Which exact academic programs did the Department of Education list as non-professional in its 2025 guidance?

1. What reporting actually says: a short catalog of programs the department flagged

Multiple news outlets and advocacy sites reporting on the Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking list the same core set of fields that the department has signaled it will count as “professional”: medicine (including MD/DO), pharmacy, dentistry, optometry, law, veterinary medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, theology and clinical psychology — this set is described in Newsweek, Blavity and related articles summarizing the department’s implementation work ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. The department’s approach and the “11 programs” reference

The Association of American Universities and reporting on the RISE committee say negotiators reached consensus around recognizing “only 11 primary programs as well as some doctoral programs as professional degree programs,” a phrasing that explains why many stories quote an 11‑item core but also caution the list isn’t a blanket exclusion of every doctoral field ^[4]. POLITICO reported the committee outlined “an exhaustive list of nearly a dozen professional degree areas” during negotiations, underscoring that the department is using a narrowed, example‑based approach ^[5].

3. What advocates and professional organizations say is being excluded

Nursing, social work, counseling, education and many health‑adjacent fields that previously accessed higher federal graduate loan limits have been reported as excluded or at risk under the new definition — for example, nursing leaders and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing publicly criticized the change for removing postbaccalaureate nursing from the professional bucket ^{[3] [6]}. The Council on Social Work Education warned the definition “limits access to social work education” and urged use of CIP codes to prevent arbitrary exclusions ^[7].

4. How the department defined “professional” in practice — criteria in the debate

News reporting and association statements explain the department and RISE committee debated criteria such as whether a program leads to licensure, requires a particular CIP code, or requires education beyond the bachelor’s that prepares for beginning practice; the department’s initial framework tied professional status to completion of academic requirements for beginning practice and a level of professional skill beyond a bachelor’s, plus a 4‑digit CIP and a pathway to licensure ^{[7] [5]}. Those criteria explain why some fields with master’s‑level entry to practice (e.g., many nursing pathways, social work, counseling, public health) have been contested in this process ^[7].

5. What this means for loan limits and programs named in reporting

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act changes the department is implementing, professional students would be eligible for higher aggregate loan limits (e.g., reporting circulates $200,000 figures) while graduate non‑professional students face lower caps or loss of Grad PLUS; the precise financial impact depends on whether a program appears on the department’s professional list ^{[3] [1]}. Newsweek and other outlets emphasize that reclassification affects eligibility for the higher $200,000 cap and the elimination or reshaping of Grad PLUS repayment access ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Limits of current coverage and outstanding questions

Available sources describe the core programs the department has signaled it will treat as professional and note a consensus around “about 11” fields, but none of the provided materials supplies a formal, final regulatory text listing every program or CIP code that the Education Department has promulgated as the definitive legal list — the reporting is based on negotiated rulemaking sessions, press reporting and advocacy reactions ^{[4] [5] [3]}. Therefore: if you want the “exact” text of the department’s regulatory list (CIP codes or a formal Federal Register rule), available sources do not mention that final legal language and you would need to consult the department’s published rule or Federal Register notice not contained in the materials provided here.

7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas to note

Higher‑education associations (AAU, CSWE, nursing associations) frame the change as a threat to workforce pipelines and equity in programs dominated by women or serving underserved communities; advocacy pieces stress workforce data and equity arguments ^{[4] [7] [3]}. The department’s and some administration‑aligned summaries frame the move as a needed narrowing to conform to OBBBA loan caps and to simplify repayment definitions; POLITICO notes negotiators insisted on narrowing definitions during rulemaking ^[5]. Each side has clear institutional incentives: professional associations want access to higher loan limits preserved for their fields, while the department and bill proponents prioritize loan caps and simplified categories ^{[5] [4]}.

If you want, I can try to pull the Department of Education’s actual negotiated‑rule language or the Federal Register notice (if available) to list the precise CIP codes or verbatim program list — that would answer “exact” program definitions, but those documents were not included in the sources you provided.