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 graduate degrees were affected by the Department of Education's 2025 reclassification?
Executive summary
Available sources show the Department of Education’s 2025 rulemaking and reclassification activity affected which graduate programs count as “professional degrees” for federal policy purposes — with explicit mention that nursing programs were reclassified out of the professional-degree category and that public health degrees (MPH, DrPH) were proposed to be excluded; the Department’s final language also broadened the definition in other areas, explicitly naming clinical psychology and other fields under certain CIP codes [1] [2] [3]. Coverage is fragmented: reporting and advocacy groups point to nursing and public health as key changes while policy analysis notes added inclusions like clinical psychology [1] [2] [3].
1. What the reclassification means in practice — borrower limits and program categorization
The reclassification effort stems from Department rulemaking tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and the RISE Committee, which sought to define “professional degree” for federal student-loan limits and regulatory treatment; New America summarizes that the Department’s final language lists specific fields and ties inclusion to four-digit CIP codes and explicitly includes Clinical Psychology programs (including Psy.D. or Ph.D.) among professional degrees [3]. Advocacy groups warn that excluding fields from that definition can reduce students’ access to higher federal loan limits and affect program funding and recruitment [2].
2. Nursing: singled out by local reporting as no longer “professional”
Local reporting flagged nursing as an explicit casualty of the Department’s reclassification: the Austin Statesman headline and article state “nursing no longer counts as a professional degree,” and frame that change as reducing financial support available to students entering nursing and health-care fields [1]. That piece presents the reclassification as directly weakening funding pathways for future nurses [1].
3. Public health: advocacy groups say MPH/DrPH face exclusion
The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) reported that a departmental proposal reached preliminary consensus to exclude public health degrees (MPH and DrPH) from the professional-degree category, and the group said this would have “significant implications” for schools and students because it could restrict access to higher federal loan limits and threaten workforce pipelines [2]. ASPPH is actively urging institutions and stakeholders to comment during the forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [2].
4. Some degrees were added or clarified — clinical psychology and CIP-based rules
New America’s analysis notes the Department’s final language explicitly includes Clinical Psychology (Psy.D. and Ph.D.) and states that any program in the same four-digit CIP code as the named fields would also be treated as a professional degree, effectively broadening the category in psychology and related subfields [3]. That mechanism — relying on CIP codes — means some inclusions or exclusions hinge on administrative coding rather than program content alone [3].
5. Competing perspectives: policy makers, universities, and trade groups
Policy coverage frames the Department’s changes as part of a broader reshaping of higher‑education policy under the OBBBA/RISE process and as tied to the administration’s goals for the Education Department; New America treats the rule language as consequential to student financing [3]. Universities and groups representing public health schools (ASPPH) portray exclusions as harmful to access and workforce needs [2]. Local outlets emphasize immediate impacts on students in specific fields such as nursing [1]. These perspectives highlight a split between administrative rule priorities and sector stakeholders defending program inclusion.
6. What is not clear from current reporting
Available sources do not list a comprehensive, vetted roster of every graduate degree added to or removed from the “professional degree” category across all fields; reporting highlights nursing, public health, and clinical psychology as prominent examples but does not present an exhaustive table of affected programs (not found in current reporting). The final Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and official Department guidance, which would be authoritative and list full program designations and CIP-based treatments, is referenced as forthcoming but is not provided in these sources [2].
7. What to watch next
Observers should look for the Department’s formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and final regulations (ASPPH noted a 30‑day comment window will open) to confirm the full list and CIP-code rules; those documents will determine loan-limit impacts and the final program list [2]. Meanwhile, local and national analyses — such as New America and media outlets covering specific fields like nursing — will continue to interpret sectoral impacts as the rulemaking proceeds [3] [1].
Limitations: this brief relies solely on the provided items; the sources point to concrete examples (nursing, public health, clinical psychology) but do not provide a definitive master list of every graduate degree reclassified, and the formal federal rule text or a Department-issued complete list was not included among the search results [1] [2] [3].