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.
Were any graduate or doctoral programs included in the 2025 non-professional reclassification list?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 proposal narrows the list of programs treated as “professional degrees,” keeping roughly a small set (medicine, law, dentistry, pharmacy and similar fields) while excluding many graduate and some doctoral programs — notably advanced nursing, physician assistant, occupational therapy and others — from professional status for federal loan purposes (e.g., higher loan caps) [1] [2] [3]. Some reporting and stakeholder statements say a small number of doctoral programs remain eligible under a multi-part rubric; the department’s draft recognizes “some doctoral programs” as professional while reducing total qualifying programs from ~2,000 to fewer than 600 [4] [3] [5].
1. What the rule change actually proposes: a narrower “professional” category
The Education Department’s draft rule constrains which programs count as “professional,” identifying roughly 11 primary program areas that clearly retain professional status and saying that “some doctoral programs” meeting multi-part criteria could also qualify — a move that cuts the number of eligible programs sharply, from thousands to under 600, according to summaries and advocacy groups [4] [3] [5].
2. Were graduate or doctoral programs included in the reclassification list?
Yes: the proposal explicitly treats many graduate programs as being reclassified out of the “professional” bucket and states that certain doctoral-level programs may still qualify as professional under specific criteria (for example, programs that are at the doctoral level requiring about six years of study and share CIP codes with listed fields) [1] [5] [6]. Multiple outlets and organizations report that several graduate programs — including master’s- and doctorate-level nursing (MSN, DNP), physician assistant, occupational therapy, audiology, public health, education, social work, and similar fields — are slated to lose professional-degree status for loan purposes [1] [7] [3].
3. How the rule treats doctoral programs differently from other graduate programs
The department’s rubric gives priority to programs “generally at the doctoral level” and requires criteria such as roughly six years of postsecondary study, CIP-code grouping, and other tests; this means some doctoral programs can still be labeled professional even as many master’s-level programs are excluded [5] [6]. NASFAA and New America reporting note ambiguity and debate over precise thresholds (e.g., whether certain doctorates like DPT or AuD meet the test), reflecting that the line is both technical and contested [6] [5].
4. Conflicting claims and what’s not yet settled
Some outlets and advocacy groups state outright that nursing and other graduate programs “are no longer considered professional degrees” under the new definition [2] [7] [8]. Fact-checking reporting warns that formal reclassification depends on a final rule and that the proposal had not been finalized at the time of some accounts; Snopes notes that as of its check the agency had proposed a narrow interpretation but that a formal reclassification had not been completed [9]. Therefore, whether a specific program is definitively “reclassified” can vary by reporting date and depends on final regulatory action [9].
5. Why this matters: loan caps and access to programs
Under OBBBA-derived program changes and the department’s draft implementation, the Grad PLUS program is eliminated and replacement loan rules cap borrowing: roughly $20,500 per year for many graduate students and $50,000 per year for students in programs the department designates as “professional,” with different lifetime limits reported — meaning that whether a program is treated as professional has direct financial consequences for students [10] [8] [11].
6. Stakeholder reactions and political context
National nursing groups, NASFAA and university associations have objected, warning that excluding nursing and other health and service fields will worsen workforce shortages and reduce access to advanced training [12] [4]. Meanwhile some proponents argue caps curb excessive borrowing and discourage programs run as revenue sources — an argument summarized in commentary about fiscal restraint, though such defenders are less prominent in the provided reporting [10].
7. Limitations and what reporting does not answer
Available sources do not mention a finalized, universally agreed list that names every graduate and doctoral program that will definitively keep or lose “professional” status; much of the coverage refers to the department’s draft rubric, lists of fields that would be excluded under that rubric, and ongoing rulemaking and committee discussions [5] [6] [9]. That means precise outcomes for specific doctoral programs (e.g., DPT, AuD) are still described as uncertain or debated in the reporting [6].
8. Practical takeaway for students and institutions
If you’re a current or prospective graduate student in fields like nursing, physician assistant, occupational/physical therapy, audiology, public health, education or social work, expect reduced eligibility for the higher “professional” loan caps under the department’s draft unless your program clearly meets the doctoral-level and CIP-code criteria; advocacy groups urge contacting lawmakers and following the rulemaking closely [2] [3] [4]. If you need a specific program’s status, available sources do not provide a finalized definitive list — monitor the department’s final rulemaking and institutional financial-aid guidance for the authoritative outcome [9] [5].