Which specific academic degrees have been de-accredited or lost licensing pathways since 2015?
Executive summary
There is no single, compiled list in the provided sources naming specific academic degrees that have been de-accredited or that have lost licensing pathways since 2015; reporting and policy documents instead show two separate streams of activity: (a) routine program accreditation, probation, and renewal handled by agencies such as ABET, NASPAA, CHEA and specialized accreditors (examples of program dates and renewals are on CEPh’s roster) [1] [2] [3] [4]; and (b) active, recent changes to professional licensure pathways — notably new alternative pathways for CPAs and new state pathways for internationally trained physicians — which expand or add routes rather than describing wholesale “loss” of licensing tied to specific degrees [5] [6] [7] [8]. Available sources do not list specific degrees that were de‑accredited or whose licensing routes were rescinded since 2015 (not found in current reporting).
1. Accreditation churn: program-level actions, not a blacklist of degrees
Accrediting bodies accredit programs, not degree titles, and their public rosters document continuous review cycles, renewals and occasional probation for individual programs; for example ABET describes ongoing program accreditation activity and readiness reviews rather than naming degree titles removed nationwide [1] [9]. CHEA and specialty accreditors maintain searchable directories of thousands of accredited institutions and programs, showing that accreditation is an administrated, program‑by‑program process [3] [10]. The CEPh roster illustrates how specific Master of Public Health program entries carry accreditation dates and expiration or probation flags—evidence of rolling decisions at program level rather than evidence of a broad set of degrees being “de‑accredited” en masse [4].
2. “De‑accreditation” usually means a program, campus or provider action
When a program loses accreditation it is typically a specific program or campus, and the public record of such actions lives on accreditors’ directories and institutional announcements. Sources here emphasize search tools and directories (ABET’s program search, CHEA’s directories, NASPAA’s roster) rather than media lists of de‑accreditations, signalling that finding any specific de‑accreditation requires querying the accreditor database for that program and year [9] [3] [2].
3. Licensing pathways have evolved — mostly by adding alternatives, not removing degree routes
Since 2015 reporting captured a major policy shift in several professions toward alternative or additional licensure pathways. For accounting, the AICPA/NASBA model proposals and state adoptions in 2025 created new CPA licensure pathways (bachelor’s+experience, master’s+experience) while preserving legacy pathways — an expansion in routes rather than elimination of a degree’s eligibility [5] [6]. For medicine, many states enacted laws to create provisional or alternative licensing pathways for internationally trained physicians; these laws change who may qualify and how, but sources frame them as additions intended to address workforce shortages rather than rescissions of U.S. degree‑based routes [7] [8].
4. What the sources explicitly do not show
Provided material contains no consolidated list of degrees that have been de‑accredited nationally since 2015. It contains no explicit examples where an entire degree title (for example “Bachelor of X” or “MPH”) was universally de‑accredited or had its licensing pathway removed across jurisdictions. For claims about specific degrees being de‑accredited or losing licensure routes, the available sources do not mention those particulars and instead point readers to program directories and state law changes as the places to verify status (not found in current reporting) [3] [4] [11].
5. How to get authoritative answers about any single degree
To verify whether a named program or degree lost accreditation or a licensing pathway since 2015, consult: (a) the relevant programmatic accreditor’s searchable roster (ABET, NASPAA, ACCE, CEPH, etc.) for program‑level decisions and effective dates [1] [2] [12] [4]; (b) CHEA’s institution/program directories for recognized accreditors [3] [10]; and (c) state licensing boards or model‑law trackers (for CPAs and physicians, see NASBA/AICPA UAA materials and state bills cited) to check whether a degree’s eligibility for licensure was specifically changed [5] [6] [8]. The sources show these are the primary records — not single investigative lists — for confirming de‑accreditation or licensure changes [9] [11].
Limitations and competing perspectives: accreditors and professional groups present the mechanics and rationale for reviews and pathway changes as either quality‑control (accreditors) or workforce policy (AICPA, state legislatures, medical boards). Critics or affected students are not sampled in the supplied fragments; the available sources focus on institutional process and model law proposals rather than on consumer impact stories [1] [5] [8].