What are the Department of Education's current 11 professional categories and when were they last updated?

1. What reporting says happened: a narrow ED definition reclassified many programs

Multiple outlets and professional organizations described an ED framework developed during RISE negotiated rulemaking under the One Big Beautiful Bill that would narrow “professional student/degree” status—criteria including completion of practice‑ready academic requirements, a 4‑digit CIP code, and a licensure pathway—and as implemented or proposed it excluded several traditionally “professional” graduate programs such as many nursing (MSN, DNP), public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW) and others ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

2. Which specific fields press coverage lists as excluded or at risk

News and advocacy pieces compiled lists of programs newly left out or in dispute: nursing (MSN, DNP), education (teaching master’s), social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling and therapy degrees, among others ^{[1] [4] [3]}. These accounts tie exclusions to changes in federal borrowing rules under the OBBBA, which limit graduate loan amounts except for students in programs ED deems “professional” ^[1].

3. Why this classification matters: loan caps and workforce concerns

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill as reported, “professional students” retain higher annual and lifetime borrowing caps (e.g., an annual $50,000 cap and $200,000 lifetime cap mentioned for professional students under the law cited in reporting), so losing “professional” status can reduce students’ access to the largest federal graduate loan amounts—prompting organizations such as AACN and CSWE to warn about impacts on capacity, workforce supply and students’ financial viability ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Disagreement over interpretation and ED’s reference to older regulation

ED reportedly defended its approach by invoking a historical regulatory definition (34 CFR 668.2), while critics argue the agency’s narrow interpretation departs from longstanding practice and harms licensure‑led health and human‑service professions; the Council on Social Work Education urged ED to use relevant CIP codes (e.g., CIP 51 for health professions) when deciding eligibility ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Where reporting diverges and why coverage varies

Mainstream outlets, trade press and advocacy groups emphasize different aspects: some focus on the specific programs removed and workforce implications (Nurse.com, Newsweek, Times Now), others fact‑check prominence and timing of ED statements (Snopes) and professional organizations foreground practical and accreditation concerns (CSWE) ^{[3] [4] [5] [2] [1]}. That produces variation in lists and in how definitive each outlet presents ED’s actions.

6. The missing piece you asked for: “11 professional categories” and last update

The sources provided do not present an official ED roster labeled “11 professional categories” nor do they include a clear “last updated” timestamp tied to such a numbered list; therefore, I cannot confirm the Department of Education’s current 11 professional categories or the date they were last updated from these materials (not found in current reporting). Available pieces report a set of programs being excluded in late 2025 and describe the policy process (RISE, negotiation concluded Nov. 7) but stop short of supplying a formal 11‑category table or update date ^{[2] [1]}.

7. How to verify the precise current list and update date

To obtain an authoritative, machine‑readable list and a last‑updated date, consult the Department of Education’s own rulemaking documents or the Federal Register notice implementing the RISE committee’s negotiated rule changes, or ED’s public guidance about professional student/degree definitions (available sources do not mention a direct ED link in the provided reporting) (available sources do not mention the ED publication with that specific list).

Limitations and note on agendas: the materials provided are a mix of advocacy reactions, news summaries and fact checks written during a contentious policy shift; professional societies and healthcare groups have clear institutional agendas to preserve loan access for their fields, and some outlets emphasize workforce risk while others emphasize legal/regulatory technicalities—readers should treat lists in secondary reporting as provisional until ED’s formal rule text or a Federal Register posting is checked ^{[2] [3] [1]}.