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 graduate degrees were reclassified in 2025 and what does the reclassification mean?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) process is proposing a much narrower regulatory definition of “professional degrees,” which would reduce the number of programs eligible for the higher federal loan limits created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA); commentators say the change could cut the list from roughly 2,000 programs to fewer than 600 and would exclude fields such as advanced nursing, physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, audiology and public health from “professional” status [1] [2]. The practical result: the Graduate PLUS program is being eliminated for new borrowers and graduate borrowing will face new annual and aggregate caps, while legacy protections may let currently enrolled students keep prior loan access for a limited phase-in period [3] [4].
1. What the reclassification process actually is — rulemaking, not a single decree
The action in question comes from negotiated rulemaking and committee consensus about how to define “professional degree programs” under OBBBA; the Department of Education’s RISE committee reached preliminary consensus on a new definition and expects a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which will open a public comment period before any final regulatory change [2] [5]. That means the lists circulating online are largely summaries, reactions, or drafts rather than an immediate blanket removal of credentials; advocacy groups and institutions are still engaging in the rulemaking process [2].
2. Which degrees are reported to be affected — overlapping lists, not a single authoritative roster
Multiple outlets and advocacy groups report that many health professions and allied fields would lose the “professional” label under the proposed definition: advanced nursing degrees (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA), physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech-language pathology, counseling/therapy, public health degrees (MPH, DrPH), and health administration are repeatedly cited by organizations and commentators as excluded from the narrower professional-degree category [1] [6] [2]. Social work, education specialties, certain business and engineering programs, and some IT/cybersecurity degrees are also listed in public social posts and stakeholder reactions — but those social posts are not an official Departmental catalog and should be treated as illustrative rather than definitive [7] [1].
3. What “reclassification” means for student borrowing in plain terms
Under OBBBA and the negotiated regulations, the federal Graduate PLUS program is eliminated for new borrowers and graduate students will face new annual and aggregate Direct Loan limits; a smaller set of programs categorized as “professional” would remain eligible for higher professional-student unsubsidized loan limits, while other graduate programs would be subject to stricter caps and the new lifetime caps for graduate borrowing described in the legislation [3] [8]. In short: being removed from the “professional” list could mean lower maximum federal borrowing capacity for students in those programs [4] [3].
4. Phase-in and legacy protections — who keeps current loan access
Negotiators built in a phase-in and “legacy” protections: students already enrolled and who received Direct Loans for a program of study by certain cutoff dates can continue to borrow under existing Graduate PLUS rules for a limited period (for example, current students may be able to continue to access prior limits for up to three years or through legacy provisions tied to June 30, 2026/July 1, 2026 deadlines depending on the text) [4] [3]. That reduces immediate disruption for some continuing students but does not eliminate future impacts for new entrants or for programs that lose “professional” status when rules take effect [3].
5. Stakes and competing perspectives from stakeholders
Universities and associations representing health and public‑health programs warn the narrower definition will “significantly limit loan accessibility” and could harm workforce pipelines in critical fields (Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, AACN, and others), while higher‑education associations and some policy advocates argue imposing loan caps is necessary fiscal reform and that professional status should be tightly defined to match statutory intent [2] [6] [8]. Advocacy groups also point to empirical claims — for example a reported drop in identified “professional” programs from ~2,000 to under 600 — that underline the magnitude of the proposed narrowing [1].
6. What to watch next — rule text, comment period, and legislative/administrative responses
The Department is expected to issue formal proposed rules for public comment; that text will provide the final technical definition (CIP-code crosswalks, program lists, and cutoff dates) that determines which programs remain “professional.” Stakeholder letters, institutional analyses, and Congressional or agency responses during or after the comment period will be decisive in shaping the final outcome [2] [5]. Available sources do not mention a final, binding list of every individual degree reclassified as of today — the reporting is about proposals, drafts, and stakeholder reactions rather than a completed, definitive reclassification [1] [2].
If you want, I can track the Department’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and produce a follow-up that extracts the official program lists and exactly which CIP codes are affected once the rule text is published.