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 in 2025 to decide a degree was non-professional?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED), via its RISE negotiated-rulemaking implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), proposed a narrow definition of “professional degree” tied to specific criteria — including completion of academic requirements for beginning practice, a higher skill level than a bachelor’s, alignment with certain 4‑digit CIP codes, and often doctoral-level timing — which would exclude many fields like nursing, social work, and public health from higher loan limits [1] [2] [3]. Advocates warn this will reduce access to graduate programs by lowering loan caps; ED and its press office say the committee’s language aligns with longstanding definitions and consensus [4] [5].
1. What the Department proposed: a tighter, checklist-style definition
Negotiated rulemaking documents and stakeholder summaries show ED’s draft treats a “professional student” as someone in a program that both signifies completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice and demonstrates a level of professional skill beyond a bachelor’s, typically is doctoral-level requiring at least six postsecondary years (including two post‑baccalaureate), and is linked to a 4‑digit CIP code or one of about eleven designated fields — effectively narrowing which programs qualify [2] [1] [6].
2. How that translates into exclusions — fields named and the mechanism
Multiple organizations report ED’s approach would recognize only about 11 primary programs plus some doctoral programs as “professional,” and that using CIP codes and the six‑year/doctoral threshold means many commonly treated professional programs — nursing (MSN/DNP/NP/CRNA), social work (MSW), public health (MPH/DrPH), education specialties, and various allied‑health and business programs — could lose professional classification [3] [7] [8].
3. The immediate policy consequence: smaller federal loan limits for many students
Under OBBBA implementation, students in programs the department deems “graduate” (not “professional”) would face lower annual and aggregate loan caps (e.g., graduate limits cited at $20,500 annual/$100,000 aggregate vs. professional limits of $50,000/$200,000), so reclassification shifts borrowing capacity and could make advanced study less affordable for excluded fields [4] [3].
4. ED’s framing and pushback: precedent versus harm claims
ED press officials and the department argue the negotiated language “aligns with historical precedent” and was consensus‑based among institutions at the table [5] [6]. Higher‑education and professional organizations — including nursing, social work, public‑health groups and research universities — argue the new criteria overlook established professional pathways, risk reducing access to needed professions, and hinge on technicalities (CIP codes and degree length) that don’t reflect real‑world licensure or practice requirements [8] [1] [3].
5. The contentious role of CIP codes and the doctoral threshold
Several summaries and stakeholder Q&As flag that ED’s reliance on 4‑digit CIP alignment and a “generally doctoral/6‑year” expectation is decisive: programs that meet licensure and skill tests but sit in different CIP codes — including advanced nursing programs like NP, DNP, CRNA — would be excluded despite otherwise meeting professional criteria [2]. Critics call this a technical, arguably arbitrary rule that could devalue comparable training by bureaucratic classification [2] [7].
6. Legal and procedural uncertainty: negotiated consensus but not final rule
Reporting shows the RISE committee reached a consensus draft during negotiated rulemaking but the rulemaking process continues; implementation paths, lawsuits, and additional regs could change outcomes. Observers note that codifying OBBBA’s professional/graduate distinction has wide ripple effects and faces likely institutional and sector pushback [4] [3] [6].
7. Alternate viewpoints and potential hidden agendas
ED and proponents present the change as clarifying and restoring historical consistency [5]. Opponents frame it as a budgetary gatekeeping move tied to OBBBA’s loan caps that advantages certain professions and fiscal outcomes by limiting who gets higher borrowing limits [3] [1]. Stakeholders’ reactions reflect institutional self‑interest (schools protecting loan access for their programs) and workforce‑concern advocacy (professional groups worrying about pipeline effects) [8] [3].
8. What reporting does not say or still needs to be resolved
Available sources do not mention final regulatory text adoption, specific implementation dates for every program, nor definitive legal outcomes — only the RISE committee’s consensus draft and stakeholder responses [6] [4]. Precise counts of exactly which degree codes will be designated, and ED’s final rationales in published rule language, remain to be seen [3] [2].
Bottom line: ED’s 2025 negotiated draft imposes a stricter, largely formulaic definition of “professional degree” — emphasizing licensure readiness plus doctoral/6‑year timing and CIP alignment — that would reclassify many familiar professional programs and shrink their federal loan eligibility; ED calls it precedent‑consistent while universities and professional groups say it’s arbitrary and risks workforce harm [2] [5] [3].