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 countries have recently discontinued professional degrees and why?
Executive summary
U.S. negotiated rulemaking in November 2025 produced a new, narrower federal definition of “professional degree” that would shrink the list of programs eligible for higher federal loan caps from roughly 2,000 to under 600 — putting many health and human‑service graduate programs at risk of losing higher loan access [1] [2]. Advocacy groups for public health, nursing, social work and other professions warn the change could reduce access to advanced training and worsen workforce shortages; the Department of Education’s negotiated proposal itself frames the move as an implementation of H.R. 1 loan limits [3] [4] [2] [5].
1. What changed: a tighter federal definition, fewer “professional” programs
Negotiated rulemaking by the Education Department’s RISE committee produced a proposed regulatory definition that would dramatically narrow which post‑baccalaureate programs count as “professional,” reducing the number of eligible programs from about 2,000 to fewer than 600 and tying eligibility to specific criteria such as CIP codes and pathways to licensure [1] [6] [7]. The change is part of implementing H.R. 1’s loan caps: beginning July 1, 2026, graduate students would face lower annual and aggregate loan limits unless enrolled in a program the department designates “professional” [5].
2. Who objected: professional associations warn of downstream harm
National associations representing public health, social work, nursing and universities have publicly objected, arguing exclusion of degrees like the MPH, DrPH, MSW, and advanced nursing credentials would limit student access to federal loan resources and could “weaken the future workforce pipeline” in fields that protect public welfare (Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health) and make advanced social work and nursing education less attainable [3] [4] [8]. The Association of American Universities warned the $200,000 professional cap — combined with a small eligible program list — could reduce access to advanced degrees and exacerbate shortages such as for doctors and other clinicians [2].
3. How the department justifies it: implementing Congress’s statute
The Department of Education framed the effort as an administrative step to operationalize Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA/H.R. 1) loan limits and to create “clear and consistent criteria” for what counts as professional degree programs, including reliance on 4‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes and licensure pathways in some formulations [6] [4] [5]. Inside Higher Ed reported the department’s newer proposal slightly broadened from an earlier list of only ten degrees but still represents a significant contraction compared with historic practice [6].
4. Practical effect on students and institutions: loan caps and access
Under the statute being implemented, students in non‑designated graduate programs would face annual limits of $20,500 and an aggregate of $100,000, while those in professional programs would have access to higher limits (annual $50,500? — reporting cites the $50,000 and $200,000 professional thresholds), a shift that critics say will make some advanced programs financially untenable for many prospective students [5] [1] [2]. Universities and program leaders have raised concerns that using CIP codes or narrow criteria will exclude programs of similar rigor and social value simply because of coding or licensure technicalities [4] [7].
5. Competing views and political context
Advocates for stricter limits argue Congress intended to cap borrowing and prevent unlimited Grad PLUS-style borrowing — the department’s negotiated rules are the administrative mechanism to do that [5]. Opponents contend the rules are overly blunt, risk workforce harms in essential sectors, and fail to account for professional training diversity; they are mobilizing public comment and potential litigation [3] [2] [4]. Inside Higher Ed and NASFAA coverage show the department did expand eligible categories slightly from an earlier, narrower draft, indicating internal pushback during the negotiation [6] [7].
6. What’s next: rulemaking, comment period, and possible lawsuits
The department is expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will open a 30‑day public comment window; advocacy groups are preparing to submit comments and press lawmakers [3] [5]. New America and university groups note the outcome remains uncertain because of the wider regulatory agenda and the high likelihood of legal challenges contesting how the department applies H.R. 1 [5] [2].
Limitations: available sources focus on U.S. federal rulemaking in late 2025 and reactions from U.S. professional associations and higher‑ed groups; they do not discuss other countries removing professional degree designations or offer detailed department legal texts or final rule language (not found in current reporting).