Which specific degree programs did the DOE include or exclude from the 2026 'professional' list and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2026 proposed definition sharply narrows which graduate programs count as “professional,” explicitly excluding a swath of health and social‑service degrees while listing roughly a dozen core programs as clearly professional; the move is driven by a set of technical criteria tied to degree level, licensure and “skill beyond the bachelor’s” and by a policy goal to limit high loan caps enacted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) [1]. Advocacy groups say the exclusions will throttle funding for critical workforce pipelines such as nursing, audiology, speech‑language pathology and public health, while the department frames the change as a way to target the highest federal loan limits to programs that meet stricter professional standards [1].
1. What the department explicitly included: a short, named roster and conditional fields
The Education Department circulated a compact list of programs it clearly designates as “professional” that will qualify for the highest federal graduate loan caps; reporting identifies roughly 11 core programs named by the department, and it also says an additional set of at least 44 fields could qualify if they meet the department’s criteria for professional skill, licensure, and (generally) doctoral level status . CNBC and Inside Higher Ed report the list is narrowly focused and that institutions ultimately bear responsibility for demonstrating that particular programs meet the standards to be treated as professional for loan purposes .
2. What was excluded — health, helping professions, and public health among them
Multiple sector organizations and outlets report that many health professions and fields dominated by women were left off the list or treated as non‑professional under the proposal: nursing (including advanced nursing degrees), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling, social work, and programs in public health are reported as excluded or at risk of exclusion in coverage and advocacy notices [1]. The American Speech‑Language‑Hearing Association (ASHA) explicitly flagged that audiology and speech‑language pathology were being excluded from the “professional degree” definition in the department’s proposal [1], while public‑health schools said the RISE committee’s preliminary consensus left public health out .
3. Why these inclusions and exclusions: the department’s criteria and policy logic
Under the department’s proposed definition a program generally must require “a level of professional skill beyond that of a bachelor’s,” usually be doctoral‑level (with a narrow exception such as a Master of Divinity), and typically link to professional licensure to count as a professional degree — criteria meant to correlate loan generosity with traditionally defined learned professions and licensure thresholds . The proposal implements OBBBA’s loan‑limit architecture: students in named “professional” programs could borrow up to about $50,000 per year and $200,000 total, while those in non‑professional programs would face lower caps . Redefinition therefore directly narrows access to the higher caps by shrinking the eligible program list.
4. Stakes and contested narratives: reduction in scope, political pushback, and mixed signals
Advocates warn the change will cut eligibility from roughly 2,000 programs to fewer than 600 — a figure circulated widely on social platforms and by opponents that underscores the scale of the proposed narrowing, though that characterization originates in social and advocacy posts rather than an ED fact sheet . Lawmakers from both parties pushed back, with at least 140 members urging the department to reclassify nursing as professional because of workforce and access concerns . Meanwhile, reporting also shows internal adjustments: Under Secretary Nicholas Kent’s later version modestly expanded the eligible list compared with an earlier 10‑degree draft, indicating the department iterated in response to feedback even as the overall approach remains restrictive .
5. Unresolved questions and reporting limits
Sources converge on the core criteria and the broad classes of excluded programs, but public reporting differs on granular outcomes — for example, some outlets say nurse practitioners were categorized among programs treated as professional while many nursing programs broadly were characterized as excluded, reflecting either distinctions within nursing subfields or shifting departmental language that public documents and press pieces have not fully reconciled . The department’s final regulatory text and any institution‑level determinations will be required to resolve those discrepancies; available reporting documents the proposal, stakeholder responses, and the criteria but cannot yet answer every program‑level adjudication .