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 institutions or accrediting bodies decided to stop classifying certain degrees as professional degrees?
Executive summary
The recent negotiated-rulemaking and related Education Department proposal would sharply narrow which graduate programs count as “professional degrees,” potentially cutting the list from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 programs and limiting borrower access to higher loan caps (threads summary of the proposal; [1]1). Multiple higher-education and professional organizations — including the American Nurses Association, the Council on Social Work Education, the Association of American Universities, and public-health advocates — say the change would exclude fields such as nursing, social work, and other health professions unless the Department reverses course or Congress amends the law (ANA statement; CSWE statement; AAU notice; ASPPH response; [2]; [3]; [4]; p1_s2).
1. What decision is at stake: who is re‑defining “professional degree”?
The U.S. Department of Education, through a negotiated-rulemaking committee convened to implement provisions of recently passed federal law, has drafted a new regulatory definition of “professional degree” that would shrink the list of qualifying fields and tie eligibility in part to four‑digit CIP codes and a short enumerated list of fields (Department proposal and negotiated-rulemaking discussions summarized in multiple outlets; [5]; [1]4). The department’s latest draft was presented by Under Secretary Nicholas Kent during RISE committee sessions and produced mixed support among non‑federal committee members (Inside Higher Ed coverage of the meeting; p1_s1).
2. Which institutions or accrediting bodies “decided to stop classifying” degrees?
Available sources do not report that an accrediting body or university system has unilaterally removed professional‑degree classifications; instead, the change under discussion is a federal regulatory redefinition proposed by the Department of Education and negotiated in the RISE committee. Statements and comment campaigns described come from professional associations and university coalitions reacting to the department’s proposal — e.g., AAU, ANA, CSWE, and ASPPH — not from accreditors stripping program status (AAU advocacy summary; ANA statement; CSWE statement; ASPPH notice; [4]; [2]; [3]; p1_s2).
3. Who stands to lose “professional” status under the proposal?
Reporting and advocacy materials say the department’s proposed definition would focus on roughly a dozen fields explicitly named (medicine, law, dentistry, theology among them) and programs sharing those 4‑digit CIP groups, which would exclude many programs previously treated as professional — critics cite nursing, physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, audiology, and several social‑work and advanced practice nursing pathways as examples at risk (politico summary of the list; threads summary and advocacy posts; CSWE and ANA statements; [5]; [6]; [3]; p1_s3). NewAmerica’s analysis notes the Education Department’s final language included 11 fields plus closely related CIP codes but that institutions are likely to lobby for broader coverage (NewAmerica takeaways; [1]3).
4. Why this matters: loan caps, access, and institutional behavior
The regulatory redefinition maps onto new loan‑cap rules enacted in recent legislation (often cited as OBBBA/H.R. 1), meaning programs not classified as “professional” would face lower per‑year and aggregate federal loan limits — a change institutions and associations warn could reduce access to costly health‑profession programs and affect workforce pipelines in underserved areas (AAU and advocacy posts; NewAmerica analysis; [4]; [1]3). AAU and other groups argue that students in many excluded programs would lose access to previously available higher unsubsidized borrowing and that this would pressure program pricing and enrollment decisions (AAU statement; [1]0).
5. Who is pushing back — and how they are responding
Professional societies (American Nurses Association, Council on Social Work Education, Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health) are publicly urging the department to revise the definition or are mobilizing comments for the forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ASPPH urging members to comment; ANA public statement; CSWE advocacy activities; [7]; [2]; p1_s4). Universities and research organizations (e.g., AAU) have also criticized the narrowing and warned of harmful effects on education and workforce supply (AAU notice; [1]0). The negotiated‑rulemaking process itself showed limited consensus: a “pulse check” revealed divided support among non‑federal committee members for the latest draft (Inside Higher Ed reporting on the RISE committee meeting; p1_s1).
6. Limitations, competing perspectives, and what’s next
Reporting shows the department argues its draft is a “rational compromise” intended to target loan relief while limiting expanded loan exposure; negotiators asked for clarification about how many programs meet the new criteria and pointed to legacy provisions for current students (neg‑reg meeting notes; [1]4). The rule has not been finalized: the Department is expected to publish an NPRM and open a 30‑day public comment period, giving institutions and stakeholders a formal window to press for inclusion of additional fields or legislative fixes (ASPPH preview and negotiated‑rulemaking process; [7]; [1]4). Available sources do not report a final regulation or definitive list of programs that will be stripped of professional status; they report proposals, advocacy reactions, and committee dynamics (multiple items summarized above; [5]; [6]; [1]3).
Bottom line: the change in classification is being driven by a federal regulatory process at the Department of Education, not by accrediting bodies or institutions themselves; the proposal would narrow what counts as a “professional degree,” triggering widespread pushback from professional associations and university coalitions that represent programs likely to be excluded (department proposal and stakeholder responses; [5]; [2]; [3]; [4]; p1_s2).