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 in 2025 to reclassify professional vs. non-professional degrees?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED) in 2025 adopted a multi-part rubric that narrows which graduate programs count as “professional” for higher federal loan limits, concentrating eligibility largely on a short list of primary fields and select doctoral programs (ED’s approach would reduce roughly 2,000 programs to fewer than 600, according to reporting) [1] [2]. Key criteria the Department used include: [3] alignment with an existing regulatory definition as of July 4, 2025; [4] program-level characteristics such as leading to licensure and beginning practice and requiring advanced skill beyond a bachelor’s; and [5] reliance on 4‑digit CIP codes and an enumerated list of recognized fields—steps that have prompted pushback from nursing, social work, public health and other professional groups [1] [6] [7] [8].
1. What the Department formally proposed: a tighter, multi-part rubric
ED did not simply publish a new one-line definition; negotiators on the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee reached consensus on a multi-part rubric to determine who qualifies as a “professional student” and which programs award a “professional degree.” That rubric ties back to an earlier regulatory baseline (the regulation as it existed on July 4, 2025) and limits the set of eligible programs to a narrow list of primary fields plus some doctoral programs, with the stated goal of clarifying eligibility for the higher loan caps in H.R.1/OBBBA [1] [9] [6].
2. Core substantive criteria ED relied on: licensure, practice readiness, and advanced skill
One central element ED used echoes a longstanding idea of professional degrees: the program “signifies completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession” and demonstrates “a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor’s degree.” The Department’s framework emphasizes programs that prepare students for licensure or direct practice and that are generally at the doctoral level or require substantial post‑baccalaureate coursework [10] [7] [1].
3. The technical gatekeeper: 4‑digit CIP codes and enumerated fields
ED’s approach leans heavily on Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes as a mechanical filter: programs that do not sit in the specified 4‑digit CIP groups were excluded even when they meet licensure or doctoral‑level criteria, a choice that critics say produced odd disparities (e.g., excluding many advanced nursing programs despite licensure paths) [10] [7] [6]. The Department and negotiators ultimately recognized only about 11 primary programs as professional, plus selected doctoral-level programs, significantly narrowing the universe of eligible programs [9] [1].
4. Practical consequence: far fewer programs qualify and loan caps shrink for many students
Reporting and advocacy groups say the rule would shrink the number of programs classified as professional from roughly 2,000 to under 600—meaning many graduate students (nursing, social work, public health, PA, OT/PT and others named in public lists) could lose access to the larger annual and aggregate loan limits reserved for professional students, triggering concerns about affordability and workforce pipelines [2] [11] [9].
5. Pushback from professional organizations and academics
Organizations representing nursing, social work, public health and related fields publicly criticized ED’s criteria and method. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing and the Council on Social Work Education argued that excluding fields like nursing or social work—often on CIP‑code or narrow doctoral‑level grounds—ignores the reality of licensure, program rigor, and workforce needs [8] [7] [12]. AAU and other university groups warned the change will “curtail the number of programs” eligible for higher loan limits [9].
6. Disagreements and ambiguities in the public record
Sources differ on why specific programs were excluded: ED emphasized anchoring to existing regulatory text and using CIP codes and degree level as tidy standards [1] [6]; critics say those technical rules create arbitrary results—excluding programs that meet substantive professional criteria like licensure or advanced clinical training [10] [7]. Social media posts and reposted lists amplified the practical fallout but sometimes conflated Department of Education rulemaking with other federal agency classifications, adding confusion [13].
7. What reporting does not make clear
Available sources do not mention the full text of the final regulatory language or an exhaustive official list of every included or excluded CIP code in one place; they also do not provide ED’s internal rationale beyond citing regulatory baseline, licensure/practice focus, and CIP‑code mechanics (not found in current reporting). Legal challenges are anticipated but specific litigation outcomes are not covered in these sources [1] [9].
Bottom line: the 2025 reclassification relied on a mix of substantive professional criteria (licensure, practice readiness, advanced skill) and technical filters (4‑digit CIP codes, an enumerated list of fields, and a return to a July 4, 2025 regulatory baseline). That combination produced a much narrower set of “professional” programs, generating immediate pushback from affected disciplines and raising questions about whether the technical gatekeepers reflect professional realities [1] [6] [7] [8].