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 accreditation bodies reclassified degrees as non-professional in recent years?
Executive summary
Recent reporting and agency materials show momentum to change which graduate programs count as “professional” for federal policy — driven largely by the U.S. Department of Education’s rulemaking and RISE committee work, not by individual accreditors reclassifying degrees themselves (primary sources: Department/RISE coverage and stakeholder responses) [1] [2] [3]. Several professional associations say the Department’s proposed definition would exclude fields such as nursing and public health from “professional degree” status, effectively reclassifying them for loan-eligibility and program-design purposes even though accreditors themselves have not universally recategorized those degrees [4] [3].
1. What’s changing — a federal redefinition, not a mass of accreditors relabeling degrees
Most documents in the record describe a Department of Education effort to define “professional degree” for Title IV and related policy, led through the RISE committee and negotiators — this is a federal-policy redefinition project rather than an accreditation bodies’ coordinated reclassification of degrees [1] [2]. Reporting and trade notices emphasize that the Department’s proposed criteria would determine which programs are treated as “professional” for loan limits and legacy aid rules [1] [2].
2. Who has publicly complained — nursing and public‑health groups saying they would be excluded
Professional associations have reacted sharply. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) warned that a Department proposal “excludes nursing” from the professional‑degree definition and would limit student loan access for nursing students [4]. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) says the RISE/Department proposal would exclude MPH and DrPH degrees, jeopardizing student access to higher federal loan limits and the public‑health workforce pipeline [3].
3. How this looks like a “reclassification” in effect — policy consequences, not accreditor label changes
When the Department excludes a field from a “professional degree” category, the practical result is similar to a reclassification: students may lose access to higher Parent PLUS/loan limits or legacy protections and institutions must change disclosures and program designations to preserve status [2] [1]. NASFAA and negotiators flagged confusion about evidencing whether programs were previously designated professional and whether institutions can or must re-designate them in consumer disclosures or IPEDS [2].
4. What the accrediting bodies themselves are doing — not shown as wholesale reclassification in sources
Available sources do not report that major accreditors (e.g., CACREP, ABA, LCME, regional accreditors) have themselves issued blanket reclassifications of degrees as “non‑professional.” Instead, the materials show accreditors being discussed in the context of broader accreditation overhauls and executive orders — for example, policy changes tied to the Administration’s Executive Order on accreditation and ED actions to change recognition and oversight — but not a listing of accreditors formally downgrading professional degrees [5] [6] [7].
5. Politics and motives — federal policy push and accreditors under pressure
Several sources frame these moves as part of an administration effort to reshape accreditation and reduce what it calls certain DEI requirements; critics argue the push is political and risks undermining degree legitimacy, while proponents frame it as increasing choice and accountability [5] [8] [9]. The White House and ED materials emphasize altering accreditor recognition and standards; media coverage says agencies are “falling in line,” suggesting institutional incentives will follow federal definitions [5] [8] [7].
6. What to watch next — rulemaking, NACIQI, and institutional designations
Key items to monitor in reporting and rule documents: final language from the Department and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) negotiations; whether institutions proactively designate programs as “professional” in consumer disclosures or IPEDS (per NASFAA discussions); and formal responses or legal challenges from professional schools and accrediting bodies [2] [1] [3]. CHEA and NACIQI timetable and the Department’s Notices of Proposed Rulemaking will be decisive [10] [11].
Limitations and bottom line: sources show a federal policy redefinition effort that would de‑facto reclassify some degrees for loan and policy purposes and has provoked pushback from nursing and public‑health groups [4] [3]. Available sources do not list specific accrediting organizations that have independently reclassified degrees as “non‑professional”; instead, the dispute centers on Department of Education proposals and how institutions and stakeholders will respond [1] [2].