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 degrees did the Department of Education reclassify as non-professional in 2025 and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) narrowed the definition of “professional degree” to an explicit list of about 11 core fields and tightly constrained criteria—effectively excluding many graduate and clinical programs (reducing programs eligible for higher loan limits from roughly 2,000 to under 600 in one estimate) [1] [2]. Reported consequences include that advanced nursing, physician assistant, many therapy fields, public health degrees, and numerous education and counseling programs would lose “professional” status for loan-cap purposes under the proposal, a change driven by rules tied to CIP codes and doctoral/credit requirements rather than by workforce need arguments [2] [3] [4].
1. What the Department actually proposed: a tighter, list-based definition
The Department (via its RISE committee and proposed regulatory language) moved to define “professional degree” narrowly: generally doctoral-level credentials, a minimum of six years of academic instruction (including at least two post-baccalaureate years), skills for beginning professional practice, and inclusion in the same four‑digit CIP code as one of roughly 11 explicitly named professions—criteria that exclude many programs that previously qualified [4] [1] [3].
2. Which fields reporting says would be reclassified as non‑professional
Multiple outlets, academic groups, and social posts list health-care, education, and allied professions at risk. Items frequently cited as losing “professional” status for loan‑eligibility purposes include advanced nursing degrees (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA, midwifery), physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, many counseling and therapy degrees, public health degrees (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW/DSW), education master’s degrees, business and various engineering masters, and IT/cybersecurity—though the exact lists vary across reporting and social posts [5] [6] [2] [7].
3. Why programs are being excluded: criteria and CIP‑code mechanics
Advocates and rule analysts say the exclusions stem from applying strict criteria—doctoral level, six years of instruction, and same four‑digit CIP code linkage to the 11 named professions—rather than program mission or workforce necessity. As NASFAA explains, programs meeting licensure and skill criteria can still be excluded if they do not share the specified CIP codes, which is why many nursing and allied health doctoral programs were identified as non‑professional despite meeting other elements [3] [4].
4. The scale of the change and institutional warnings
Analysts say this redefinition would shrink the number of programs counted as “professional” from about 2,000 to under 600, meaning far fewer students would access the higher annual and aggregate loan caps designated for professional programs ($50,000 annual cap vs. much lower caps for other graduates under OBBBA’s implementation) [2] [1]. The Association of American Universities flagged that the final negotiated draft recognizes only 11 primary programs and some doctoral programs as professional, warning this will “limit the number of degree programs” eligible for higher loan limits [8].
5. Stakes for students and programs: loans, access, and workforce concerns
Advocates and professional organizations warn that losing professional status means limits on borrowing capacity (elimination of Grad PLUS and lower caps), which could make advanced degrees less financially attainable and hurt pipelines for critical professions—particularly nursing and public health—at a time some groups call a public‑health risk [9] [10] [8]. The Department’s rules aim to standardize eligibility and contain loan exposure, but critics say the mechanics (CIP codes, doctoral/credit thresholds) are blunt instruments that do not map to real-world professional requirement differences [3] [4].
6. Disagreement and next steps: rulemaking, public comment, and legal risk
The RISE committee reached a consensus draft but the Department is expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and open a 30‑day comment period; higher education analysts note litigation is likely and outcomes could change before implementation [9] [1]. Competing views are clear: the Department and supporters argue for precision and fiscal limits under OBBBA’s framework [4], while universities and professional groups argue the definition is too narrow and harms workforce development [8] [9].
7. What’s not settled or not found in current reporting
Available sources do not publish a single, definitive Department‑issued list of every degree reclassified; instead reporting aggregates fields that would be affected under the proposed criteria and cites draft lists, committee consensus, and social posts that vary in detail [2] [5]. Specifics—such as final lists tied to each CIP code and the Department’s formal regulatory text—were not provided in the materials above and will become definitive only when the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is released [9] [4].
Concluding note: Watch the formal NPRM and the public comment period closely—those documents will contain the Department’s final legal definitions and the explicit program lists that determine loan eligibility; until then, reporting and organizational warnings show the broad shape of a consequential narrowing but differ on exact program inclusions [4] [8] [9].