Which common degrees were listed as non-professional in the 2025 memo and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s November 2025 memo narrowed the formal list of “professional degree” programs used to set new federal graduate loan caps, excluding many commonly recognized fields such as nursing, education, public health, social work, architecture, accounting, and several therapy professions (examples cited in media and advocacy summaries) [1] [2] [3]. The agency says the change follows a narrow, long‑standing regulatory definition and aims to limit graduate borrowing to curb costs, while professional groups warn it will reduce access to essential workforces [4] [5] [6].
1. Narrowing the gate: which common degrees were listed as non‑professional and by whom
Multiple news outlets and fact‑checks report that the Department’s updated interpretation removes many widely regarded professional graduate programs from the “professional degree” bucket for loan‑cap purposes — specifically naming nursing (MSN, DNP), education/teaching master’s degrees, social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), architecture, accounting, occupational and physical therapy, speech‑language pathology/audiology, physician assistant and counseling/therapy degrees among those excluded from the higher “professional” loan tier [1] [2] [3] [7].
2. Why the Department says it did this: regulatory text and loan caps
The Department frames the move as an application of an existing regulatory definition (34 CFR § 668.2) and the OBBBA loan‑cap framework: under the law, only degrees that meet the regulatory criteria are eligible for the higher “professional student” loan caps; other graduate programs fall under the lower graduate caps [4] [2]. Coverage explains the mechanics: the policy change ties eligibility to a narrow professional‑degree list and thus affects annual and aggregate borrowing limits for new borrowers [8] [9].
3. What proponents say the policy achieves: rein in graduate borrowing
Supporters argue the reform prevents open‑ended loan access that previously let expensive graduate programs push up borrowing and enrollment in low‑ROI programs. Commentators note the new caps aim to limit student debt growth and force market signals about program cost and value [9] [10].
4. What critics warn: workforce and equity consequences
Professional associations and unions say excluding fields like nursing, public health and education will make already understaffed, licensure‑dependent careers harder to afford, threatening pipelines into critical sectors. ASPPH and nursing groups explicitly warned that excluding MPH/DrPH and advanced nursing programs risks undermining public health and patient care workforce capacity [5] [6]. News analysis and advocacy pieces argue the rule will effectively reduce borrowing for students in those programs, with downstream effects on recruitment and access [11] [3].
5. Numbers that matter: the loan caps at stake
Reporting and analyses repeatedly cite the two tiers created by OBBBA and the Departmental implementation: professional‑degree programs would retain access to higher caps (commonly reported as roughly $50,000 per year and $200,000 aggregate), while other graduate programs face the lower tier (about $20,500 annually and $100,000 aggregate) — a difference advocates say will materially affect students in excluded fields [11] [8] [9].
6. Disagreements over interpretation and precedent
The Department claims it is applying a 1965‑era regulatory definition; critics say the agency’s interpretation is unusually narrow compared with decades of practice and professional licensure norms. Fact‑checks note the Department’s move is a reinterpretation rather than a repeal, but the narrower reading diverges from how many sectors and schools have long treated degrees like nursing and public health [2] [4] [5].
7. What’s uncertain or not covered in available reporting
Available sources document which fields were cited as excluded and the policy rationale, but they do not provide a complete, authoritative list from the memo itself in the documents provided here; they also do not show the Department’s internal cost‑benefit analysis or precise thresholds used to adjudicate borderline programs [4] [2]. Specific institutional impacts, projected enrollment shifts, and longitudinal workforce modeling are not found in current reporting provided here [10] [5].
8. Bottom line and what to watch next
The change is procedural in form — an interpretive narrowing of “professional degree” for loan‑cap rules — but substantive in effect: widely taught, licensure‑linked graduate programs have been placed into a lower loan tier, triggering immediate concern among professional groups and students [6] [11]. Watch for the Department’s published memo text, formal rulemaking comments, and legal or congressional challenges from affected professional associations to see whether the list or interpretation changes [4] [5].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the reporting and advocacy materials provided and cites those sources directly; the original Department memo text and complete official list were not included among the supplied documents for direct quotation [4] [2].