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 and definitions did the Department of Education use to determine 'professional' versus 'non-professional' degrees in 2025?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 rulemaking narrowed which graduate programs count as “professional degrees” by tying the label to an enumerated list of fields plus programs that share their four‑digit CIP codes, and by requiring alignment with an older regulatory definition that emphasizes preparation for licensed, beginning practice (resulting in about 11 named fields and some doctoral programs) [1] [2]. That shift led ED to exclude several health, education, and social‑service programs (nursing, public health, social work, many counseling degrees) from the professional category in early implementation materials and drew immediate pushback from professional associations [3] [4] [2].
1. What the Department said the label means — a return to an older regulatory baseline
ED anchored its 2025 definition to language in federal regulation in effect on July 4, 2025, invoking the long‑standing regulatory concept of a “professional degree” (e.g., the historical list including Pharmacy and Dentistry) and then specifying the programs that would be treated as professional under the new loan caps [1]. NewAmerica’s read of the final language says ED included 10 named fields plus Clinical Psychology and any program sharing those fields’ four‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes; that approach narrows eligibility while using an existing coding system to draw boundaries [1].
2. The concrete criteria ED used in practice: fields, CIP codes, and licensure pathways
According to reporting and institutional responses, ED’s framework combined three elements: [5] an enumerated list of primary fields recognized as professional; [6] inclusion of other programs that sit in the same four‑digit CIP code as those fields; and [7] attention to whether programs prepare students for beginning professional practice beyond a bachelor’s level and often align with pathways to licensure [1] [2]. The Council on Social Work Education cited ED’s stated phrase “completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession and a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor’s degree” as part of the agency’s yardstick [2].
3. Who fell outside the new definition — and why groups objected
Multiple organizations and fact‑checks reported that ED’s practical application excluded many programs that historically were treated as professional or treated as pathways to licensure: nursing (MSN, DNP), social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), certain counseling, speech‑language pathology, and allied health degrees [3] [4]. Groups such as the CSWE and ASPPH argued those exclusions ignored the workforce and licensure realities of their fields and would limit students’ loan access and program pipelines [2] [4].
4. Why ED used CIP codes — clarity or a blunt instrument?
ED and advocates pointed to four‑digit CIP codes as an objective, administrable way to group programs so the rule would not hinge on program length or other variable factors [2] [1]. Critics argue that CIP codes can be blunt: two programs with the same CIP can differ dramatically in scope and licensure outcomes, and some professions are coded in ways that may not reflect contemporary practice, which can produce arbitrary inclusions/exclusions [2] [1].
5. The policy context: loan caps and why the definition matters
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA/H.R.1) changed graduate loan rules by capping annual and aggregate borrowing and reserving higher caps for “professional students” (annual $50,000 / lifetime $200,000), so the ED definition functions as a gatekeeper for who can access the larger limits; alternative graduate students would face lower caps [3] [1]. That fiscal consequence explains the intensity of the reactions from nursing, public‑health, and social‑service constituencies [8] [4].
6. Disputes over ED’s interpretation and public claims
Fact‑checkers and reporting show two competing narratives: some outlets and advocacy groups say ED actively reclassified many programs out of the professional category [3] [9]. ED spokespeople have also pushed back in public comments, asserting they were following a consistent, historical definition and disputing claims that the agency simply “removed” longstanding professions from the list [10]. The Snopes review documents ED’s narrow interpretation and lists programs the agency said would not be classified as professional under the new framework [3].
7. Limitations of available reporting and next steps to watch
Available sources document the criteria ED used (enumerated fields, four‑digit CIP linkage, and emphasis on beginning practice/licensure) and report immediate exclusions and protests, but they do not include the full, verbatim final regulatory text or a complete, definitive roster of the 11 primary fields in a single source here [1] [3]. Watch for ED’s formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, final regulation publication, and any litigation or negotiated rule changes for the legally binding language and any reversals [4] [1].
If you want, I can extract the lists of specific programs named as included or excluded from each article above and compare them side‑by‑side with the CIP‑based rule language cited by ED.