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 U.S. Department of Education list as non-professional in its 2025 reclassification?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated draft would narrow the set of programs eligible as “professional degrees,” recognizing only 11 primary fields plus some doctoral programs and thereby excluding many health and service graduate degrees such as advanced nursing, social work, public health, and others according to institution and association statements [1] [2] [3]. Several higher‑education groups and professional associations warn the rule will reduce access to higher federal loan limits for programs that previously were treated as professional degrees [1] [4] [5].
1. What the Department proposed — a much shorter list, anchored to 11 fields
The Department’s working definition emerging from the RISE committee would tie “professional degree” status to a small set of explicit fields and to program characteristics (doctoral level in most cases, years of instruction, and 4‑digit CIP alignment), effectively shrinking the universe of qualifying programs to roughly 11 primary professions and a subset of doctoral programs [2] [1].
2. Who gets reclassified as non‑professional — examples called out by stakeholders
Multiple stakeholder organizations and reporting identify nursing (MSN, DNP and advanced practice programs), social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), physician assistants, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, many counseling/therapy degrees, teaching master’s programs, and certain business and engineering master’s as being excluded from the Department’s professional degree list in the draft rule and allied public posts [6] [7] [4] [8].
3. How the Department’s criteria produce these exclusions
ED’s draft links professional status not only to skill and licensure but explicitly to program level, length and to being in one of the designated 4‑digit CIP codes for the 11 enumerated professions; programs that are otherwise licensure‑qualified but sit in different CIP codes (for example many advanced nursing tracks) would therefore be outside the Department’s list and lose automatic “professional” classification [2] [3] [9].
4. Immediate practical impact claimed by advocates and associations
Universities and professional groups say the draft will limit graduate students’ access to the higher annual and aggregate loan caps reserved for “professional” students under OBBBA — caps that New America notes differentiate professional students ($50k annual/$200k aggregate) from other graduate students ($20,500 annual/$100k aggregate) — potentially making advanced training less affordable in affected fields [10] [1] [7].
5. Who is objecting and why they say it matters
The American Nurses Association, AACN, CSWE and public‑health advocates publicly criticized the reclassification, warning it could worsen workforce shortages (especially for advanced practice nurses, social workers, and public‑health leaders), raise financial barriers for students, and conflict with long‑standing professional recognition of these degrees [11] [12] [5] [4].
6. Pushback and uncertainty — legal, procedural and definitional fights ahead
Observers and institutions expect lawsuits and further rulemaking debates because the new definition departs sharply from the broader, historically non‑exhaustive examples in the Higher Education Act and because negotiators were themselves divided (some favored a more inclusive test); the Department could still issue a formal regulation after negotiation, but reporting flags active contention [10] [13] [1].
7. What reporting and social posts add — lists and claims that need careful reading
Social posts and reposted lists circulating online summarize many of the same excluded degrees (education, nursing, social work, public health, PAs, OT/PT, audiology, SLP, counseling, certain business/engineering master’s) but mix advocacy, speculation and alarm; these lists mirror stakeholder releases but are not a formal ED list—use them as indicators of concern, not final rule text [6] [8] [14].
8. What the available sources do not mention
Available sources do not include the Department of Education’s final regulatory text or an official, exhaustive table listing every program code reclassified; therefore a program‑by‑program definitive roster is not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting). Stakeholders’ lists and reporting are the primary evidence we have for which fields are affected [1] [7] [4].
9. Bottom line — contested change with major stakes for workforce pipelines
The draft redefinition concentrates “professional” status into a short list of fields tied to specific CIP codes and program characteristics, and stakeholders say that will leave many graduate‑level health, education and social‑service degrees outside the higher loan brackets, with significant implications for access and workforce supply — a conclusion drawn from Department process reporting and statements by nursing, public health, social work and higher‑education groups [2] [1] [11] [4].