What are the 11 professional degrees newly listed by Dept of education?

1. What the Department’s list actually names — the 11 primary programs

The Department-convened RISE committee’s draft recognizes 11 primary professional program fields eligible for the higher loan limits: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology, and clinical psychology (newly added) ^[1]. Multiple summaries of the draft underscore that those 11 are the core fields the committee agreed encompass the “professional degree” category for the purposes of OBBBA loan limits ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Why those 11 — the policy rationale on display

Officials and negotiators framed the narrower list as a way to limit government exposure to high-balance graduate borrowing and to narrow which programs receive higher caps under H.R.1; the choice concentrates “professional” status on historically licensure-linked, doctoral-level fields frequently cited in the 1965 regulatory definition ^{[5] [6]}. New America’s summary notes that the Department returned to an earlier regulatory baseline (the rule as of July 4, 2025) and also explicitly included clinical psychology in its final rubric ^[4].

3. Who’s alarmed — fields and organizations protesting exclusion

Public-health schools, nursing associations, physician assistant advocates, occupational therapists, and many campus groups say the draft will exclude high-need health professions (MPH/DrPH, advanced nursing degrees, PAs, PTs, audiologists, counselors, etc.) from higher loan access, risking workforce pipelines and diversity in care ^{[7] [3] [2]}. NASFAA and other veterans of federal aid rulemaking highlight that the Department’s approach relies on matching 4‑digit CIP codes to the 11 listed fields — a technical step that can leave otherwise similar programs out of the professional bucket ^[6].

4. Numbers and scale — how many programs are affected, per reporting

Multiple pieces of reporting and social commentary say the proposed definition reduces programs considered professional from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600, although that exact count comes from advocates and social posts summarizing the Department’s draft rather than a single government table in the provided clips ^{[3] [2]}. This shrinkage is central to critics’ argument that many graduate health-profession pipelines will no longer qualify for the larger loan maximums tied to professional degrees ^{[3] [2]}.

5. The political and practical stakes — loan caps, RAP, and workforce concerns

Under OBBBA and the Department’s implementation work, students in non‑designated programs would face lower graduate loan limits (e.g., $20,500 annual for graduate students versus $50,000 for professional-degree students) and a new Repayment Assistance Plan structure; those caps are the immediate financial consequence motivating the fight over definitions ^{[5] [4]}. Advocacy groups argue reduced access to higher federal loans could make critical advanced training financially infeasible and thus shrink supply in already strained health fields ^{[7] [3]}.

6. Competing perspectives and technical disputes

The Department and negotiators emphasize returning to a clearer, narrower rubric tied to licensure, doctoral level and CIP crosswalks; critics call that technical framing a veiled tool to restrict loan exposure and point out longstanding precedent treating many excluded degrees as “professional” ^{[6] [5]}. Experts including education-policy scholars told outlets that the intent appears partly fiscal — to limit loan forgiveness and default exposure — while professional organizations frame the change as an occupational-health policy error that undermines workforce planning ^{[5] [7]}.

7. What’s next — comment windows, advocacy, and uncertainty

The draft emerged from committee negotiation and advocacy groups are urging institutions and professions to submit comments; NASFAA, ASPPH, nursing groups, and university associations are publicly contesting exclusions and asking the Department to add specific CIP codes or fields like nursing and public health back into the professional category ^{[8] [7] [6]}. Final regulatory language and its timeline are still in flux in the reporting offered here, and the Department’s final rule could change which programs ultimately qualify ^[4].

Limitations: available sources do not include the Department’s full regulatory text or an authoritative table listing every CIP code affected, so precise counts of programs excluded vs. included rely on the summaries and advocacy statements cited above ^{[3] [2]}.