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 specific professional degrees were added or removed in the 2025–2026 DOE list compared to 2024 guidance?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025–2026 proposal for which graduate programs count as “professional degrees” narrowed the list used to set higher federal loan caps and excluded several health and social-service programs that had previously been treated as professional in practice; reporting and advocacy groups list nursing (MSN, DNP), social work (MSW/DSW), public health (MPH/DrPH), audiology and speech‑language pathology, and others as removed or not included in the new definition [1] [2] [3]. Officials say the change implements language from the One Big Beautiful Bill and relies on a narrow reading of a 1965 regulation, but coverage shows disagreement about which programs qualify and what federal guidance had said in 2024 [1] [4].
1. What the Department of Education proposed: a narrower, more legalistic definition
The department released a proposed definition of “professional degree” tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill’s loan caps that requires programs to be doctoral-level (with few exceptions) and to fit a tightened regulatory meaning; reporting indicates ED is using the 1965 regulatory language as of July 4, 2025, and that the proposal lists far fewer program types eligible for the higher loan caps than many institutions expected [5] [4].
2. Specific programs reported as removed or excluded
Multiple outlets and fact-checkers report that ED’s late‑2025 guidance or proposal would not classify several commonly treated “professional” graduate programs as professional degrees: nursing (MSN, DNP), social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), audiology and speech‑language pathology, physician assistant and many counseling and therapy degrees [1] [2] [3]. Newsweek and Snopes list nursing explicitly among those no longer counted [6] [1].
3. Programs still commonly regarded as professional under ED’s citation of 1965 regs
Analysts point out that the regulation ED cites historically highlighted degrees such as Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), Dentistry (D.D.S.), medicine and law as examples of “professional degree,” and OBBBA adopted that regulatory baseline to set differential loan limits [4]. Available sources do not provide a single, exhaustive 2025–2026 ED list in our packet, but reporting and trade groups show which programs are explicitly being excluded in the current proposal [1] [2].
4. Disagreements and ambiguity in coverage
Journalists, trade groups and ED meetings show disagreement over scope: Inside Higher Ed reported the department’s later plan “slightly expands” the programs eligible compared with an earlier narrow proposal, while Snopes and other outlets document a still‑substantial set of exclusions — illustrating that the exact roster is contested and in flux [5] [1]. NASFAA reporting on negotiated rulemaking shows ED staff discussing legacy provisions and offering guidance letters to clarify which health professions might keep higher borrowing limits, signaling implementation uncertainty [7].
5. Practical consequences flagged by advocates and industry
Stakeholders — nursing organizations, speech/hearing associations and higher‑ed advocates — warned that treating degrees like nursing or audiology as non‑professional for loan cap purposes would reduce eligible borrowing amounts and could affect enrollment, workforce pipelines and patient care access, particularly in health fields already facing shortages [8] [2] [9]. SNOPES tracking also ties these ED decisions to the broader loan-cap architecture set by the One Big Beautiful Bill [1] [4].
6. Why this matters: law, loan limits, and legacy definitions
Under OBBBA, “professional degree” status determines higher annual and lifetime federal graduate loan limits ($50,000 annual / $200,000 lifetime for professional students vs. lower limits for other grads beginning July 1, 2026); ED’s decision to hew to a historic regulatory text effectively reshuffles which disciplines get that fiscal treatment [4]. Reports emphasize that the department’s narrow interpretation is legally defensible under its cited 1965 regulation but practically disruptive to programs that had long been treated as professional in contemporary higher‑education practice [1] [4].
7. Open questions and limits of current reporting
The materials provided do not include ED’s final 2025–2026 consolidated list showing every degree added or removed compared with “2024 guidance,” nor do they provide an exhaustive comparison table; therefore, precise line‑by‑line additions/removals versus 2024 cannot be fully enumerated here — reporting only identifies several prominent exclusions and notes ongoing rulemaking and negotiation [1] [5] [7]. For an authoritative, definitive roster, consult the Department of Education’s formal rule text or the final “Dear Colleague” guidance when published (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: available reporting and fact‑checking consistently show ED’s 2025 proposal narrowed the set of programs counted as “professional degrees,” explicitly excluding nursing and several allied‑health and social‑service master’s and doctoral programs from that label in its loan‑limit regime; the full, final 2025–2026 statutory/regulatory list and any precise changes from 2024 are not present in the supplied sources [1] [6] [2] [4].