Were specific fields or CIP codes singled out as non-professional in the 2025 guidance?

1. What the CIP system is and how it’s used — basic facts

The Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) is the Department of Education’s taxonomy for academic programs and is used by federal systems such as IPEDS and SEVIS to map programs to standard codes; the NCES hosts the CIP browse and search tools ^[1], and SEVIS uses NCES’s CIP list when recording students’ majors ^[4]. These core facts establish why CIP codes matter for federal reporting and immigration‑linked program lists like the STEM OPT designated degree list ^{[4] [3]}.

2. Where “non‑professional” labels do appear in CIP material

CIP materials include entries for many program types, including non‑credit and continuing‑education programs; some entries are explicitly described as “not valid for IPEDS reporting,” which functionally separates those programs from standard institutional reporting and could be read as non‑professional or non‑credit designations in context ^[2]. The Learn & Work Ecosystem Library notes this language and the existence of residency and leisure‑type programs in the CIP taxonomy that are often non‑credit ^[2].

3. What the supplied sources say about 2025 changes or “guidance”

None of the supplied documents is a 2025 policy guidance that declares particular fields or CIP codes non‑professional. The NCES CIP user site and search tools provide code lists and browsing ^[1], and other materials explain how DHS selects STEM‑eligible CIP codes for OPT extensions ^[3], but no item in the provided set is labeled a 2025 guidance singling out codes as non‑professional (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3]}.

4. How DHS/STEM lists interact with CIP codes — different but related action

DHS maintains a STEM Designated Degree Program list based on CIP taxonomy and may designate codes at the two‑, four‑ or six‑digit level as STEM‑eligible for OPT extensions; that process is distinct from classifying a code as “professional” or “non‑professional” and is about eligibility for immigration benefits, not a general professional/non‑professional label ^[3]. The Study in the States guidance specifically ties STEM eligibility to CIP taxonomy and periodic DHS updates ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Possible sources of confusion — reporting status vs. “professional” status

The CIP system mixes program types: degree programs, residencies, continuing education, and non‑credit offerings. Some CIP descriptions include the phrase “not valid for IPEDS reporting,” which could be misread as a statement that a field is “non‑professional,” but that phrase only indicates reporting eligibility under IPEDS rather than an assessment of a field’s professional value ^[2]. The NCES site and CIP lists focus on classification and reporting, not normative judgments about professionalism ^{[1] [2]}.

6. What you can do next to verify a claim about “2025 guidance”

To substantiate any claim that a 2025 guidance singled out specific CIP codes as non‑professional, request the exact guidance document name, authoring agency, or URL. The authoritative CIP pages are on NCES ^[1]; DHS/STEM guidance is summarized at Study in the States for OPT/STEM lists ^[3]. If a federal or state agency released guidance in 2025, locate that agency’s press release or the guidance text and compare it to NCES and DHS materials to see whether it indeed uses the phrase “non‑professional” for specific CIP codes ^{[1] [3]}.

7. Limitations and competing interpretations in the record

Available sources in this set do not include any 2025 guidance document saying specific CIP codes were designated non‑professional, so we cannot confirm or refute claims beyond noting related facts above (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [2] [3]}. There is room for competing interpretations: one could interpret “not valid for IPEDS reporting” as a functional non‑professional designation, while NCES/DHS materials frame those labels as administrative/reporting distinctions ^{[2] [3]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

Based on the supplied documents, there is no evidence in these sources of a 2025 guidance that explicitly singled out individual CIP codes as non‑professional; the sources instead show how CIP is used for reporting and for DHS STEM lists and that some CIP entries are flagged as not valid for IPEDS reporting — an administrative status, not the same as a formal “non‑professional” judgment ^{[1] [2] [3]}.