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.
Where can I find the official Department of Education list describing the 11 professional categories?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking (RISE) process landed on recognizing “11 primary programs” as professional degree categories eligible for the higher loan cap under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA); that outcome and its loan limits ($50,000 annual / $200,000 aggregate for professional programs, $20,500 / $100,000 for other graduate programs) are repeatedly reported in the coverage [1] [2]. Available sources do not publish a single, public “official Department of Education list” of the 11 categories as a standalone document; reporting describes the committee’s consensus and criteria but not a single ED web page that lists those 11 program categories verbatim [1] [3] [4].
1. What journalists and trade groups are reporting — a narrow set of “professional” programs
Multiple higher-education organizations and news outlets say the RISE committee’s draft regulations end up recognizing only 11 primary professional program categories (with some doctoral programs also qualifying), which determines who can access the larger OBBBA loan caps; the Association of American Universities, Inside Higher Ed, and New America summarize this narrowing and the practical loan thresholds it controls [1] [4] [2]. These accounts present the 11-category outcome as the working consensus from negotiated rulemaking rather than a finalized statutory table published by the Department [1] [2].
2. Where the Department’s sequence of documents shows up in coverage (and what’s missing)
Reporting and advocacy pieces reference a Department presentation and a multi-part “rubric” used at the RISE sessions and note Under Secretary Nicholas Kent unveiled ED’s proposed definition, but the search-results set does not include a single Department of Education page that posts a definitive, downloadable list of the 11 categories for public reference [3] [4] [2]. In short: ED’s proposals and negotiators’ drafts are described in coverage, but an “official list” file or link is not among the sources provided here [3] [4].
3. Why stakeholders say the change matters — loan caps and program eligibility
OBBBA explicitly set different loan ceilings for professional versus other graduate programs: professional degree students would have higher annual and aggregate limits ($50,000 and $200,000), while other graduate students would see lower limits ($20,500 and $100,000) starting July 1, 2026; reconciling which programs count as “professional” therefore directly affects borrowing capacity [2]. Advocacy groups including CSWE and AAU warn the Department’s narrower definition could remove many health and social‑work fields from that higher cap, reducing students’ access to financing for critical workforce programs [5] [1].
4. Conflicting views and the rubric vs. a fixed list
Inside Higher Ed and NASFAA coverage show there were competing proposals in the negotiated rulemaking: some negotiators sought broader inclusion based on CIP codes and credit-hour thresholds, while ED advanced a more restrictive rubric that a subset of negotiators accepted; that debate explains why reporting emphasizes both a rubric and the “11 primary programs” outcome rather than unanimous agreement on an exact enumerated list [4] [3]. New America notes OBBBA tied the idea of a “professional degree” to preexisting regulatory language, which complicated negotiations and produced differing interpretations among stakeholders [2].
5. How to find the Department’s official text or list (next steps)
Available sources do not provide a direct link to an ED-published list of the 11 program categories; to obtain the Department’s authoritative language you should check ED’s negotiated rulemaking materials, the forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) or any “Dear Colleague” letters the Department said it would issue — NASFAA coverage says ED planned guidance and possibly a DCL and the NPRM is the next formal step to publish proposed rules [3]. If you need immediate specifics beyond reporting, the AAU and other groups’ writeups summarize the RISE committee outcome and are the clearest proximate sources in the current reporting [1].
6. Limits of the current reporting and what to watch for
Current reporting captures the negotiated outcome and stakeholders’ reactions (concern about excluded health programs, the reduction from thousands to hundreds of program codes in some public commentary) but does not supply ED’s final regulatory text or a definitive departmental list in these search results [6] [7] [8]. Look for ED’s NPRM, the RISE committee’s official minutes or packet, and any DCLs for the authoritative, citable list; until those documents appear, news outlets and associations are the primary sources describing the 11-category outcome [3] [1] [4].
If you want, I can summarize the specific program areas that AAU and others say are affected (e.g., which health and allied‑health fields are reported as at risk) based on the advocacy pieces in the resultset — or I can scan the Department of Education and Federal Register pages for the NPRM and rulemaking packet as they post.