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.
What criteria did the Department of Education use to determine non-professional status in 2025 reclassifications?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows the U.S. Department of Education proposed narrowing which graduate credentials qualify as “professional degrees” in late 2025 — a move that would remove many nursing, education, social work and other health and human‑services programs from that category and thus change borrowing limits (proposal expected final in spring 2026) [1]. Coverage and commentary focus on which fields would be excluded and the policy effects; explicit, detailed regulatory criteria the Department used in the 2025 proposal are described in the sources as a narrower reading of a decades‑old regulation rather than a wholly new statutory definition [1].
1. What reporting says the Department actually proposed — fields affected
News outlets and fact‑checks list specific programs the Department said it would no longer treat as “professional degrees” under the 2025 action: many education degrees (including teaching master’s), nursing (MSN, DNP), social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling and therapy degrees [1]. Those stories frame the proposal as removing a long list of commonly understood “professional” graduate credentials from that label [2] [1].
2. The criterion the Department invoked: a narrow reading of an old regulation
Snopes reports the Department is returning to or applying a narrow interpretation of an existing federal regulatory definition from 1965 (34 CFR 668.2) to decide what counts as a “professional degree,” rather than inventing a wholly new statute; the characterization in reporting is that the agency’s interpretation is narrower than many stakeholders expect [1]. This is the central “criteria” reported: interpretive emphasis on the regulation’s language as the basis for reclassification [1].
3. Reported practical effect tied to loan limits and program rules
Coverage connects the reclassification to concrete student‑aid consequences: under rules tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill changes, graduate students would face lower annual borrowing caps (e.g., graduate student limit around $20,500 vs. higher “professional” limits historically) and elimination of Grad PLUS loans — making the label “professional degree” financially consequential [3] [1]. News analyses frame the criteria as not merely semantic but as a determinant of access to higher loan limits [3].
4. Pushback from affected professions and stakeholders
Multiple stakeholder reactions are documented: nursing organizations and commenters argue advanced nursing degrees meet standard criteria of professional programs and warn the move will harm workforce pipelines and equity in care; public comment pages (e.g., NASFAA commentary) also record strong opposition asserting the practical and workforce harm of reclassification [2] [4]. Those critics dispute the Department’s narrow regulatory reading and emphasize traditional markers of professional degrees (licensure and direct practice) [2].
5. Disputes about whether the change is final and how it was framed
Fact‑checks note a key factual limitation: as of the reporting, the agency had proposed the change but had not finalized rules — some social posts overstated that the Department “already reclassified” programs when in fact the rulemaking was still pending and the comment period and finalization timeline extended into 2026 [1]. This matters for claims about “what criteria were used” because proposed criteria can change through rulemaking or be clarified in final rules [1].
6. What the sources do not provide — missing procedural detail
Available sources do not quote the full regulatory text the Department applied, do not supply line‑by‑line criteria or scoring rubrics used in any internal reclassification memoranda, and do not publish the agency’s step‑by‑step analytical framework in these items; they summarize the move as a narrower interpretation of the 1965 regulatory definition [1]. For the Department’s precise legal rationale and any internal analyses, the final rule text, regulatory preamble, or the Department’s Federal Register entry would be the necessary primary documents — not included in the items you provided [1].
7. Competing narratives and what to watch next
Two narratives clash in the reporting: the Department’s stated regulatory re‑reading (narrower 34 CFR 668.2 interpretation) versus professional associations’ claims that the reclassification ignores licensure, scope of practice, and workforce realities [1] [2] [4]. Moving forward, watch for the Department’s final rule (promised by spring 2026 in reporting) and any Federal Register preamble explaining legal criteria, plus formal comment summaries and litigation or Congressional responses that would reveal the definitive criteria and their legal justification [1].
Limitations: this briefing relies only on the provided reporting and fact‑checks; those sources summarize the Department’s approach as a narrow regulatory interpretation but do not publish the agency’s full legal text or internal criteria in the snippets provided [1].