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 differences exist between the new professional degree classifications and prior degree categorizations?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s RISE committee narrowed the federal definition of “professional degree” from thousands of identified programs to an enumerated set focused on 11 primary fields (including medicine, law, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, osteopathy, podiatry, chiropractic, theology, and clinical psychology) and programs sharing their four‑digit CIP codes, with higher loan limits tied to that status (students in professional-degree programs would have higher annual and aggregate loan caps) [1] [2]. Stakeholders in nursing, public health, social work and other allied health fields say the change excludes many graduate programs that historically qualified for professional status and may reduce access to higher federal loan limits for students in those fields [3] [4] [5].
1. What changed: a far smaller, more prescriptive list
Previously federal rules and customary practice treated a broad range of advanced degrees as “professional,” often guided by function (preparation for licensure and practice) and many CIP-coded programs; the RISE committee’s draft instead recognizes a tightened set of 11 primary program areas plus clinical psychology and any program sharing their four‑digit CIP codes, effectively shrinking the universe of programs that automatically qualify [1] [2].
2. Financial consequences tied to the new classification
OBBBA and the Department’s implementation link the “professional degree” label to substantially higher loan limits: students in general graduate programs would face lower annual and aggregate caps while students in programs classified as professional would be eligible for larger limits (e.g., higher than the $20,500 annual and $100,000 aggregate cited for other graduate programs), meaning the reclassification affects students’ borrowing capacity directly [2].
3. Which fields are explicitly included — and which advocates say were left out
The department/committee explicitly listed fields such as pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology among the core professional programs [1] [2]. Nursing, public health (MPH, DrPH), social work, occupational and physical therapy, physician assistant programs and some counseling programs are cited by professional associations and commenters as effectively excluded under the draft definition, prompting objections that those roles were previously regarded as professional training preparing for licensure [3] [4] [6] [5].
4. Organized pushback: who’s objecting and why
The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health warns that excluding MPH and DrPH programs would limit students’ access to higher federal loan limits and could harm the public health workforce, framing the change as inconsistent with decades of precedent [3]. The American Nurses Association and nursing advocacy outlets argue that excluding graduate nursing pathways jeopardizes the nursing pipeline and access to advanced clinical training [4] [7]. Social work educators likewise say the new framework “limits access” and are urging use of broader CIP guidance to avoid unjustified exclusions [5].
5. Administrative logic vs. practical workforce impact
The Department’s approach emphasizes a rule‑based, CIP‑driven bright line to limit discretion and tie professional designation to programs that are “generally at the doctoral level,” require licensure and meet multi‑year coursework thresholds—this is the rationale offered to justify narrowing eligibility [8]. Critics counter that relying on a short list and four‑digit CIP matching will exclude many clinically essential graduate programs whose length or credential structure differs, with downstream effects on workforce supply and affordability [8] [5].
6. How implementation and litigation could shape outcomes
Analysts note that while the Department’s language clarifies who counts as a professional student, practical outcomes for institutions and students are uncertain: the interplay of legacy provisions, other regulatory changes, and the likelihood of legal challenges means the final scope of exclusions and financial consequences could change before full implementation [2].
7. What stakeholders are asking for instead
Affected professional associations and commenters urge the Department to recognize CIP codes across Health Professions and Related Programs (CIP 51 and related codes) or to explicitly include graduate nursing, social work, public health and allied health programs among eligible professional degrees to preserve access to the higher loan limits and avoid workforce harms [5] [3] [4] [6].
Limitations: available sources document the RISE committee draft, the enumerated 11 fields plus clinical psychology, and stakeholder reactions; they do not provide the final, legally binding regulation text, nor do they supply definitive numbers for every loan cap across categories beyond summaries in reporting [2] [1].