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.
Have any specific degree programs been reclassified from non-professional to professional (or vice versa) and why?
Executive summary
The recent Department of Education rulemaking under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) has led to specific graduate programs — notably many nursing graduate degrees — being proposed for exclusion from a newly narrow federal definition of “professional degree,” which would change borrowing limits and other aid access for affected students [1] [2]. Multiple higher‑education groups report the department’s draft limits professional programs to a short list (about 11 fields) and to programs sharing certain four‑digit CIP codes, a move the department says will include roughly 47% of current doctoral‑level students but only 4% of unique programs under that rubric [3] [4].
1. What exactly changed — a policy proposal, not a final reclassification
The department convened a RISE committee to implement OBBBA loan provisions and drafted definitions that would limit what counts as a “professional degree” for higher loan caps; that drafting is a regulatory action and proposal, not a blanket historical recategorization of academic disciplines by every institution [4] [5]. Snopes emphasized that saying the Education Department “reclassified” programs as if the process were final is inaccurate — the agency’s narrower interpretation is part of rulemaking and the proposal had not fully passed at the time of reporting [5].
2. Which programs are singled out in reporting and advocacy responses
News outlets and professional associations report that graduate nursing degrees (e.g., MSN, DNP, APRN tracks) were moved out of the department’s proposed “professional” umbrella for loan‑limit purposes, and nursing groups including the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) have expressed alarm [1] [6]. Media lists and local reporting also name architecture, accounting, education, physical therapy, counseling, social work and public‑health programs among those excluded or at risk under the department’s drafted list [7] [8] [9].
3. Why the department says it is narrowing the category
The department relied on a statutory/regulatory baseline (citing an older federal definition) and then drafted a multi‑part rubric that limits professional degrees to a core set (about 10–11 fields plus clinical psychology), and to programs sharing selected four‑digit CIP codes — a technical approach intended to tie loan eligibility to narrowly defined program codes [3]. NewAmerica’s analysis notes the department’s rubric and the expected coverage statistics (47% of doctoral students but only 4% of unique programs) to show the definitional tradeoffs [3].
4. Financial stakes driving the controversy
Under OBBBA, the Grad PLUS program was eliminated and new annual borrowing caps were created: the department’s rules would allow higher maximums only to students in programs classified as “professional” (e.g., $50,000 annually for professional students vs. much lower caps for others), so whether a program is labeled professional directly affects how much federal graduate borrowing a student can access [2] [7]. Advocates warn that removing nursing and related fields from the higher‑cap category could make grad training less affordable and worsen workforce shortages [2] [10].
5. Conflicting interpretations and who objects
Universities and associations such as the AAU, ASPPH, NASFAA commenters, and numerous nursing state associations argue the draft unduly narrows professions and could harm public health and access to training; AAU described the limits as curtailing the number of programs considered “professional,” and ASPPH warned public‑health degrees were excluded [4] [9] [6]. The department counters it is reviving an older regulatory baseline and applying technical CIP‑code criteria rather than arbitrarily targeting fields [5] [3]. These are competing frames: technical/legalist defense from the department versus workforce‑impact warnings from professional groups.
6. How many programs/people are affected — estimates and limits in the record
Analysts point out a gap between program counts and student coverage: the department’s selected CIP codes would cover 47% of doctoral students but only 4% of unique doctoral‑level programs under that first pass, meaning many programs (and their students) could lose higher borrowing eligibility even if some large doctoral enrollments remain protected [3]. AAU and newsrooms report the department is effectively recognizing only about 11 primary program areas as professional in its drafts, with an interim period and other caveats also debated [4] [3].
7. What’s next — rulemaking, comments, and likely legal/political fights
The record shows an active rulemaking with public comments (NASFAA forum, RISE committee meetings), intense lobbying from affected professions, and media coverage signaling likely revisions, lawsuits or Congressional pushback; advocacy groups have urged the department to reverse course and reinstate nursing and other health professions into the professional‑degree category [6] [9] [4]. Snopes cautioned that online rumors overstated finality — this remains contested regulatory policy rather than a settled nationwide recoding [5].
Limitations: available sources document the department’s draft proposals, advocacy responses, and media lists but do not provide a finalized federal rule text or full catalog of every program officially reclassified as of a final effective date — those outcomes are not found in current reporting [5] [3].