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.
A list of degrees no long considered professional
Executive summary
The U.S. Department of Education, implementing parts of the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), has proposed and begun to apply a narrowed definition of “professional” degrees that removes multiple health, education and allied‑health programs — including many nursing, public health, social work and therapy degrees — from the category that qualifies for the highest graduate loan limits and certain aid rules (see lists in reporting) [1] [2]. News outlets and professional groups warn this will reduce borrowing capacity for affected graduate students and could make these fields more costly to enter; advocacy groups such as the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) and nursing associations have publicly opposed the exclusions [3] [2].
1. What was changed and why it matters
The OBBBA eliminated the GRAD PLUS program and capped graduate borrowing while creating a new Repayment Assistance Plan under which only students in programs classed as “professional” can borrow up to $50,000 a year; the Department of Education’s updated definition therefore directly dictates which graduate programs can access the highest loan limits — and a Department decision in late 2025 removed several familiar health and human‑services degrees from that category [1] [2]. That reclassification affects student financing: graduate students in excluded programs face lower annual borrowing caps (or different aid rules) and may have fewer options to cover tuition and living costs [1] [2].
2. Which degrees reporting identifies as removed from “professional” status
Multiple outlets and fact‑checks list programs the department said it would no longer classify as professional: education (including teaching master’s), nursing (MSN, DNP), social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, and many counseling and therapy degrees; other reporting adds architecture and accounting as fields cited in coverage [1] [4] [5]. Different stories emphasize somewhat different lists, and trade groups note nuance about which specific credential types (e.g., post‑baccalaureate nursing) were targeted [1] [5].
3. Reactions from professional groups and sectors
Health and public‑health associations have strongly criticized the proposal: ASPPH called excluding MPH and DrPH “alarming,” arguing it undermines workforce preparation and public health capacity [3]. Nursing organizations such as the American Association of Colleges of Nursing objected, saying excluding nursing contradicts precedent recognizing licensure‑leading programs and risks worsening workforce shortages [2] [6]. News coverage reflects widespread concern that the change will make advanced training less affordable in fields already facing recruitment challenges [2] [7].
4. What proponents (or the Department) have said — and what’s not in the record
Available reporting notes the Department’s RISE committee and the OBBBA’s statutory changes as drivers of the redefinition, tying it to broader loan‑limit and program‑simplification goals [3] [1]. Specific Department of Education statements explaining the full rationale or empirical basis for excluding each listed field are not reproduced in these articles; readers should note that “available sources do not mention” detailed departmental economic analyses or cost‑benefit data justifying each exclusion in the files provided here [3] [1].
5. Potential downstream effects and contested claims
Journalists and sector outlets warn this could reduce enrollment in costly graduate programs, increase out‑of‑pocket costs for students, and impair pipelines into public‑facing professions like nursing and public health [2] [6]. Fact‑checking sites and multiple news organizations emphasize that the change affects borrowing caps and aid mechanics rather than revoking professional licensure or academic value — an important distinction for evaluating claims that these degrees are “no longer professional” in the occupational sense [1] [8].
6. Where reporting diverges and what to watch next
Coverage varies on which specific credentials are affected and whether the change is a narrow loan‑limit technicality or a broader reclassification with symbolic and practical consequences [4] [1]. Follow‑up items to watch include formal rule text from the Department of Education, letters and legal challenges from professional associations, and clarifications about which credential levels (e.g., post‑bac, masters, doctorates) are impacted — none of which are fully detailed in the current reporting set [3] [5].
7. Bottom line for students and policymakers
If you or a policymaker are assessing impacts, treat these changes as primarily financial and regulatory for federal student aid: they determine who qualifies for the largest graduate borrowing limits under the new law, and they have prompted unified pushback from public‑health and nursing organizations worried about access and workforce effects [1] [3] [2]. For definitive program‑level guidance, consult the Department of Education’s formal notices and institutional financial‑aid offices — available sources here do not replace those primary documents [1] [2].