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 professional degrees were reclassified in 2025 and what prompted the change?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s RISE committee has proposed a narrow regulatory definition of “professional degree” tied to a short list of 11 program areas and specific 4‑digit CIP codes, a change that would remove many health, education, social‑service and technical programs from the professional‑degree category and reduce eligible higher loan limits for students in those programs (examples: nursing, physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, public health) [1] [2] [3]. National associations including the American Nurses Association and schools’ groups warn the reclassification could shrink the set of programs eligible for larger loan caps and thereby affect pipelines into critical workforces [4] [2] [5].
1. What the rule changes actually do — a tighter, code‑based definition
The Department of Education’s draft narrows “professional degree” to programs that fall within 11 designated fields and to certain doctoral programs, basing inclusion in part on 4‑digit CIP codes; programs outside those specified codes—even if they lead to licensure or are clinically focused—would not count as professional degrees under the draft [1] [2]. NASFAA’s summaries and FAQs make plain that programs like advanced nursing (NP, DNP, CRNA, CNM) are excluded because they do not share the exact CIP codes the department earmarked, not because they lack licensure requirements [1].
2. Which degrees are being reclassified (examples reported)
Multiple outlets and advocacy posts list health and human‑service programs that would lose “professional” status under the proposal: nursing degrees at graduate and advanced practice levels, physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, counseling and therapy fields, public health degrees (MPH, DrPH), audiology, speech‑language pathology, some social work and education programs, and others—reducing the universe of programs from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 according to one summary [3] [6] [2]. Newsweek, Nurse.org and regional reporting specifically note nursing has been excluded under the new definition [7] [8] [9].
3. Why the department made the change — loan rules and legislative text
The redefinition stems from implementing loan provisions in H.R.1 / the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and the department’s decision to rely on the CFR definition of “professional degree” as it existed on the bill’s enactment date; OBBBA ties higher loan caps to the category “professional degree,” so the department narrowed the category to limit which programs qualify for the larger loan limits [10] [2]. The department’s regulatory approach treats the set of eligible professional programs as a discrete, administrable list rather than a broad occupational concept [2] [1].
4. Immediate consequences flagged by advocates and universities
Advocacy groups and university associations warn that fewer programs eligible for higher annual and aggregate loans will make advanced training less affordable and could threaten workforce pipelines—for example, graduate nursing students losing access to higher federal loan limits and hospitals/communities facing shortages [8] [7] [2]. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health emphasized that excluding MPH and DrPH degrees could restrict student access to higher federal loan limits and weaken the public‑health workforce [5].
5. Disputes over the rationale and hidden incentives
Critics say the rule’s technical reliance on CIP codes and a short, enumerated list appears designed to reduce the universe of programs eligible for expanded loan limits, which aligns with the administration’s broader student‑loan and federal‑education policy priorities outlined in OBBBA and related actions; NASFAA and university groups depict this as an administrative choice to limit federal exposure and control eligibility [2] [11]. Supporters of a narrower definition (not directly quoted in these sources) might argue it creates clarity and prevents broad, costly eligibility expansions—available sources do not mention proponents’ direct statements in this dataset.
6. Procedural status, next steps, and gaps in reporting
The RISE committee reached preliminary consensus on draft regulations in November 2025, and the department has been accepting comments; NASFAA and other organizations are publishing FAQs as stakeholders seek clarification about which programs will retain “professional” status and what legacy provisions might apply [5] [1]. Several sources note likely legal and policy battles ahead, and New America underscores uncertainty about how student and institutional impacts will play out [10]. Available sources do not provide a definitive, department‑issued list showing every degree newly excluded or the department’s complete legal rationale beyond its use of the OBBBA/CFR text [10].
7. How to follow developments and what to watch for
Watch for the Department of Education’s formal rule text, the final RISE committee recommendations, and official Federal Register notices for exact program lists and effective dates; also monitor statements and proposed litigation from professional associations (nursing, public health, schools of therapy, universities) as these will shape enforcement and potential revisions [4] [5] [2]. Reports so far document the broad categories affected and the financing mechanism (loan caps tied to the “professional” label), but full legal and operational effects will depend on final regulatory language and possible court challenges [10].