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.
Which specific degrees did the Department of Education reclassify as non-professional in 2025, and what criteria were used?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 negotiated-rulemaking and proposals narrowed which graduate programs qualify as “professional degrees,” explicitly keeping roughly 11 fields and using criteria like doctoral-level status, a minimum of six years of post‑secondary instruction (including at least two post‑baccalaureate years), alignment with four‑digit CIP codes, and licensure/path‑to‑practice requirements; sources report nursing, many public‑health and some social‑work programs were excluded from the professional‑degree list under the proposal (examples and criteria summarized from reporting and association responses) [1] [2] [3]. Coverage is robust on the rulemaking criteria and which program families negotiators sought to include or exclude, but available sources do not publish a single definitive list of every degree reclassified as “non‑professional” in final regulatory text as of this moment [2] [4].
1. What the department proposed: tightened definition, fewer programs
In November 2025 the Education Department’s RISE committee circulated a new working definition that drastically narrowed “professional degree” eligibility: programs generally had to be doctoral‑level (with narrow exceptions), require at least six years of postsecondary instruction (including two post‑bac years), demonstrate readiness for beginning professional practice, and fall in the same four‑digit CIP code as one of about 11 expressly recognized professions; negotiators estimated the candidate universe would fall from thousands to a few hundred programs under these criteria [1] [5] [2].
2. Which fields reporting says were excluded or at risk
Multiple news outlets and advocacy groups report that nursing programs — including entry‑level BSN/ADN pipelines and many advanced nursing degrees (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA) — would not meet the department’s narrowed “professional” definition because they don’t share the designated four‑digit CIP codes with the 11 listed professions; public‑health degrees (MPH, DrPH), social work, and several allied‑health programs were similarly flagged as excluded or vulnerable under the criteria [6] [3] [7] [8].
3. The mechanics behind exclusion: CIP codes and years of instruction
Sources emphasize that exclusion often stems not from lack of licensure or rigor but from technical rules: the department tied the “professional” label to specific four‑digit CIP codes and to length/level requirements (six total academic years, generally doctoral level), so programs that meet practical licensure standards—like many nursing and social‑work tracks—can still be left out because of CIP code mapping or because the program is mastery‑level but not doctoral [1] [4] [5].
4. Why the distinction matters: loan limits and workforce effects
The OBBBA changes and the department’s definition interact: higher loan caps created by the statute apply only to “professional degree” students as defined in regulation, so degrees reclassified as non‑professional face lower federal loan limits and loss of Grad PLUS eligibility; nursing and public‑health advocates warn this will reduce graduate enrollment and worsen workforce shortages in critical care, mental health, and public‑health pipelines [2] [9] [7].
5. Who objects and on what grounds
Professional associations (American Nurses Association, AACN, Council on Social Work Education, ASPPH) and universities argue the definition is arbitrary and undermines parity among health professions because it relies on CIP code matches and rigid time/degree rules rather than actual licensure outcomes or clinical responsibility; they say excluding nursing and public‑health contradicts longstanding practice and will impede recruitment into needed fields [9] [7] [8].
6. Department pushback and procedural status
The Department of Education and its spokespeople — as reported — pushed back on some media claims, arguing the consensus language aligns with historical regulatory precedent and that negotiations are ongoing; the rulemaking process was at the negotiated‑rule stage and expected to produce a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with a public comment period, meaning the list and criteria were not yet final policy in all sources [3] [10] [11].
7. Limits of current reporting — what we still don’t know
Available sources provide clear summaries of the proposed criteria and identify major program families affected (nursing, public health, social work), but none of the provided documents supplies a peer‑reviewed, exhaustive, itemized list of every degree reclassified as “non‑professional” in final regulatory text; the final rule, and any agency lists tying specific CIP codes to the 11 professions, were still subject to formal publication and public comment at the time of these reports [2] [1] [4].
8. What to watch next
Monitor the Department’s formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the public‑comment docket for the finalized four‑digit CIP mapping and explicit program lists; watch responses from accrediting bodies and professional associations for challenges or coordinated comment campaigns, and track congressional or legal actions if associations pursue legislative or litigation routes in response to exclusions [1] [2] [8].
If you want, I can compile the specific 11 professions the committee named and map which common CIP codes for nursing, public health, social work, and allied‑health programs fall outside that list using the current reporting as a guide [2] [1].