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 accrediting bodies and institutions are impacted by the 2025 non-professional degree reclassification?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s new regulatory proposal narrows which programs count as “professional degrees,” cutting the number of eligible programs from roughly 2,000 to under 600 and reserving higher loan limits for a much smaller set — broadly described by ED as 11 primary program areas plus some doctoral programs [1] [2]. That shift has already been reported to remove nursing, physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, public health (MPH/DrPH), many counseling/therapy fields, and several other health and professional programs from professional-degree status in the draft proposal [1] [3] [4].
1. What the rule change actually does — fewer programs get “professional” status
The RISE committee’s draft regulatory text limits “professional degree” eligibility to a narrow set of CIP-coded programs and a handful of doctoral tracks, which ED and committee members say aligns the new rule with an existing historical regulatory definition; the change reduces the number of programs counted as professional from about 2,000 to fewer than 600 [5] [1] [2]. Under OBBBA loan limits, students in programs deemed “professional” would keep access to larger annual and aggregate federal loan caps (for example, $50,000 annually / $200,000 aggregate for professional programs versus lower limits for other graduate programs) starting July 1, 2026 per analysis in the reporting [5].
2. Which fields reporting says will lose “professional” classification
Multiple outlets and advocacy groups report that advanced nursing programs (DNP, NP, CRNA, CNM), physician assistant (PA) programs, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech-language pathology, counseling/therapy, public health (MPH, DrPH), social work, many education specialties, some business/IT/engineering programs, and allied health fields are excluded by ED’s proposed list or by the practical effect of relying on narrow CIP codes [1] [4] [6]. Newsweek and other coverage specifically note nursing’s exclusion and quote ED and nursing organizations reacting to that result [7] [8].
3. Who is raising alarms — associations and university groups
The American Nurses Association has publicly objected and called for ED to explicitly include nursing pathways, warning of workforce consequences [9]. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) expressed deep concern that excluding MPH and DrPH programs would undermine public health workforce preparation [3]. Leading research universities also warned the draft will curtail access to professional-degree loan limits and threaten program access [2].
4. How the rule determines inclusion — CIP codes, doctoral exceptions, and legacy language
ED’s approach ties “professional” status to specific 4‑digit CIP code groupings and to a limited list of designated programs; programs that do not share those CIP codes are at risk even if they require licensure or doctoral training — a point raised repeatedly in stakeholder Q&A and committee discussion [4] [10]. Some commenters urged adding specific CIP codes (e.g., PA 51.0912) or including graduate nursing and allied health programs that meet professional criteria [10].
5. Conflicting statements and ED pushback
While reporting and professional groups frame the change as an exclusionary reclassification, ED’s press secretary told at least one outlet that the department has had a “consistent definition” and that the consensus language aligns with historical precedent; Newsweek published ED’s denial alongside reports of exclusion [7]. That contradiction highlights a real dispute over whether these are new exclusions or formalizations of prior regulatory text [7] [5].
6. Practical impacts flagged so far — loans, workforce, and program access
Analysts and associations warn that losing “professional” status means lower graduate loan caps and elimination of Grad PLUS for many students, potentially making expensive, high‑cost programs less affordable and shrinking pipelines for critical practitioners in nursing, public health, and allied health — concerns emphasized by nursing and public‑health groups [8] [3] [5]. The AAU and other higher‑education groups also frame the rule as a threat to access to professional‑level education [2].
7. Limits of current reporting and next steps to watch
Available sources document the draft language, stakeholders’ reactions, and ED’s rebuttal, but detailed, program‑by‑program official lists and ED’s final regulatory text are not fully presented in these reports; plaintiffs, formal comment periods, or litigation could change outcomes [2] [5]. Watch for ED’s published final rule, the official CIP‑based list in federal regulatory text, formal responses from associations (ANA, ASPPH), and any legal challenges referenced in the coverage [9] [3].
Bottom line: multiple reputable education and health‑sector organizations report that ED’s draft redefinition will exclude many nursing and allied‑health programs (and others) from professional‑degree status, with concrete loan‑eligibility consequences [4] [8] [3]. ED disputes some characterizations, and the final legal and practical impact depends on the final published regulation and subsequent administrative or judicial actions [7] [5].