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 did the DOE list as non-professional in the 2025 reclassification?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 proposal dramatically narrows which graduate programs qualify as “professional degrees,” cutting a list reported at roughly 2,000 programs to fewer than 600 and recognizing only about 11 primary programs plus some doctorates as professional [1] [2]. Reporting and stakeholder statements show nursing, public health (MPH, DrPH), physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, many counseling/therapy fields, social work, and several other advanced health and applied degrees are being excluded or targeted under the draft definition — a change that would reduce access to higher federal loan limits for students in those programs [3] [4] [2] [1].
1. What the Department actually proposed — a much shorter list
Inside Higher Ed and the Association of American Universities say the Education Department’s working definition requires programs to be doctoral-level (with limited exceptions), to involve at least six years of instruction (including two post-baccalaureate years), and to be tied to one of roughly 11 explicitly named professions in the regulation; the net effect is a sharp shrinkage of programs eligible for “professional” status and the higher loan caps that accompany it [5] [2].
2. Which degrees stakeholders say were reclassified or excluded
Multiple industry groups and outlets report that nursing (including advanced nursing degrees), physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, many counseling and therapy fields, public health degrees (MPH, DrPH), health administration, education specialties, social work (BSW, MSW), some IT/engineering/business programs, and arts/architecture programs are among those now treated as non‑professional under the draft rule — meaning affected students could lose access to the larger Grad PLUS–style loan amounts previously available to professional programs [3] [1] [6] [4].
3. Who is sounding the alarm and what they cite
Professional associations including the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the American Nurses Association (ANA) have publicly objected, saying the exclusion of nursing will limit student loan access and could worsen workforce shortages; AACN called the move “alarming,” and the ANA urged the Department to revise the definition to explicitly include nursing pathways [7] [8]. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health likewise warned that excluding MPH and DrPH programs would undermine public health workforce preparation [4].
4. What the Department and its committee have said (and limits of available reporting)
Reporting on the Department’s RISE committee notes the draft reached a “preliminary consensus” and purposefully narrowed the definition to align professional degree status with specific academic and occupational criteria, but available items in the provided set do not include a full, official Department list or final regulatory text showing every program designated non‑professional [4] [5]. Therefore, precise inclusion/exclusion of every named degree cannot be confirmed from the reporting provided here.
5. Magnitude and mechanics — loan caps and program counts
Advocates and commentators say the change would reduce programs eligible for higher loan limits from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600, with the Department recognizing only about 11 core professions plus selected doctorates — a technical reclassification that translates directly into lower federal borrowing limits for students in excluded programs [1] [2].
6. Competing frames: regulation versus workforce impact
The Department’s framing (as reported) emphasizes objective criteria — degree level, years of instruction, and CIP‑code alignment — to limit what counts as “professional”; critics frame the rule as a policy choice that will restrict financial access and damage supply in critical fields like nursing and public health. Both frames are present in the coverage: the Department/committee seeks definitional rigor [5], while professional associations warn of downstream workforce harm [7] [8].
7. What we still don’t know from these sources
Available reporting here does not present an authoritative, itemized government list of every graduate degree reclassified as non‑professional, nor does it include the Department’s full regulatory text or an official roster of the roughly 11 professions ultimately recognized; that means exact program-by-program confirmation (for example, every specialty within education, business, or engineering) is not found in current reporting [2] [5].
8. How to follow up for a definitive list
To get a definitive, legally binding answer you should consult the Education Department’s published rule text or the RISE committee’s formal regulatory draft (not included in the present set), and review agency press releases and the Federal Register entry for the final or proposed rule — those official documents will list the programs and the regulatory language that determines professional status (not found in current reporting) [5] [2].
Summary: reporting and professional groups consistently describe a big narrowing of “professional degree” status with many health and applied graduate programs effectively excluded and hence exposed to lower federal loan caps, but the precise, comprehensive government list of all reclassified degrees is not contained in the provided sources [1] [4] [2] [7] [8].