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 criteria did the Department of Education use to determine professional vs. nonprofessional status in 2025–2026 guidance?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025–2026 negotiated-rulemaking work focused on creating a definition to separate “professional” from “nonprofessional” post‑baccalaureate programs for the purpose of new federal loan caps; ED circulated a proposal with multiple criteria and presented it at RISE committee sessions in early November 2025 [1] [2]. Reporting and stakeholder summaries show key contested elements included credit‑hour thresholds, CIP‑code grouping, and whether programs must be at the doctoral level or require multiple years of post‑baccalaureate work [3] [2].
1. The rulemaking context: why definitions matter
The Department of Education put the professional vs. nonprofessional distinction on the table as part of a larger negotiated‑rulemaking exercise about new borrowing caps tied to Congress’s loan‑limit legislation; which programs are labeled “professional” determines which graduate programs would remain eligible for higher Parent PLUS/Graduate PLUS limits and legacy protections [1] [3]. This issue was discussed publicly at the RISE committee meetings in late October and early November 2025, and ED said it would follow some guidance avenues (like a Dear Colleague Letter) for related legacy rules [2] [1].
2. The Department’s proposal: multiple criteria, narrower list than alternatives
ED circulated a proposal for defining “professional programs” that used a set of criteria institutions would need to meet; Inside Higher Ed reports that ED’s plan was less inclusive than some alternative proposals and initially covered only a small list of degree areas for higher loan caps [3]. The department’s draft was presented by Under Secretary Nicholas Kent and aimed to slightly expand eligibility beyond an earlier 10‑degree list, but remained more restrictive than the committee member Holt’s alternative [3].
3. What Holt and others proposed: fewer hurdles, broader coverage
Negotiators such as Holt proposed a simpler test: programs would qualify if they met the first two criteria, had at least 80 credit hours, and fit within the same two‑digit CIP code—an approach that would have identified more programs as “professional” and therefore eligible for higher loan caps [3]. Several committee members appeared receptive to Holt’s approach, indicating a real division between ED’s narrower policy aim and stakeholders pushing for broader access [3] [2].
4. The contested technical points: doctorate level, years of study, and vagueness
NASFAA’s recap highlights debate over language in the proposal such as a provision saying a program “is generally at the doctoral level,” with negotiators arguing whether that wording requires a literal doctorate or could be satisfied by meeting other enumerated elements (for example, at least six academic years of postsecondary coursework including two years post‑baccalaureate) [2]. Committee members flagged that phrasing as vague and asked whether meeting the full set of sub‑requirements, rather than the nominal degree level, would suffice [2].
5. Practical criteria visible in reporting: credit hours and CIP code grouping
Published accounts show the negotiation centered on concrete metrics: minimum credit‑hour totals (Holt’s 80‑credit example), CIP‑code grouping to cluster related programs, and multi‑year coursework thresholds that mirror traditional professional pathways [3] [2]. These mechanics are central because they translate a conceptual “professional” label into a test institutions can apply to programs when determining loan‑cap eligibility [3] [2].
6. What sources do not provide or explicitly refute
Available sources do not publish the full ED draft text or a finalized rule in the Federal Register as of the reporting dates; the Federal Register index confirms ED’s 2025 docket activity but does not itself reproduce the draft definition language in the materials summarized here [4]. Likewise, reporting notes ED’s intent to issue guidance via a Dear Colleague Letter for some legacy provisions, but the exact DCL text or timing was not available in these items [2] [1].
7. Competing agendas and who’s pushing what
ED’s narrower approach reflects an implicit agenda to limit higher loan caps to a smaller set of programs—likely to constrain federal exposure and to tightly link caps to traditionally defined professions—while negotiators representing institutions (and Holt’s proposal) pushed for broader inclusion to protect more students’ access to higher borrowing limits [3] [2]. NASFAA’s notes show institutional advocates probing vague language and asking how many current programs would meet ED’s full set of requirements, signaling concern about potential loss of eligibility under a strict test [2].
8. Bottom line for readers
If you are tracking which graduate programs will qualify for larger federal loan caps, the rulemaking debates hinge on three practical levers identified in reporting: minimum credit‑hour requirements, CIP‑code grouping, and whether a program must be at a doctoral level or can meet equivalent multi‑year coursework thresholds [3] [2]. Watch for the Department’s forthcoming NPRM materials or a Dear Colleague Letter for the exact textual tests—current news summaries describe proposals and disputes but do not publish the final or official regulatory language [1] [4].