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 degree programs were removed from or added to the professional category in the 2025 update?
Executive summary
Available reporting says the Department of Education’s 2025 rulemaking dramatically narrowed which programs count as “professional” for higher federal loan caps, explicitly listing 11 core fields and tying eligibility to four‑digit CIP codes; that shift has removed nursing and several public‑health and allied‑health programs from the category in the department’s draft and consensus documents (see New America, Newsweek, ASPPH) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting describes both additions and limits: ED’s later proposal slightly expanded an earlier list of 10 degrees to 11 (including clinical psychology) and added a CIP‑code rubric that pulls in some related programs, but it nevertheless reduces the universe of programs from roughly 2,000 to under 600 in critics’ accounts [4] [1] [5].
1. What the department actually proposed — a short, technical description
The Department of Education’s negotiated draft defines “professional degree” narrowly: it enumerates a core set of primary programs (11 explicitly named, including clinical psychology), requires doctoral level status in most cases (with some exceptions), and says programs in the same four‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code as those listed can qualify; that multi‑part rubric is central to which degrees get the $200,000 aggregate loan eligibility [4] [1]. New America reports ED used the regulation as written on July 4, 2025, and the department’s final language ties eligibility to those 11 fields plus CIP siblings, a change from earlier, broader drafts [1].
2. Which programs reporting says were removed from “professional” status
Multiple outlets and stakeholder statements state that nursing — including entry‑level BSN and associate nursing pathways — is no longer counted as a professional degree under the department’s draft, a change that stakeholders such as the American Nurses Association say will affect hundreds of thousands of students (Newsweek; Statesman; ANA statement) [2] [6] [7]. Reporting and advocacy pieces also say the draft excludes public‑health degrees such as the MPH and DrPH and “several other health professions,” putting programs like occupational therapy, audiology, physician assistant education, and advanced nursing degrees at risk of losing professional‑status in critics’ accounts (ASPPH; threads summary; AAU) [3] [5] [8].
3. Which programs reporting says were added or retained
ED’s finalized draft maintained a curated list of core professions (11 primary programs) and explicitly included clinical psychology (Psy.D./Ph.D.) as part of that list; the department also allowed programs that share the same four‑digit CIP as those listed to qualify, which modestly broadens coverage beyond the enumerated professions in some cases (New America; Inside Higher Ed) [1] [4]. Inside Higher Ed noted this later plan “slightly expands” ED’s earlier, tighter 10‑field proposal [4].
4. Disagreement among sources and stakeholder reactions
Universities and associations such as the Association of American Universities warn the rule “limits the number of degree programs” that count as professional and will curtail access to higher loan limits, while professional associations (ANA, ASPPH) say the draft’s exclusions threaten workforce pipelines in nursing and public health [8] [7] [3]. The department’s negotiators argue the CIP‑based rubric and the 11‑field list provide clarity and a defensible technical test; critics counter that the net effect is a severe narrowing — some accounts claim a drop from ~2,000 qualifying programs to under 600 [1] [5].
5. What the sources do not specify (limits of current reporting)
Available sources do not provide a single, exhaustive line‑by‑line list of every degree program removed or every program newly included under the 2025 update; reporting focuses on headline examples (nursing, public health, several allied‑health fields) and on the department’s rule logic [2] [3] [1]. The exact roster of programs that gain or lose professional status depends on applying the department’s CIP‑code rubric to institutions’ program inventories — that mapping is not published in the sources provided here [1] [4].
6. Practical implications flagged by reporting
Analysts warn the rule will shift loan access: students in programs no longer classified as “professional” would lose access to the $200,000 aggregate limit for professional students, potentially reducing borrowing capacity and making some graduate pathways less financially attainable; ED’s other regulatory changes (e.g., ending Graduate PLUS for new borrowers) compound the effect (New America; Newsweek; Statesman) [1] [2] [6].
7. What to watch next
Stakeholder groups say they will submit comments, press for inclusion of specific fields (ASPPH, ANA), and expect litigation or further negotiation over the rule; ED’s rulemaking record, final regulation text, and any CIP‑mapping tables will be the definitive source to enumerate every program added or removed — those detailed lists are not present in the reporting summarized here [3] [7] [1].
If you want, I can assemble the specific programs named across these sources into a compact table (what each outlet lists as excluded vs. included) and flag which claims are advocacy versus ED technical descriptions.