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.
What was the rationale and legal basis the agency used to justify reclassifying professional degrees?
Executive summary
The Department of Education, through negotiated rulemaking tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), drafted a new regulatory definition of “professional degree” that narrows which programs qualify for higher federal loan limits — a move that led ED to exclude nursing and other fields from that category [1] [2]. The RISE committee’s consensus ties “professional” status to specific criteria — notably 4‑digit CIP codes, paths to licensure, and alignment with legacy regulatory text as of July 4, 2025 — and ED officials say this provides a clear, administrable rule for loan limits though many professional organizations dispute its impacts [3] [4] [5].
1. What the agency did and where it came from: a rules rewrite anchored to OBBBA
The reclassification arose from negotiated rulemaking by the Department of Education’s RISE committee to implement student‑loan provisions in OBBBA; negotiators used the existing regulatory definition of “professional degree” as it stood on July 4, 2025, and proposed a narrower list of eligible fields, including only about 11 primary programs and some doctoral programs [1] [2]. ED officials framed this as translating Congress’s loan‑limit scheme — which sets higher limits for “students enrolled in a program of study that awards a professional degree” — into a concrete, enforceable regulatory test [4] [1].
2. The legal tools and textual hooks ED relied upon
ED invoked the statutory framework created by OBBBA and an existing regulatory definition in 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 (as of the bill’s enactment date) to justify a regulatory definition that would govern which programs get the professional‑degree loan caps; that is, the agency is implementing statutory loan categories by specifying which program fields legally count as “professional” through negotiated rule text [4] [1]. Negotiated rulemaking is the procedural vehicle ED used — the RISE committee reached consensus language that then guides the department’s formal rules [3].
3. The technical test ED adopted: CIP codes, licensure and program characteristics
The proposed/consensus definition ties professional status to features such as whether a program “awards a professional degree,” shares prescribed 4‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes with the designated fields, and includes a path to professional licensure or practice beyond a bachelor’s degree; programs lacking those CIP‑code matches or licensure pathways risk exclusion even if otherwise similar [3] [4] [6]. Department negotiators emphasized administrability — using CIP codes and concrete criteria — to avoid ad hoc, program‑by‑program determinations [4].
4. Immediate practical effect: nursing, social work and other fields contest the change
Multiple outlets report that nursing — including graduate nursing programs — was excluded from the new “professional degree” list, a decision that stakeholder groups warn will reduce access to the higher loan limits and possibly worsen workforce shortages [7] [8] [9] [10]. The Council on Social Work Education similarly warned that ED’s definition would limit social work students’ borrowing capacity by excluding their programs from professional‑degree status, despite the field’s licensure pathways [6].
5. Arguments ED and supporters make — clarity and consistency
Supporters in ED and some rulemaking documents argue the new definition creates clear, consistent criteria that prevent arbitrary distinctions (for example, based on program length), and that relying on preexisting regulatory text and CIP codes makes the policy administrable and aligned with Congress’s loan‑limit structure [4] [1]. NewAmerica’s analysis notes the agency took the “unusual” but deliberate step of fixing the definition to how the regulation read the day OBBBA passed to limit later ambiguity [1].
6. Counterarguments from professional associations and critics
Professional associations — nursing groups, the American Association of Universities, CSWE, and others — argue the approach is overly rigid, excludes legitimate professional programs because of CIP‑code technicalities or narrow field lists, and will reduce student access to graduate education in critical service professions; they say the definition does not reflect the rigor or real‑world licensure needs of some fields [2] [9] [6]. Critics also warn of cascading effects from capping graduate borrowing and phasing out Grad PLUS loans if programs lose “professional” status [2] [6].
7. Legal and political friction ahead: litigation and contested implementations
Analysts expect this definitional choice to invite lawsuits and further regulatory disputes because it directly alters financial access tied to Congress’s statute and depends on administrative rulemaking choices that affect many programs; NewAmerica flagged uncertainty about how the new definition will play out for students and schools and the likelihood of legal challenges [1]. ED’s reliance on negotiated rulemaking gave it consensus language, but several affected organizations explicitly oppose the outcome and may seek administrative or judicial review [2] [6].
Limitations: available sources describe the negotiated rulemaking, the criteria ED used, and stakeholder reactions, but they do not provide the full final regulatory text or the department’s complete legal memos justifying the interpretation; those documents are “not found in current reporting” among the provided sources [4] [1].