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 majors and program codes did the Department of Education remove from professional degree status in 2025?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows the Department of Education (ED) moved in late 2025 to sharply narrow which graduate programs count as “professional degrees,” cutting the universe from roughly 2,000 programs to fewer than 600 and recognizing only about 11 primary program areas plus certain doctorates as professional [1] [2]. That shift means many health- and human-services programs — including nursing, social work, public health, physician assistant, occupational therapy, audiology and “advanced nursing” programs — were reported as losing professional-degree status under the department’s consensus proposal, which ties the label to specific CIP codes and other criteria [1] [3] [4].
1. What the change was, in plain terms
The ED-led RISE negotiated-rulemaking produced a new, narrow definition of “professional degree” for implementing loan limits in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Under the department’s consensus draft, a program must meet multiple criteria — for example, be a doctoral-level program (with narrow exceptions), require at least six years of academic instruction, and fall in the same four‑digit CIP code as one of roughly 11 explicitly listed professions — to qualify as a professional degree [4]. New America and other observers summarize that the result is a compressing of the eligible list from about 2,000 programs under prior practice to under 600 under the new rule [5] [1].
2. Which majors/programs were reported as removed or at risk
Multiple outlets and professional associations flagged that many healthcare and human-services programs would no longer be treated as “professional.” Reporting and organizational statements identify nursing (including advanced nursing degrees), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, audiology, social work, and public health degrees (MPH, DrPH) among those excluded or at risk of exclusion under the ED proposal [3] [6] [1]. Newsweek and nurse-focused outlets specifically call out nursing’s exclusion; CSWE and public-health groups call out social work and public health as adversely affected [7] [8] [3] [6].
3. How the department’s mechanics produced those exclusions
ED tied the label to a short list of named professions and to four‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes, along with degree‑level and instructional‑time requirements. That rules-based approach, ED officials framed as restoring “historical precedent,” but critics say it mechanically excludes many programs historically treated as professional because their CIP codes or program structures do not match the narrow checklist [4] [7] [9]. NASFAA noted the department unveiled specifics of a professional‑student definition tied to program award and CIP coding during negotiated rulemaking [9].
4. Why professional groups are alarmed — and their counterarguments
Nursing organizations (AACN and others), social-work educators (CSWE), and public‑health groups warned the change will reduce access to higher loan limits, making critical workforce training less affordable and undermining recruitment into key professions [8] [6]. They argue decades of precedent recognize these degrees as professional credentials tied to licensure and direct practice, and that excluding them contradicts that precedent [6] [8]. The Department’s press office pushed back in at least one account, calling reports that nursing was excluded “fake news” and saying the consensus language aligns with historical precedent — an explicit departmental rebuttal to some media framing [7].
5. What counts as “professional” under the new proposal
Reporting says the department and RISE committee coalesced around recognizing approximately 11 primary programs as professional, plus certain doctoral programs; the exact enumerated program list appears in the draft regulations but is summarized in reporting as a short set of professions that retain the higher loan caps [2] [4]. Inside Higher Ed describes the criteria (doctoral level except a Master of Divinity exception, six years of instruction, four‑digit CIP match) that a program must satisfy [4].
6. Limits of available reporting and unanswered specifics
Available sources describe categories and many affected professions but do not publish a single, authoritative checklist of every CIP code or every program code removed in 2025; reporting summarizes “roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600” programs and names examples such as nursing, PA, OT, audiology, social work, and public health, but a comprehensive list of affected 4‑digit CIP codes is not reproduced in these pieces [1] [5] [3]. If you need the exact program codes (CIP numbers) ED proposes to remove or retain, available sources do not provide that complete table; you would need the ED draft regulation text or the negotiated-rulemaking packet itself, which reporting references but does not fully transcribe [4] [9].
7. Practical implications and likely next steps
Observers expect the rule to reshape who can access higher loan limits (professional students would have larger caps) and to prompt legal and advocacy fights; New America and AAU note the change’s consequences for loan access and predict institutional and legal pushback [5] [2]. Professional bodies are already issuing warnings and contesting the policy publicly; ED is publicly defending its approach in media exchanges [7] [8].
If you want, I can attempt to locate the ED draft regulation or negotiated-rulemaking materials (the primary source listing specific CIP codes and program names) to produce an explicit, itemized list — current reporting names many affected fields but does not reproduce the full code-by-code list [4] [9].