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 bachelor's and master's degrees did the Department of Education label non-professional in 2025?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking in November 2025 narrowed which graduate programs qualify as “professional” for higher loan limits, cutting the universe of eligible programs from roughly 2,000 to under 600 and identifying about 11 categories as clearly professional — while excluding many health and service fields such as advanced nursing, public health, social work, and some counseling/therapy programs [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and organizational statements show widespread concern that master’s and doctoral degrees in nursing (MSN, DNP, NP), public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW/BSW), and several therapy/clinical professions were treated as non‑professional under the proposed definition [4] [3] [5] [6].
1. What the Department of Education actually proposed — a tightened “professional” definition
The Department convened a RISE committee that reached consensus on draft regulations to define which graduate programs count as “professional” under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; that process explicitly reduced the enumerated degree list and limited higher federal loan eligibility to a narrower set of programs [2]. Analysts report the list was slashed from about 2,000 degrees to fewer than 600, a change that will determine who can access higher borrowing caps [1] [2].
2. Which degrees reporters and professional groups say were labeled non‑professional
News outlets and affected associations highlight that advanced nursing degrees (MSN, DNP, NP and other advanced nursing credentials) were excluded from the professional category in the draft framework, drawing sharp pushback from nursing organizations [7] [6] [8]. Public health degrees (MPH, DrPH) and social work degrees (BSW, MSW) were also cited as excluded in the draft definition and in statements from the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health and the Council on Social Work Education [3] [5]. Other reporting and social posts list occupational and physical therapy, physician assistant, counseling and clinical psychology programs, education degrees, some audiology and speech‑language pathology, and even certain business and IT programs as affected — though those social posts mix reporting with commentary and are not official DOEd lists [4] [1].
3. How exclusions affect students — loan limits and program access
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act implementation, students in programs defined as “professional” can borrow up to $50,000 annually (and $200,000 aggregate for professional students); excluding a program from that definition reduces graduate borrowing capacity and could limit access to those fields, according to nursing and public‑health organizations [6] [3]. The AAU and other higher‑education groups warned the narrower definition would curtail the number of programs eligible for higher loan limits and could make advanced training less attainable [2].
4. Disagreement over the Department’s intent and historical precedent
The Department’s press office pushed back against some characterizations, emphasizing the agency’s definition aligns with historical precedent and that a consensus committee including higher‑education institutions produced the proposed language; the Department also disputed some media reports as inaccurate [7]. Meanwhile, critics contend the proposed definition diverges from professional practice realities — for example, nursing organizations argue nursing meets the usual markers of a profession (licensure, direct practice) and should be included [7] [6].
5. Who’s speaking up and why their perspectives differ
Professional associations for nursing, public health, and social work framed exclusions as threats to workforce pipelines and community services, emphasizing practical consequences for recruiting and training practitioners [6] [3] [5]. Policy analysts at AEI and some higher‑education commentators defended tighter lists as a way to align loan limits with historically higher borrowing fields and to curb abuses, arguing some degrees (e.g., Ed.D., MSW in that analysis) produce borrowing patterns that justify exclusion [9]. The AAU framed the change as an affordability and access threat, reflecting institutional concern about graduate funding [2].
6. What’s confirmed vs. what’s unclear in current reporting
Confirmed in the reporting: the RISE committee reached consensus on a narrower proposed definition that substantially reduces the number of programs labeled “professional,” and several health and social‑service degrees — notably many advanced nursing credentials, MPH/DrPH, and social work degrees — were reported as excluded or at risk [2] [7] [3] [5]. Not found in current reporting: a single, definitive, public Department of Education list enumerating every bachelor’s and master’s degree expressly labeled “non‑professional” in final rule text; much of the circulation is based on committee drafts, organizational reactions, and social posts rather than a published final list [2] [1].
7. What to watch next
The Department is expected to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that opens a public comment period; that document should provide the formal list and allow stakeholders to submit evidence and objections [3]. Until that NPR is published, affected professions and institutions will continue to press for reversals or clarifications while policy analysts debate the tradeoffs between borrower protections and workforce access [2] [9].