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 degrees were listed as non-professional in the 2025 Education Department memo and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s late‑2025 guidance or proposal would exclude many graduate and postbaccalaureate programs from a narrow federal definition of “professional degree,” listing fields such as nursing (MSN, DNP), physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling and therapy, education (including teaching master’s degrees), social work, public health (MPH, DrPH), architecture, accounting and others [1] [2] [3]. The administration says it is returning to a decades‑old, narrower regulatory definition tied to minimum degree requirements for certain occupations; critics warn this will lower federal borrowing limits for affected students and could worsen workforce shortages [1] [4] [5].
1. What the memo (and reporting) actually lists — a field‑by‑field snapshot
Reporting aggregates show that the Department’s proposal treats as non‑professional a broad set of advanced programs that historically have been viewed as professional or licensure‑aligned: nursing (MSN, DNP and related advanced nursing credentials), education (including teaching master’s degrees), social work (MSW/DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling/therapy degrees, accounting, architecture and several other applied fields [1] [2] [3] [6]. Different outlets list overlapping but not identical catalogs, showing reporting is still consolidating the final list [2] [3].
2. Why the Department says it did this — the narrow regulatory framing
The Department asserts it is using a longstanding 1965 regulatory definition of “professional degree” — essentially a narrow test tied to whether a degree was the minimum requirement for entry into a profession — and that its committee reached consensus on that definition during negotiated rulemaking [1] [7]. The agency argues the change aligns federal loan limits with that historical standard and aims to curb tuition inflation by limiting federal borrowing for some graduate programs [7] [4].
3. What the change means in dollars and rules for students
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill framework and the Department’s implementation, programs designated “professional” would remain eligible for the higher borrowing caps (reported as $50,000 annual cap and $200,000 lifetime for professional students), while degrees outside that narrow list would face substantially lower caps (reporting cites roughly $20,500 annually and $100,000 lifetime for non‑professional fields) and loss of Grad PLUS access — a change that will alter how many students finance advanced degrees [5] [1] [4].
4. Pushback from professional groups and critics — workforce and equity concerns
Major professional associations — for example the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and nursing advocacy groups — say excluding nursing contradicts the fact that many of these programs lead to licensure and direct practice, risks shrinking pipelines into essential fields, and could force students to turn to expensive private loans [8] [9] [4]. Critics also argue the list is oddly selective (for instance, including theology but excluding nursing) and that the Department’s “consensus” may rest on a narrow historical reading that doesn’t reflect modern graduate‑level practice [8] [5].
5. Conflicting statements and evolving reporting — “fake news” vs. consolidated lists
The Department’s press office has pushed back on some characterizations, with a spokesperson calling certain reports “fake news” while also asserting the agency’s definition is consistent with historical precedent and that a negotiated committee agreed on the language to be proposed [7]. Independent fact‑checks and multiple outlets nonetheless report the Department told negotiators it will not treat fields like nursing and education as professional under the proposed rule [1] [2].
6. Where reporting is uncertain or inconsistent — gaps to watch
Different outlets list different scopes and phrasing (for example, whether all engineering, business or arts programs are affected), and many pieces note the rulemaking process is ongoing and final rules were expected in spring 2026 — so exact lists, caveats, and implementation timelines remain in flux [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention a single, circulation‑wide official table that is final and exhaustive; reporting synthesizes draft proposals, committee outcomes, and agency statements [1] [3].
7. What to monitor next — why this matters beyond loans
If finalized as reported, the change affects not only loan access but recruitment, diversity and long‑term workforce supply in health care, education, social services and allied professions — areas already flagged for shortages by professional groups [9] [4]. Watch for the Department’s final rule, formal Federal Register publication, responses from accrediting bodies and state licensing boards, and whether Congress or courts intervene during the spring‑2026 rule‑making window [1] [7].
Limitations: this analysis relies on contemporaneous news reports, fact‑checks and advocacy statements that collate the Department’s proposed scope; a single authoritative Department table published in the Federal Register or official memo was not supplied among the available sources and the final rule was reported as pending [1] [7].