What criteria did the Department of Education use in 2025 to define ‘non-professional’ CIP codes?

1. What the CIP system actually is — a taxonomy, not a “professional/non‑professional” rule

The Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) is a taxonomy managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S. Department of Education that assigns six‑digit codes to instructional programs so institutions and federal surveys can speak the same language about program content; NCES provides browsing and search tools for the taxonomy ^{[1] [2]}. The CIP itself maps program names and descriptions into hierarchical groups (2‑digit series, 4‑digit fields, 6‑digit specific programs) but does not, in its basic form, carry a universal “professional” versus “non‑professional” label attached to codes ^{[5] [1]}.

2. How agencies use CIP codes to create policy categories

When agencies need to define policy‑relevant categories — for example, which degrees count as STEM for DHS’s STEM OPT program or which graduate programs qualify for particular financial‑value calculations — they draw on NCES’s CIP taxonomy and then publish lists or regulatory criteria that include or exclude specific CIP codes ^{[3] [4]}. In other words, “professional” or “non‑professional” functions in policy are typically the result of downstream agency rulemaking or guidance that interprets or subsets the CIP list for a particular purpose ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Examples of selection criteria used by federal rules and guidance

DHS’s STEM‑designated degree list relies on CIP taxonomy and selects codes based on whether they lie within certain two‑digit series (engineering 14, biological sciences 26, mathematics 27, physical sciences 40) or are otherwise designated at the two‑, four‑, or six‑digit level for related fields ^[3]. The Department of Education’s Federal Register notice on Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment identified lists of CIP codes that count as “qualifying graduate programs” for the initial measurement period, tying the selection to occupational lists and regulatory definitions in 34 CFR part 668 rather than to a CIP value labeled “non‑professional” ^[4].

4. Institutional and state uses that affect designation decisions

Colleges and states assign CIP codes to programs based on curriculum and program descriptions; institutions can argue a program belongs in a particular CIP (for instance to claim STEM status) by demonstrating curricular content — Cornell’s guidance asks for more than 50% of credits to be STEM to qualify as STEM for institutional purposes ^[6]. State and institutional uses (e.g., Ohio, Washington State) reflect operational needs — reporting, teacher certification alignment, funding — and may create local classifications like “professional” that are not universal ED labels ^{[7] [5]}.

5. Why you may be seeing “non‑professional” applied to CIP codes in 2025 coverage

When reporting or policy documents describe a CIP as “non‑professional,” they are usually summarizing an agency’s or institution’s selection that excludes codes tied to licensure‑based, clinical, or regulated professional occupations (example: ED’s qualifying graduate program list lists medical and clinical professions as qualifying fields) — but the specific term “non‑professional” is not a CIP taxonomy construct found in the NCES materials in the provided sources ^{[4] [1]}.

6. What the available sources do not say (limits and next steps)

Available sources do not mention a standalone 2025 Department of Education rule that defines “non‑professional” CIP codes across all federal programs; if such a definition exists, it is not found in the NCES CIP pages, the DHS STEM guidance, or the cited Federal Register notice provided here ^{[1] [3] [4]}. To determine whether ED issued an explicit “non‑professional” designation in 2025, you should request the specific ED guidance or Federal Register notice that uses that terminology, or search ED/NCES updates and agency rulemaking records beyond the documents supplied here ^{[1] [4]}.