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.
How did the Department of Education define a 'professional degree' versus an 'academic degree' in federal policy?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent negotiated-rulemaking and proposal narrowed which graduate programs qualify as “professional degrees,” linking that category to specific criteria—such as multi-year post‑baccalaureate study, preparation for licensure, and particular Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes—which would reduce programs counted as professional from many thousands to a much smaller set and thus limit higher loan caps to those programs [1] [2] [3]. Advocates for nursing, public health, social work and other fields argue the new wording excludes long‑recognized professional credentials and will restrict borrowing capacity for students in those fields [4] [5] [6].
1. How the Department framed “professional” versus “academic” degrees
In the negotiated rulemaking described by the Education Department and covered in reporting, a “professional student” is defined as someone enrolled in a program that awards a professional degree on completion; the Department proposed more concrete thresholds to decide which programs meet that label—drawing on an existing July 4, 2025 regulatory checklist and adding criteria like preparation for licensure and multi‑year post‑baccalaureate coursework—so that “professional degree” status is not purely based on program length or name but on specified program attributes [7] [1] [3].
2. Specific objective criteria cited in the proposal
Commentators and stakeholders report the Department and its RISE committee settled on criteria including: (a) at least two years of post‑baccalaureate coursework (or roughly six years total postsecondary education), and (b) preparation for a licensed occupation—language meant to distinguish “professional” programs eligible for higher loan limits from other graduate or academic degrees [3] [1].
3. Role of CIP codes and legacy regulatory text
The Department also indicated using four‑digit CIP codes and precedent in the regulation as of July 4, 2025 to demarcate programs—seeking to prevent inconsistent distinctions (for example, deciding by program length alone)—and to align the new definition with how the law (OBBBA/H.R.1) referenced an existing regulation when enacted [6] [1].
4. Practical effect targeted by the rule: loan limits and program counts
The policy change is tied directly to student loan ceilings: under OBBBA, students in programs the Department defines as “professional” would be eligible for larger annual ($50,000) and aggregate ($200,000) loan limits versus lower limits for other graduate students; the new definition would shrink the number of programs counted as professional—from reporting that cites reductions from roughly 2,000 to under 600 programs—thereby narrowing who can access higher borrowing capacity [1] [2].
5. Disagreements and stakeholders’ counterarguments
Professional associations for nursing, public health, and social work have vocally opposed the Department’s formulation, saying it excludes degrees long treated as professional credentials, will reduce graduate borrowing access, and could harm workforce pipelines in critical care and public health [4] [5] [6] [8]. By contrast, proponents of tighter definitions argue that limiting the professional category prevents high borrowing for lower‑paying fields and better aligns loan capacity with occupations that entail extended post‑baccalaureate training [3].
6. Which programs reportedly lost or kept “professional” status
Reporting and advocacy posts allege that many health‑related programs would be affected: nursing, physician assistant programs, advanced nursing degrees, occupational therapy, audiology and other fields are named in reporting and social posts as potentially losing professional degree status under the new framework [2] [4] [8]. Exact program lists and final determinations appear to be in flux as rule language and CIP mappings are finalized [1].
7. Legal and policy uncertainty ahead
Analysts note that while OBBBA specified loan limits, it left definitional detail to the Department; negotiators relied on the regulatory text in effect on July 4, 2025 but that approach, plus the Department’s new criteria, creates likely grounds for further debate and potential lawsuits from affected institutions or professional organizations [1] [9].
8. What available reporting does not (yet) say
Available sources do not mention a final, department‑issued, exhaustive list of which CIP codes or specific degree titles will definitively qualify or be excluded; they also do not provide a finalized regulatory text showing every clause by which an individual program is accepted or rejected [1] [7] [2].
Bottom line: the Department’s working definition distinguishes “professional” from “academic” graduate degrees by measurable criteria—post‑baccalaureate duration, licensure preparation, and CIP coding—with the explicit downstream goal of limiting which programs qualify for the higher loan caps under OBBBA; this shift has prompted sharp pushback from professions that say the change would remove long‑recognized professional degrees from higher loan eligibility [3] [4] [6].