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 fields or programs were most commonly classified as non-professional by the Department of Education in 2025, and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 RISE/OBBBA rulemaking narrowed the federal definition of “professional degree programs,” removing many health, education, and social-service fields from that category — most prominently nursing and public health — and keeping a short list that includes medicine, law, pharmacy and a few allied fields (e.g., dentistry, optometry) [1] [2] [3]. Critics from nursing, public‑health, social‑work and allied‑health organizations warn this will cut access to higher loan limits and harm workforce pipelines; ED and some Department spokespeople defend the change as aligning with longstanding, consensus‑based definitions and fiscal goals [2] [4] [3] [5].
1. What programs were most commonly reclassified as “non‑professional” — the short list ED kept and the long list it dropped
Under the RISE negotiations implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), ED’s working definition left fewer than 600 CIP codes in the “professional” category and explicitly preserved a narrow set of traditional professions — medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, optometry, law, veterinary medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, theology and clinical psychology — while excluding many graduate programs that previously counted as professional, most notably advanced nursing degrees and public health programs [1] [2] [3] [6]. Reporting and advocacy groups list other affected fields being treated as non‑professional in the proposal: physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, counseling and therapy fields, health administration, social work (BSW/MSW), education specialties, IT, engineering, many business degrees (MBA/accounting), audiology, speech‑language pathology, and allied health graduate programs [7] [6] [8].
2. Why ED says it redefined “professional” — the administration’s rationale
ED framed the narrower definition as an effort to “streamline federal lending and encourage students to seek affordable education pathways,” and officials pointed to historical, consensus‑based definitions tied to specific Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes and multi‑year, doctoral‑level training requirements as the technical criteria [2] [4]. The agency also tied the change to implementing loan limits and phasing out some graduate‑level loan programs under OBBBA’s student‑loan reforms [4].
3. Pushback from affected professions — workforce and funding concerns
Professional associations and program leaders say the change will make advanced training less financially attainable and weaken workforce pipelines. The American Nurses Association, AACN, public‑health schools, the Council on Social Work Education and nursing sites warned that excluding nursing, public health and social work from the “professional” category will limit access to higher borrowing limits and graduate PLUS loan benefits and could worsen shortages in essential fields [8] [3] [5] [9] [10]. Advocacy groups argue many of the excluded programs meet the practical criteria — licensure, advanced coursework, and direct practice orientation — even if their CIP codes differ [4] [10].
4. Where the debate turns on technicalities — CIP codes, degree length, and licensure
A recurring theme in the debate is that ED’s approach relies heavily on 4‑digit CIP codes and a narrow picture of “professional” training (e.g., doctoral level, six-plus years post‑high‑school) rather than on licensure or workforce function alone; opponents say that leads to arbitrary exclusions of programs that in practice require licensure and advanced clinical training [4] [6]. NASFAA and others highlighted that some advanced nursing programs (NP, DNP, CRNA, CNM) were excluded in part because they do not sit in the same CIP group as the 11 designated professions, even if they meet other traditional professional criteria [4].
5. Policy consequences to watch — loans, enrollments and health‑system capacity
Reporting and sector analyses say the immediate policy effect is narrower access to high aggregate borrowing limits for students in excluded programs; that potentially reduces graduate‑level loan availability, which could depress enrollments in advanced training and strain clinical staffing pipelines in healthcare, public health, education and social services [11] [3] [10]. ED and its RISE committee portray these moves as fiscal and programmatic reforms; professional groups frame them as regulatory decisions with downstream workforce and public‑health risks [4] [3].
6. Limits of current reporting and what to watch next
Available reporting documents the RISE committee consensus, the list of retained professions, and the organized pushback, but public rule text and ED’s full legal justification and final CIP lists are still being finalized or placed in notices of proposed rulemaking; readers should watch ED’s forthcoming NPRM and public comments for final definitions, and congressional or legal reactions from impacted professions [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention any final, legally binding regulatory text beyond the RISE committee outcomes and press reporting [4] [3].