Which specific institutions and programs were affected by the 2025 reclassification of non-professional degrees?

1. What the reclassification actually does: fewer programs deemed “professional”

The Department of Education-backed RISE committee’s draft redefinition would sharply shrink which programs qualify as “professional degrees,” moving from a broad, decades-old approach that left room for many fields to be treated as professional to a far narrower list; AAU reports it would recognize only 11 primary program areas and some doctoral programs as professional, and outside observers say the list of programs counted could drop from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 ^{[2] [1]}. NASFAA coverage of negotiations confirms the department sought a specific regulatory definition tying “professional” status to particular program types and credential outcomes ^[7].

2. Which institutions and programs have been named or publicly flagged

News organizations, professional groups and social posts identify a broad set of programs that would be excluded under the proposed definition: nursing (including MSN and DNP pathways), physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech-language pathology, counseling and therapy fields, public health degrees such as the MPH and DrPH, social work (MSW), many education master’s degrees, business master’s and certain engineering master’s, and allied health programs ^{[3] [6] [8] [5]}. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health specifically warns that the MPH and DrPH could be excluded, and Newsweek and regional reporting highlight nursing as a central casualty affecting hundreds of thousands of students ^{[4] [3]}.

3. Financial consequences emphasized by critics

Under the legislative framework tied to H.R.1 and the administration’s implementation plan, only students in programs classified as “professional” would be eligible for the higher graduate loan limits cited by critics — with reporting noting professional-degree students could access higher caps (examples cited in coverage include a $200,000 professional cap vs. lower graduate limits) — prompting concerns that excluded programs will face reduced access to GRAD PLUS-style borrowing and other federal loan support ^{[5] [9]}. Advocacy groups argue this will make graduate education in fields like nursing and public health less accessible and could shrink workforce pipelines ^{[4] [10]}.

4. Who is raising the alarm — and why

Professional associations (for example, the American Nurses Association and public‑health groups) and university advocates warn the change undermines workforce planning for essential services: nursing organizations launched petitions and public statements arguing exclusion will limit graduate nursing students’ access to loans and forgiveness and hurt recruitment and retention ^{[9] [10]}. The AAU and NASFAA coverage reflect institutional concerns about reduced loan eligibility and operational impacts on programs ^{[2] [7]}.

5. Department of Education rationale and procedural context

The department and its convened committee say they sought a “consensus” and a more precise regulatory definition consistent with historical precedent and the statutory framework of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA/H.R.1); negotiators framed some of the moves as a “rational compromise” and part of implementing statutory loan provisions ^{[7] [1]}. The department also notes that the 1965 regulatory definition historically listed sample professions but was not exhaustive, which the department interprets as room to update the list in rulemaking ^{[3] [11]}.

6. Limits of current reporting and contested claims

Available sources do not publish a single, authoritative DOE list of every program definitively removed — reporting, social posts and advocacy groups circulate overlapping lists of degrees purportedly affected, but some social posts conflate separate agency classifications and contain imprecise items; threads and reposts state specific program lists but acknowledge the formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be required to finalize exclusions ^{[8] [6]}. Newsweek, The Independent and multiple advocacy statements document the controversy but do not present one exhaustive official catalog that is final ^{[3] [5]}.

7. What to watch next

The Department of Education was expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and open a public comment period; that rulemaking would produce the official program list and timelines, so observers should watch for the formal NPRM to confirm which degrees and institutions are affected and whether legacy or transition provisions apply ^{[4] [7] [2]}. In the meantime, professional associations and universities are mobilizing public comments and advocacy to press for inclusion or transition protections ^{[4] [10]}.