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 academic programs were affected by the 2025 reclassification of non-professional degrees by the Department of Education?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 redefinition of “professional degree” sharply narrowed which graduate programs qualify for higher federal loan limits, cutting the list from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 programs and recognizing only about 11 primary fields plus some doctoral programs as “professional” [1] [2]. Reporting and stakeholder statements say this change removes advanced nursing programs, physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, audiology, public health master’s/DrPH, and other health professions from the professional-degree category — with immediate implications for loan access and repayment options [1] [3] [4].
1. What the Department did and why it matters: shrinking the “professional” category
The Department’s negotiators on the RISE committee finalized a draft definition that limits the category to roughly 11 primary programs (and some doctoral programs), substantially reducing the set of programs that count as “professional” for the higher loan ceilings created in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) [2] [5]. Analysts say the net effect is to move from roughly 2,000 programs previously treated as professional down to under 600 — a contraction that directly determines who can borrow the larger annual ($50,500) and aggregate ($200,000) professional-student loan amounts under the new rules [1] [5].
2. Which academic programs reporting says were affected — health professions singled out
Multiple outlets and advocacy groups highlight that many health-professional graduate programs lost professional status in the draft rules: nursing (including advanced practice nursing like NP, DNP, CRNA, CNM), physician assistant (PA) programs, occupational therapy, audiology, and some public health degrees (MPH, DrPH) are cited as being excluded in the Department’s proposed list [1] [3] [4]. Nurse.org and Newsweek specifically report nursing being dropped from the professional-degree list, prompting national nursing groups to raise alarms about loan access for graduate nursing students [6] [4].
3. How the Department implemented the cutoff: CIP codes and a short list
Sources explain the Department anchored its approach to the 4‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes and to a dated regulation as of July 4, 2025; programs not sharing the designated CIP codes for the 11 listed fields can be excluded even if they meet other professional-degree characteristics (doctorate level, licensure, clinical training) [5] [7]. NASFAA notes negotiators pointed out that some advanced nursing programs were excluded because their CIP codes don’t match the 11 designated programs, despite meeting other professional criteria [7].
4. Financial consequences signaled by the reporting
The reclassification determines eligibility for higher graduate loan limits and access to certain borrower programs. Under OBBBA’s implementation, students in graduate programs will face lower caps ($20,500 annual; $100,000 aggregate) unless their program is defined as “professional,” in which case higher limits ($50,000 annual; $200,000 aggregate) apply — a distinction central to the concern raised by universities and professional organizations [5]. Nurse.org and other outlets tie the change to elimination of Grad PLUS and to new repayment structures that will make advanced health training more costly for many students [6].
5. Who is pushing back — stakeholders and institutional reactions
Universities, professional associations and discipline-specific advocates have been vocal. The Association of American Universities and other higher‑ed groups warned that the proposal “recognize[s] only 11 primary programs” and that narrowing the list will curtail eligibility for loan relief and support, particularly in critical healthcare fields [2]. Nursing organizations and news outlets underscore that excluding nursing threatens workforce pipelines amid shortages [6] [4].
6. Limits of available reporting and open questions
Available sources document the broad categories affected and the mechanism (CIP‑based narrowing), but they do not provide a single definitive, published list of every specific program or the exact 11 fields in one place; some pieces cite examples (nursing, PA, occupational therapy, audiology, MPH/DrPH) while others emphasize the numeric contraction from ~2,000 to <600 [1] [3] [2]. The Department’s formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and final regulatory text — which would give an authoritative, exhaustive list and transitional rules — are not reproduced in the sources provided here [3] [5].
7. Competing perspectives and likely next steps
Proponents of the change argue it clarifies eligibility and aligns benefits with a narrower set of traditional professional degrees (reported context around OBBBA’s adoption of the July 4, 2025 regulation), while critics say the CIP-code approach arbitrarily excludes clinically essential programs and will reduce access to graduate training in health fields [5] [7] [2]. Reporting notes the Department planned a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a 30‑day comment period, and observers expect litigation and policy pushback from affected professions and institutions [3] [5] [2].
If you want, I can pull together a side‑by‑side list of the 11 fields the Department reportedly preserved (as named in the coverage) versus commonly cited programs now excluded, and flag which sources mention each specifically.