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 degree programs and CIP codes were listed as non-professional in the 2025 Department of Education guidance?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated draft definition would sharply narrow which programs count as “professional,” recognizing roughly 11 primary fields plus some doctoral programs and excluding many health, education, and social-service fields — a change that stakeholders say would remove professional status (and higher loan limits) from programs such as nursing, public health, social work, counseling, and others [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and organizational statements list the excluded groups in general terms (nursing, advanced nursing degrees, occupational/physical therapy, physician assistant, counseling/therapy fields, public health, health administration, education, social work, many allied health and related fields), but available sources do not publish a single, complete list of every CIP code number claimed to be reclassified in the Department’s draft [4] [5] [3].
1. What the draft changes actually say — a narrower “professional” definition
The Department of Education’s RISE committee reached a consensus draft that would limit “professional” degree status to far fewer programs than currently recognized — roughly 11 primary program areas plus certain doctoral programs — using a definition tied to program characteristics (doctoral level, multi‑year pathways post–high school, and specific CIP code groups), which would cut the recognized list from about 2,000 degrees to under 600, according to advocacy and campus groups [1] [6].
2. Who advocacy groups and trade press say would be excluded
Multiple professional associations and news outlets report that the draft explicitly or effectively excludes nursing (BSN/MSN/DNP/NP/CRNA/midwifery), physician assistants, occupational and physical therapy, counseling and therapy fields, public health (MPH, DrPH), health administration, education specialties, social work (BSW, MSW), many IT/engineering/business programs, audiology, speech‑language pathology and several allied health professions from the “professional” bucket — which would reduce access to higher loan limits for students in those programs [4] [5] [2] [3].
3. Which named “professional” programs remain, per reporting
News outlets quoting the Department’s implementation plan list medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, optometry, law, veterinary medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, theology and clinical psychology among those still counted as “professional” under the new definition [7]. This narrower list is central to why nursing and many other clinical fields say they were left out [7].
4. CIP codes: what sources say — and what they don’t
Stakeholders urge the Department to use CIP code 51 (Health Professions and Related Programs) and related codes as the basis for eligibility because that grouping reflects health‑care training across many professions [3]. But the available reporting and association letters do not publish a complete mapping of the specific 4‑digit CIP codes that the Department’s draft would classify as professional or non‑professional; therefore, the exact list of CIP numbers in the Department’s draft is not found in current reporting [3] [1].
5. Reported consequences cited by professional groups
The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), the American Public Health Association’s higher‑education arm, social work educators, and other groups warned the redefinition will “significantly limit student loan access” for excluded programs and could make advanced training less attainable, intensifying workforce shortages in nursing, social work and public health [8] [2] [3]. Those statements frame the change as both financial and workforce policy, not only bureaucratic reclassification [8] [2].
6. Disagreement and confusion in public conversation
Online posts and social media circulated a broad checklist of specific degrees said to be reclassified (nursing, therapy fields, business, engineering, arts, etc.), but some posts also acknowledge that the Department itself had not publicly posted a finalized, line‑by‑line CIP code list and that parts of the confusion may reflect earlier DOL labor classifications rather than ED rule text [4] [6]. This mix of claims, agency process, and separate labor‑statistics changes has contributed to public uncertainty [4].
7. What to watch next and how to verify
The authoritative source for exact CIP codes and program lists would be the Department of Education’s published rule text or an official list released with implementation guidance; until ED publishes that text, coalition letters and news accounts provide program lists but not a definitive CIP code roster [1] [3]. Universities, professional associations, and news organizations will likely publish annotated lists once the Department posts formal regulatory language [1].
Limitations: available sources describe which fields stakeholders say are excluded and note calls to use CIP 51, but do not include the Department’s full CIP‑by‑CIP breakdown in a single public list for citation; therefore this note relies on reporting and association statements rather than the Department’s raw rule text [3] [1].