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.
How can I cite the Department of Education's official list of 11 professional categories in academic or legal work?
Executive summary
The Department of Education and its RISE committee negotiated a definition that recognizes 11 primary professional-degree program categories (plus some doctoral programs) as eligible for the higher $200,000 aggregate loan limit in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act implementation discussions [1]. Reporting and stakeholder statements show disagreement about which fields are included — news outlets list medicine, law, dentistry and theology among the “nearly a dozen” areas named by ED [2] — while higher-education and professional associations warn many health and social‑service fields (nursing, public health, social work) may be excluded under ED’s drafts [3] [4] [5].
1. What the “official list” appears to be — what reporting says
Multiple organizations reporting on the RISE negotiated rulemaking say the Department and the committee reached consensus to recognize 11 primary programs (and some doctoral tracks) as “professional degree” programs eligible for higher loan caps [1]. Politico characterizes the department’s initial enumeration as “nearly a dozen” fields and specifically cites medicine, law, dentistry and theology among them [2]. New America notes OBBBA’s statutory caps and that ED used an earlier regulation’s examples (e.g., pharmacy, dentistry) as a starting point when crafting definitions [6]. These accounts together are the nearest thing in the available reporting to an “official list.” Cite those sources when you name the 11-program conclusion [1] or examples like medicine and law [2].
2. Where to cite this in academic or legal work — practical options
If your work needs to reference the department’s decision or enumerated categories, cite the Department-convened committee consensus as reported by reputable organizations: Association of American Universities’ summary that “the department and the RISE committee agreed to recognize only 11 primary programs” [1], Politico’s rundown of the department’s named areas [2], and New America’s technical explanation of how OBBBA and ED’s regulatory history inform the definition [6]. These sources together provide both the factual assertion (11 programs) and context about statutory and regulatory roots [1] [2] [6]. If you require an agency primary source (regulatory text, NPRM, or Dear Colleague letter) the available search results do not include an ED-published rule or DCL text — “available sources do not mention” the formal regulatory document in this set, so cite the reporting and note that the formal ED text should be checked for the definitive wording [1] [2] [6].
3. How to phrase claims cautiously in scholarship or briefs
State the consensus as “the Department of Education and its RISE committee agreed to recognize 11 primary programs (and some doctoral programs) as professional degree programs, as reported by the Association of American Universities” and cite [1]. If you identify example fields, attribute those examples to specific reporting: e.g., “Politico reported ED’s list included medicine, law, dentistry and theology” [2]. Explicitly add a parenthetical or sentence that the formal regulatory text or NPRM should be cited when available because reporting may summarize or paraphrase draft language [6] [7]. This keeps claims tethered to the published accounts and signals you sought the primary source.
4. Disagreements and stakeholder pushback to note
Several national associations say ED’s approach would exclude key health and social‑work fields and could shrink student access to higher loan limits: ASPPH warned that public health degrees (MPH, DrPH) could be excluded [3]; the Council on Social Work Education said ED’s framework risks limiting social work access and urged use of relevant CIP codes [4]; the American Nurses Association publicly objected to nursing’s exclusion [5]. Make sure legal or policy arguments record these competing perspectives and cite each organization by name and source when using their position [3] [4] [5].
5. If you need the agency’s “official” citation
Use the Department of Education’s eventual rulemaking documents (NPRM, final rule) or a Dear Colleague Letter for the definitive, citable legal text — but those are not in the current search results. For now, cite the committee consensus reporting [1] and the coverage that enumerates fields [2], and add a footnote noting that ED’s formal regulatory publication should be checked and cited when released [6] [7].
6. Quick recommended citation templates you can adapt
- For policy context or academic prose: “The Department of Education’s RISE committee agreed to recognize 11 primary programs (and some doctoral programs) as professional degree programs eligible for higher loan limits (reported by the Association of American Universities)” [1].
- For naming example fields: “Politico reported the department’s list included medicine, law, dentistry and theology” [2].
- For contested impacts: “ASPPH, CSWE and the ANA have warned that public health, social work and nursing are at risk of exclusion under ED’s draft definition” [3] [4] [5].
7. Limitations you must disclose
Available sources are media and association reporting summarizing negotiated rulemaking outcomes; they do not provide the ED’s formal regulatory text or an NPRM in this dataset, so the precise legal wording and any regulatory carveouts are not found in current reporting [1] [2] [6]. For any legal filing or strict statutory interpretation, confirm and cite the Department of Education’s published rulemaking documents once they are available [7].
If you want, I can draft example footnote and reference entries in APA, Bluebook, or Chicago style using the specific source citations above.