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 disciplines or degree titles are most commonly classified as professional by the Department of Education?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent negotiated rulemaking and proposals sharply narrowed which post‑baccalaureate programs qualify as “professional,” concentrating eligibility mostly in roughly 11 named fields (and closely related programs by CIP code) — a change that would cut the list from about 2,000 programs to fewer than 600 and shift loan limits for most graduate students (e.g., $50,000/$200,000 caps for professional programs vs. lower caps for others) [1] [2] [3]. The department’s draft criteria — doctoral level (with a narrow master’s exception), six years of instruction, licensure pathway, and being in the same four‑digit CIP code as one of ~11 enumerated professions — mean medicine, law, pharmacy, dentistry and a small set of allied fields are most likely to remain “professional,” while many health, education and social‑service degrees are facing exclusion [4] [3].
1. What the Department is counting as “professional” now — a short list, not a universe
Negotiators on the RISE committee and the Department’s proposal converge on a tight definition that explicitly names roughly 11 professions and treats programs in the same four‑digit CIP codes as eligible; the final language also explicitly includes clinical psychology alongside other enumerated fields [3] [4]. Advocacy groups and higher‑ed organizations report the department intends to recognize only a small set of primary programs as “professional” — a far smaller roster than the roughly 2,000 programs that previously could have been considered under looser interpretations [1] [2] [3].
2. The criteria that determine inclusion — academic level, time, licensure, and CIP code
Under the department’s proposal a program generally must: signify preparation for beginning practice with skills beyond a bachelor’s degree, be doctoral level (with the sole commonly noted exception of the Master of Divinity), require at least six years of instruction (two post‑baccalaureate minimum), and fall in a four‑digit CIP code that matches one of the 11 listed professions — a gatekeeping formula that narrows eligibility even when programs lead to licensure [4] [3].
3. Which disciplines are repeatedly named or protected in reporting
Reporting and analyses list traditional professional degree areas — medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law, and clinical psychology — as central to the department’s carved‑out category; these are the archetypal “professional” degrees that map cleanly to the new criteria and the enumerated CIP codes [3] [4]. The department’s approach privileges programs that are long, doctoral‑level, and have an established CIP linkage to those named professions [4].
4. Fields facing the biggest risk of exclusion and why advocates object
Several health, education and social‑service programs — including nursing (MSN, DNP, nurse practitioner specialties), public health (MPH, DrPH), social work, physician assistant, occupational/physical therapy, counseling, and many education specialties — have been reported as likely to lose or already be omitted from the professional list under the draft rules, drawing immediate criticism from professional associations [5] [6] [7] [2]. Organizations such as the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, the Council on Social Work Education, and public‑health advocates warn that excluding these programs would restrict access to higher loan limits and threaten workforce pipelines [7] [8] [6].
5. Financial mechanics that make the label matter
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act implementation, students in programs defined as “professional” would be eligible for higher annual and aggregate loan caps (examples cited: $50,000 per year and $200,000 aggregate for professional programs versus much lower caps for other graduate students), while Grad PLUS elimination and new Repayment Assistance Plan rules make the classification the fulcrum of graduate borrowing capacity [3] [7] [9].
6. Disagreements, alternative proposals, and political context
Not everyone on the negotiated rulemaking agreed on the department’s stricter approach: alternative proposals (e.g., Holt’s) would have set lower bars — such as requiring only skill beyond a bachelor’s and 80 credit hours and using two‑digit CIP equivalence — which would have kept many more programs eligible [4]. The department’s proposal prevailed in committee discussions reported by Inside Higher Ed and others, but the heavy pushback from professional associations and universities signals likely public comments, lobbying, and potential legal challenges ahead [4] [1].
7. Limits of available reporting and what is not yet settled
Available sources show draft language, committee consensus points, and advocacy reactions, but the formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and final regulatory text — which would specify the exact list and CIP mappings and open the 30‑day comment window — are still pending or in active reporting; therefore, exact final lists and the complete administrative record are not yet published in the materials provided [6] [4] [2]. For precise, program‑level status, institutions and students should await the NPRM and consult official Department of Education postings and their campus financial aid offices [6] [4].
Bottom line: the department’s draft narrows “professional” to a compact set of doctoral‑level, CIP‑linked fields (roughly 11 plus close CIP relatives), protecting classic professions like medicine and law while putting many public‑health, nursing, education, and social‑service programs at risk of losing the higher loan eligibility that advocates say those workforces need [3] [5] [6].