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.
What criteria and legal rationale did ED use to reclassify certain degrees as non-professional in 2025?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED) in 2025 proposed a tighter regulatory definition of “professional degree” that would narrow programs eligible for higher federal loan caps to roughly 11 core fields and related doctoral programs, reducing the number of qualifying programs from about 2,000 to under 600 [1] [2]. ED’s rationale emphasized objective criteria — shared 4‑digit CIP codes with designated fields, demonstrable post‑bachelor skill level, and continuity with an OBBBA statutory baseline — but critics say the effect will be to strip nursing, physician assistant, and other health programs of “professional” status and higher loan access [3] [4] [5].
1. What ED actually proposed — a short inventory of criteria
ED’s negotiated‑rulemaking proposal identifies a narrow set of program fields (about 11 primary programs) that count as fields “in which a professional degree may be awarded,” and then uses that list plus related doctoral programs and matching 4‑digit CIP codes to determine eligibility for “professional degree” treatment; programs lacking a shared CIP with the listed fields would not qualify even if similar in content [1] [6]. Inside Higher Ed summarizes ED’s broader framing that a professional program must require skills beyond the bachelor’s level and meet ED’s objective markers presented to the RISE committee [7] [3].
2. Legal and statutory anchors ED cites
ED’s action flows from Congress’s OBBBA (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) and existing regulatory definitions in 34 C.F.R. §668.2 as of July 4, 2025; negotiators treated that statutory/regulatory baseline as the reference point for new rule text, meaning ED’s reclassification draws on language Congress used to set different loan caps for “professional degree” students [2]. The negotiated rulemaking process — bringing the RISE committee and convened stakeholders together — produced proposed regulatory text that operationalizes the statute into narrow, administrable criteria, including the CIP‑code linkage discussed above [3] [6].
3. Practical legal rationale ED advanced in rulemaking sessions
ED’s negotiators argued for bright‑line, administrable criteria to limit ambiguity and prevent gaming of the higher loan caps: relying on enumerated fields and CIP code matches is easier for enforcement and legacy eligibility determinations [3] [6]. ED also emphasized congruence with the OBBBA’s intent to distinguish “professional” pathways eligible for larger annual and aggregate loan amounts from other graduate programs, using demonstrable program characteristics [7] [2].
4. Who loses and why critics say the rationale is flawed
Multiple higher‑education and health‑sector groups warn the criteria will exclude nursing, physician assistant, occupational therapy, audiology and other healthcare programs that functionally serve as professions but lack CIP‑code alignment with ED’s 11 fields — meaning students in those programs would face lower loan caps despite clinical roles and licensing requirements [4] [5] [6]. Critics contend ED’s mechanical CIP‑code approach ignores professional practice realities and licensing/continuing‑education obligations that justify higher borrowing limits [5] [4].
5. Institutional and sector responses — advocacy and reputational framing
The Association of American Universities and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing publicly criticized the proposal as threatening access and the health workforce pipeline; AAU and AACN framed ED’s change as a policy that “limits loan accessibility for critical healthcare degrees” and “deeply concerned” about impacts on nursing [1] [5]. NASFAA and other financial‑aid groups have produced guidance and flowcharts explaining how the new definition would affect borrowing limits and legacy Parent PLUS eligibility [6] [3].
6. What remains contested or missing in reporting
Available sources document ED’s proposed criteria, stakeholder pushback, and the statutory baseline, but they do not include ED’s full administrative record explaining why CIP‑code linkage is superior to other tests (for example, accreditation or licensing tests) beyond negotiators’ desire for administrability (not found in current reporting). Sources also do not provide final, binding regulatory text as of these reports — much of what’s described is proposal and negotiated rulemaking discussion [3] [7] [2].
7. Legal vulnerabilities and likely next steps
Observers expect lawsuits and sustained advocacy because ED is narrowing a long‑standing, broadly applied category; New America and sector groups flag that while the definition is now clearer, implementation and legal challenges remain likely [2] [1]. The practical pathway forward will include public comment, final rule issuance, and probable litigation over whether ED exceeded statutory authority or misapplied professional‑degree indicators [2] [1].
Limitations: reporting available in the provided sources focuses on the negotiated rulemaking proposals, advocacy statements, and summaries — not on ED’s complete legal memorandum or internal economic impact analyses, which are not present in these results (not found in current reporting).