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 degree programs are commonly reclassified between professional and non-professional, and why?
Executive summary
Federal rulemaking this fall has sharply narrowed which graduate programs the Department of Education will treat as “professional” for higher loan limits, singling out roughly 11 fields and related 4‑digit CIP groups while excluding many health and human‑services programs such as nursing, public health, social work, and several allied‑health tracks [1] [2] [3]. That narrowing has prompted schools and trade groups to warn that commonly reclassified programs — nursing, social work, public health, physician assistant/other allied health, and some graduate nursing specialties — are at risk of losing professional status because the ED test relies heavily on CIP codes, program length, and licensure criteria [4] [5] [3].
1. What “professional” used to mean — and what changed
Historically ED and higher‑ed practice treated a “professional degree” as a credential that certifies readiness for a regulated profession (medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law), typically doctoral‑level or preparing for licensure; that shorthand justified higher annual and aggregate loan limits for students in those programs [5]. In recent RISE committee negotiations, ED has shifted toward a tighter, multi‑part rubric that lists about 11 primary fields and then extends to programs sharing the same four‑digit CIP codes — a move ED says captures about 47% of current doctoral students by CIP but only about 4% of unique programs, and which adds program length and licensure gates that further narrow eligibility [2] [5].
2. Which programs are most commonly reclassified (and why)
Advocacy groups point to nursing, public health, social work, physician assistant/associate, physical therapy, occupational therapy, counseling, nurse practitioner and nurse‑anesthesia tracks, and other allied‑health professions as the most affected. These programs are being reclassified because ED’s test emphasizes whether a program shares one of the designated 4‑digit CIP codes, meets a high‑level length/licensure threshold, or appears on the department’s short list — and many health and human‑services degrees either sit in broader CIP buckets or do not match the “doctoral‑or‑greater” expectation the ED language emphasizes [4] [6] [3] [5].
3. Why CIP codes matter — and how they produce odd results
The Department’s approach relies on the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) at the four‑digit level to extend or deny “professional” status. That method can group widely different programs together or split similar programs into separate buckets, meaning a nursing master’s or BSN could be excluded if its CIP doesn’t align with one of the designated fields even if its practice and licensure outcomes resemble an included program [2] [5]. NASFAA and professional commenters explicitly warned that relying on CIP alone could omit professions that “are otherwise similar” to included fields [5].
4. Reactions from professional associations and schools
National associations for public health (ASPPH), social work (CSWE), and others have publicly objected, saying ED’s framing “excludes public health programs” and “limits access to social work education,” and they’re urging ED to use broader CIP guidance or workforce evidence to avoid undermining essential service professions [6] [3]. Nursing groups and media outlets reported that nursing was explicitly omitted from the list and warned this could affect hundreds of thousands of students and pipeline capacity [7] [8].
5. Practical consequences — loans, enrollment, and workforce
The immediate mechanism is financial: programs designated non‑professional become ineligible for the higher aggregate and annual loan caps intended for professional students, and the elimination of Graduate PLUS for many borrowers compounds affordability pressure [2] [1]. Associations argue this could reduce enrollment in critical service programs and weaken workforce pipelines for frontline health and social‑service roles [6] [3] [7].
6. Competing rationales and institutional agendas to watch
ED and allied negotiators frame the change as necessary to target scarce higher loan limits to a defined set of long‑established professional doctorates and to reduce over‑broad entitlement of large swaths of graduate programs [2]. Opponents — professional associations and university groups — portray the change as arbitrary and driven by cost‑containment that ignores workforce realities; those groups have an advocacy interest in preserving student aid access for their members [1] [3] [6]. Watch for litigation and continued comment periods: NASFAA and others expect further rulemaking contestation [5] [2].
7. What’s not yet clear in reporting
Available sources do not mention precise counts of which individual subprograms within, for example, nursing or social work will be reclassified at each institution, nor do they provide ED’s final list of every four‑digit CIP that will qualify in practice — reporting so far gives aggregates (47% of doctoral students; 4% of unique programs) rather than an itemized mapping [2]. Sources also do not yet report final administrative guidance on how appeals or borderline cases will be handled [2] [5].
Bottom line: the most commonly reclassified programs are those in health and human services whose CIP codes, program length, or licensure pathways don’t match ED’s narrowed rubric — and the debate turns on whether ED’s technical, CIP‑centric approach fairly reflects workforce and professional realities or instead reflects a cost‑control agenda that will shift financial burdens onto students [2] [3] [6].