definitions targets higher‑cost programs and constrains federal exposure [1]. Observers should note advocacy groups have incentives to emphasize harms to their fields, while DOE proponents emphasize fiscal limits and stricter definitions — both positions reflect policy tradeoffs [9] [1].
6. What’s unclear or not covered in current reporting
Available sources do not mention a final, published DOE regulation text that lists every reclassified program definitively; much of the reporting is based on the RISE committee consensus, draft regulation summaries and reactions from affected organizations [1] [4]. Also not found in current reporting is a full, authoritative list from the DOE of every program removed from “professional” status or a line‑by‑line explanation of how CIP codes will map to final loan‑eligibility limits [4] [8].
7. What readers should watch next
Watch for the Department of Education’s formal rulemaking publication or a final RISE committee report that lists the definitive professional program catalogue and the effective dates for implementation, as well as Congressional responses and formal comment letters from AACN, ASPPH and other associations that could influence revisions or legal challenges [1] [7] [9]. News outlets and advocacy groups will report concrete loan‑cap numbers and program lists once a final rule appears; until then, current coverage reflects draft consensus and intense sector pushback [1] [3].